Sitting of 15 July 1993

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

    CROYDON TRAMLINK BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a second time on Wednesday 21 July at Seven o'clock.

    EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)
      WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

        LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords] (By Order)
        Orders for Second Reading read.
        To be read a Second time on Thursday 22 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for the PSBR since 1 April; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of public sector borrowing.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): In the first two months of the financial year, the public sector borrowing requirement was £9·3 billion. A deficit of that magnitude is too high and we intend to reduce it.
    Mr. Williams: During the 1992 Budget debates, the Chancellor's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Kinston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), published Treasury forecasts of a borrowing requirement of £32 billion this year, falling to £25 billion next year, £19 billion the following year and £6 billion by 1996–97. In reality, we have a deficit of £50 billion this year and, far from falling away as was predicted, it is a recurring deficit, the Chancellor's biggest problem and an albatross around the neck of the country's economy, perhaps for years to come. Can he explain to me, and to the people of this country, why we were so misled at the time of the general election, and how the Government have got us into this mess?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman will find that all forecasts for the PSBR tend to be hedged around with uncertainty. A range of forecasts is being made about next
    1096
    year and £50 billion is the Government's current forecast, which is at the upper end of the range. One thing of which I am quite sure is that the forecasts will all have changed by the time that I get to the Budget, let alone at any other time. I propose to make a judgment in the light of the circumstances prevailing when we get to the November Budget.
    The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point, however. The deficit was not planned, or the result of anticipated action. To the surprise of almost every forecaster, the recession in this country was more persistent and lasted longer than anyone expected, thereby causing a longer fall in revenues than anyone expected. The Government have to face up to the consequences of that, and Britain will be one of the foremost countries in Europe in tackling its fiscal deficit.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, unlike the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the Conservative party has no intention of further expanding the PSBR and placing a greater burden on future generations? Also, was it not the last Labour Government who had to run to the International Monetary Fund because they could not control public spending either?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is correct. Quite rightly, we face questioning about the size of the PSBR from the Opposition as well as from our own supporters. I get pressed by Conservative Back Benchers to take vigorous action to deal with it. It is impossible for either the Liberals or the Labour party to make a speech from the Opposition Benches without advocating measures that would increase the amount of public sector debt and borrowing. That makes their contribution to debate on the issue seem somewhat irrelevant to real life and to the task of sustaining our recovery and getting out of the recession.
    Mr. Sheldon: In the light of the horrendous PSBR, why is the Chancellor of the Exchequer excluding the one area that is easy for him to handle—the level of higher rates of income tax? Those were reduced at a time when the Government thought that the economy was doing well. Now that he understand the reality, why does he not reverse the process?
    Mr. Clarke: Because throughout the 1980s extremely valuable supply-side effects resulted from reducing direct taxation from the disgraceful and punitive level at which it was left by the previous Government. I have made no decisions about taxation for the Budget.
    The right hon. Gentleman, with his experience, knows perfectly well that the revenue-raising consequences of increasing the top rates of income tax are quite slight, but he typifies what I just described—that the only solution that the Opposition can ever think of, in response to such problems, is to put up taxation on somebody or other. If that is the Opposition's only approach, it is damaging to the country's prospects of doing well in the economic world.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: In the same spirit that I heretically urged his predecessor, in the salad days of Friedmanite monetarism, to show caution about the Treasury's capacity accurately to measure sterling M3, may I now counsel—it may not be necessary, but, as I have already prepared the question, I shall go ahead—a little caution to my right hon. and learned Friend before he prostrates

    1097
    himself before the altar of a £50 billion PSBR estimate, because that notoriously unreliable statistic could lead us into unnecessary difficulty? As experience has shown, the outcome may prove to be billions wide of the mark—no pun intended—either way.
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend, who knows me well, realises that I have never drunk of the pure milk of monetarism, any more than he or Lord Lawson did. That remains my view, which is why I dealt with some scepticism with the question about previous forecasts of the size of the public sector borrowing requirement.
    Nevertheless, it is important to underline the fact that we face a serious problem. The figure that I gave in answer to the question from the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) shows that, at present, the monthly PSBR is running in line with the forecast. If it falls faster than I expect, I can probably deal with any problems that that may cause with considerable ease.
    However, it is preferable for me to take those forecasts as the best that we have and ensure that I do not just assume that things will come out better but behave prudently and ensure that we are certain that we will get our fiscal deficit down. At the moment, it is one of the principal obstacles that would otherwise lie in the way of sustaining our recovery, which is why it is so blindly irresponsible of Opposition Members simply to suggest that I put up some spending and some taxes.
    Ms Harman: Will the Chancellor tell the House that he totally repudiates the proposals of the Tory 1992 Group, particularly its proposal that he should cut 5 per cent. of the public sector work force? Given that that is 300,000 people and that making them unemployed would add £2·7 billion to the dole bill, does he agree that the way to reduce the deficit is not to put more people out of work but to bring unemployment down?
    Mr. Clarke: I had an extremely friendly and useful discussion with the executive of the 1992 Group, who presented me with proposals to deal with the problem. Their proposals were infinitely more worked out than any yet produced by the Labour or Liberal parties. I share the instincts of my colleagues in the 1992 committee working group—I think that they call it that—that, in the interests of the economy and taxpayers, we should look first at means of restraining public expenditure. It is hopeless to regard public services, as the hon. Lady always has, as a kind of job creation agency. We can deliver high-quality public services in a more cost-effective way. One has only to look at the effects of contracting out on local government services, and the amount that that is now saving council tax payers in various parts of the country, to see what can be achieved.

    European Courts
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last discussed with his ministerial colleagues from other member states of the European Community the question of additional financial assistance being given to the Court of Auditors and the European Court of Justice; and if he will make a statement.
    The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): The last formal meeting of the Budget Council of Ministers was on 16 November 1992, when we discussed the 1993
    1098
    Community budget, including provision for the Court of Auditors and Court of Justice. Since then, discussions have proceeded informally and through officials.
    Dr. Godman: Are Ministers aware of the serious difficulties encountered by the European Court of Justice in ensuring the timeous translation of cases submitted to it by member states, the opinions of its advocate-generals and its own judgments? Does he agree that there is no point in seeking to ensure that the European Court of Justice and the Court of Auditors carry out their work in ensuring compliance with Community law if they are so badly financed by member states by way of the budget?
    Sir John Cope: I am certainly aware of some of the delays that take place in the Court of Justice, although they do not occur so much in the Court of Auditors. Both institutions have had increases in financial assistance of an average of 10 per cent. a year for the past couple of years. I do not think that is bad and it means that they do not need such a large increase this year.
    Mr. Sykes: Will my right hon. Friend consider ceasing financing the antics of the European Court of Justice altogether and does he think that it is right for it to sit in judgment of the tourist beaches in Britain, especially when so many Mediterranean coastlines and beaches are awash with sewage?
    Sir John Cope: One cannot agree with all the judgments that courts make, but that is not a reason for ceasing to finance them or abolishing them altogether.

    Growth Rate
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what comparisons the European Commission has made between Britain's projected growth rate over the next two years and the growth rate in other countries of the EC.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The European Commission expects that Britain will be the fastest growing major Community country in both this year and next.
    Mr. Thompson: On the day when unemployment is continuing to fall in my constituency of Norwich, North and throughout the country, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that over-regulation of the social and labour markets can damage growth, as has happened in Spain, for example, which has one of the highest unemployment rates in Europe? Will he comment on the folly of those in the House who seek to add to the burdens on industry at a time when business is reviving and unemployment is falling?
    Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We have the highest proportion of population in work of any country in the European Community with the exception of Denmark and, I think, Luxembourg. We have always shown the capacity to create jobs more quickly than other European countries because we have avoided the tightly regulated labour markets and the excessive burdens on industry, which are part of the tradition of some continental countries. It is a pity that that tradition is being reinforced by the social chapter making problems worse, in my opinion, in Germany, Spain and elsewhere. It is extremely important that we in Britain stick to our

    1099
    opt-out from the social chapter, which is helping to achieve a much more buoyant recovery in our labour market.
    Mr. Trimble: It not it the case that better prospects for the United Kingdom growth rate are due to the fact that we were ejected from the exchange rate mechanism and were thus able to reduce interest rates and reduce the level of sterling? Is not the last thing that we want now either to see interest rates maintained at a higher level than necessary or to see sterling appreciate? Is not there a case for some action on that front?
    Mr. Clarke: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question in my opinion is no. The five-points reduction in interest rates that we achieved before we left the ERM was as important a contribution to our recovery as the four-point reduction in interest rates that followed. We were seeing the beginnings of recovery before we left the ERM and we are now seeing the results of many of the supply-side changes that we made in the British economy.
    Obviously, the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to answer questions on any further action on interest rates. I shall make judgments as and when they are necessary in the light of the monetary guidelines that I have laid out before the House.
    Mr. David Martin: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the way in which to create real jobs is to have sustained economic growth, rather than the Keynesian-inspired spending sprees supported by the Opposition parties?
    Mr. Clarke: What is now called Keynesian does not often bear much resemblance to the work of John Maynard Keynes, who was very good on monetary policy. I agree that I do not think that John Maynard Keynes or anyone else would have advocated a spending spree to boost the economy at a time of a large fiscal deficit of the kind that we are carrying and is being forecast. That is not an option open to us. Unfortunately, it is an option which is usually seized by the Labour and Liberal parties because they are so detached from the real world.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Should not the Chancellor be alarmed rather than complacent about the finding of the competitiveness unit published this week that British productivity is 25 per cent. below our main competitors, that what it calls our low skills base and research effort are among the worst in Europe, that our national income per head is falling behind that of Finland, Iceland and Italy and that it is now falling to the levels in Spain and Portugal? Amid all those challenges, and now that we have a new Chancellor, where are the new policies?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has taken some selective readings from the extremely valuable document on competitiveness produced yesterday. At least it has enabled him to ask a question without adding to the public sector borrowing requirement, as far as I noticed. He comments on our level of productivity. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is right to point out that our productivity is still below that of some of our major competitors, most notably the Japanese.
    Throughout the 1980s, we have had the fastest improvement in productivity of any of the G7 nations. It shows how bad things were in 1979 that we still have not caught up with our foremost competitors. If the hon.
    1100
    Gentleman looks at the good news today, yesterday and the day before, he will see that the improvements in productivity in British industry during the recovery are quite remarkable and have contributed to the 3 per cent. increase in manufacturing output compared with a year ago, which is the first substantial achievement of this recovery.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Has my right hon. and learned Friend seen the latest statistics on the rapid and dramatic decline in car sales in EC countries? Sales there have dropped by no less than 17 per cent. over the past six months, whereas in this country which, thank goodness, is out of the exchange rate mechanism and can again enjoy the benefits of low interest rates and growing demand, we have had double-digit increases in car sales. Would not the French and the Spanish industrialists, for example, agree that the British are much luckier than they are because we are not constrained by artificially high interest rates?
    Mr. Clarke: There are other countries that were forced out of the ERM and not all of them are enjoying a British recovery. In terms of the ERM, my hon. Friend is right to point out that the buoyant state of car sales in this country is not matched in other major centres in the European Community. The fact is—let me be cautious again—that we are showing some signs of recovery and it is being sustained at the moment, although we must persevere to keep that up and trust that it strengthens.
    In Germany, in France and even in Japan, there are falls in manufacturing output on the latest figures, whereas we have just seen the encouraging figures showing 3 per cent. more than a year ago in our manufacturing output announced only two days ago.

    Bank of England
    Mr. Dowd: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy regarding payment for work carried out at the Bank of England by sub-contractors; and if he will make a statement.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Portillo): Under the Bank of England charter of 1946, such management matters are for the court of directors of the Bank and not for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I understand that the Bank maintains a policy of prompt payment against validated invoices for work carried out by its contractors.
    Mr. Dowd: I thank the Chief Secretary for that reply and I also thank him on behalf of R. M. Simpson, a small heating contractor in my constituency, which has been waiting two years for the settlement of a £250,000 bill for work carried out at the Bank of England. The company eventually received a reply from the Chief Secretary once I raised the question in the House.
    Is not it a disgrace that work done at the Bank of England cannot be regarded as secure and that the Bank does not ensure that the money is passed on to those working for contractors who are working for the Bank—those who actually do the work? The financial framework under which they execute their contracts needs a complete overhaul, especially for the sake of small businesses which are struggling in these difficult times.
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have been in correspondence. Mr. Simpson carried out

    1101
    work for Taymech; in turn, Taymech worked for Bovis, and Bovis was doing some work for the Bank of England. There is a dispute about a claim for loss of expenses. The matter certainly does not rest with the Bank of England and is certainly not a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is no valid invoice from Simpson to the Bank of England; nor could there be, because the contract rests not between Simpson and the Bank of England, but between Simpson and Taymech.
    Mr. Jessel: As to work carried out in the Bank of England by contractors, has the Governor got a contract and is it in his contract that he must try to stifle comment in the House on the rate of interest?
    Mr. Portillo: No. That is not one of the Governor's responsibilities. He plays an important part in the vital matter of controlling inflation and I pay tribute to his dedication in that matter.

    Tax and National Insurance
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase income tax and national insurance contributions; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I shall be considering options for tax changes in the next Budget over the summer and in the autumn.
    Mr. Mullin: I know that the Chancellor is not readily given to embarrassment, but does he feel a tiny twinge of guilt at having been elected on a promise of lower taxes and now to be presiding over some of the largest increases in our country's history. Or am I being naive?
    Hon. Members: Yes.
    Mr. Clarke: I am not frequently embarrassed and the hon. Gentleman is not frequently naive. As he knows, we have made spectacular progress, beyond what anyone in his party would have thought possible, in reducing direct taxation. We did so for supply-side reasons and, when we first began to get rid of the extraordinarily high levels of direct taxation that we inherited, we found that revenue actually increased as we reduced the level of tax. We have now cut marginal rates of income tax to 25 per cent. and introduced a lower rate of 20 per cent. as well.
    We are committed to continuing to reduce income tax when it is prudent to do so. I do not think that it lies in the mouth of any Labour Member to criticise the Government for their tax-cutting record.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, with the basic rate of income tax at 25 per cent. and national insurance at 9 per cent., the working man has to pay over one third of his income in tax? Is not that level sufficiently high? Is not the big difference between the Labour party and our party the fact that we believe in taking as little as possible from the pay packet of the working man, whereas the Labour party believes in caning taxpayers, particularly those who are hard-working and enterprising?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. If I were a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, my Back Benchers would be urging on me a rapid increase in taxation of all kinds. However, I am a Conservative Chancellor, and my
    1102
    hon. Friend reminds me of the basic commitment of the party. I will bear that in mind when I prepare my Budget in the autumn.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Chancellor said on Monday that no Chancellor could bind himself on taxation, yet at the time of the general election the Prime Minister said that there would be income tax cuts "year on year". Whom are we to believe—the present Prime Minister or the Chancellor, who clearly hopes to be the next Prime Minister?
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have related the Government's record on income tax. I do not recall the Labour party voting for any of the reductions in income tax, so the idea that those tax cuts are suddenly being held against us or are being adopted by the Labour party strikes me as unlikely. The commitment of the Government is to continue to cut direct taxation and income tax when economic circumstances permit and when it is prudent to do so.

    Corporation Tax
    Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the current level of corporation tax is in Britain and in other industrialised countries; and if he will make a statement.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The main rate of corporation tax for 1993 is 33 per cent. That is the lowest main rate in any EC or G7 country.
    Mrs. Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that the low rate of business tax, coupled with a massive increase in manufacturing productivity since 1979, is a key reason why Britain has become the most popular of the European countries for inward investment? Does he also agree that that inward investment is creating jobs in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is precisely right. The figures show that the United Kingdom attracted one third of all inward investment into the European Community in 1991. That is a vote of confidence from the internationally mobile business community. It is also an expression of what Mr. Delors called our policy of turning Britain into a paradise for Japanese investment.
    Mr. Macdonald: Corporation tax is, obviously, one of a number of taxes. Will the Minister confirm that the share of national wealth paid to the Government in overall taxation is now higher than it was in 1979? Does the Minister agree that, after 14 years of a Government committed to reducing taxation as a proportion of national wealth, that is an abject failure on the Government's own terms?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman's question is yet another illustration of the total failure of the Labour party to understand how a tax system impinges on the wealth-creation process. What matters is the marginal rate at which tax is collected on wealth creation.
    The difference beween the Labour party and our party on corporation tax is that, under the Labour party, 52 per cent. of every marginal £1 of profit that was earned in a corporation was paid to the Government. That has fallen

    1103
    to 33 per cent. under the present Government. That is the incentive to wealth creation which has attracted international investment to this country.
    Mr. Jenkin: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Government's determination that this country should be allowed to set our own rate of corporation tax without interference from the EC, because it is so vital to our competitiveness. Will he undertake to maintain that right, come what may?
    Mr. Dorrell: That is indeed the Government's position. It was endorsed during the British presidency of the European Community when the subject was under discussion last year. It was not a controversial view among any of the member states of the Community.
    Mr. Darling: The Chancellor has said that he may have to increase taxes in the autumn to meet the growing public sector borrowing requirement deficit. How much of that deficit do the Government estimate is structural, and how much cyclical?
    Mr. Dorrell: The Chancellor has said that he will make his Budget judgments and announce his conclusions in November, and I am certainly not going to pre-empt those conclusions.

    VAT on Fuel
    Sir John Hannam: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with which organisations he has held discussions on the impact on charities of VAT on fuel and power.
    Sir John Cope: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and I have received representations from a number of charities and I have particularly had discussions with the Charities Tax Reform Group.
    Sir John Hannam: I thank my right hon. Friend for the courtesy that he has shown the representatives from the charities at those meetings. Will he take into account the fact that in recent years charities have faced an ever-increasing burden of non-recoverable VAT, and the £25 million in VAT on fuel and power in addition to that is presenting them with major problems? Will he therefore give sympathetic consideration to the proposal for a tax refund system for charities; and will he give the Charities Tax Reform Group an opportunity to meet him between now and the Budget?
    Sir John Cope: The allowances against VAT given to charities have increased since 1979 from about £23 million a year to about £150 million a year—a fact which my hon. Friend should bear in mind. Of course, I will consider any proposals put to us, and I will be pleased to see the Charities Tax Reform Group again before the Budget, if it should so wish.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Is the Minister aware that the imposition of VAT on charities and on the people of this country would not have been necessary if the Government had collected the £1·7 billion that the Inland Revenue wrote off in uncollected taxes last year? That was about 20 times the amount uncollected in the last recession. Does he believe that this recession is 20 times as bad, or is it time
    1104
    for the Government to start looking at collecting taxes from those who owe them instead of imposing new burdens on charities and others who cannot afford them?
    Sir John Cope: Both on VAT and on the Inland Revenue side, we go to great efforts to collect all the taxes due, and we shall continue to do so. Of course, it is to be expected that that is more difficult in a recession, when the figures, of course, go up.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend call in the charities again and discuss with them the thinking of the Labour and Liberal parties as set out in their policy documents, so that he can make it clear to them that a carbon tax or a tax on energy would be what those parties would advocate were they in government now?
    Sir John Cope: I will certainly make that point clear.
    Mr. Betts: At the general election, the Government gave an absolute commitment that there would be no increase either in the level or the range of VAT. They have broken that commitment by imposing VAT on domestic fuel, to the detriment of the elderly and the poor. Is any consideration being given to the imposition of VAT on public transport, which was also ruled out at the general election and which would be a move that would also disadvantage the poor, the elderly and the young, and create traffic congestion in our cities?
    Sir John Cope: The hon. Gentleman exaggerates what was said before the election. He has obviously not paid attention to the many debates that we have had on the subject recently

    Growth Rate
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the level of growth for the United Kingdom economy for the last 12-month period for which figures are available; and what was the average figure for the rest of the EC.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: In the first quarter of this year, GDP in the United Kingdom was 0·9 per cent. higher than a year earlier. Over the same period, GDP in Germany fell by 2·8 per cent. and GDP in France fell 0·6 per cent. In the year to the fourth quarter of 1992—the latest period for which complete figures are available—GDP in the EC as a whole fell by 0·1 per cent.
    Mr. Carrington: I am grateful for that answer. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that increasing exports are vital to our economic recovery, and that the Prime Minister's championship of free trade and his excellent achievement in putting the general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations back on the rails are the best tonic that our economy and its recovery could have?
    Mr. Clarke: I do agree. It is encouraging to see British industry performing so well in non-European Community markets. We would perform even better in the EC if demand there were not dropping because our partners are still going into recession.
    I also agree with my hon. Friend that, because of our record as a trading country and the need to have an export-led recovery, we have to encourage free trade. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's contribution to maintaining progress towards a successful conclusion of

    1105
    the Uruguay round is very much in our interest. It is also in the interest of everybody who wishes to see economic revival generally across the western world.
    Mr. Mandelson: In the light of the Prime Minister's comments on Tuesday, when he made his statement following the G7 summit, that the Government were working on new ideas and initiatives to contribute to President Clinton's employment summit in the autumn, will the Chancellor tell the House what specifically new policy ideas and initiatives are being worked out in the Treasury?
    Mr. Clarke: I am glad to say that the Treasury is closely involved in discussions with my right hon. Friends in the relevant Departments, such as Employment and Education, to continue to work out policy on education and training, particularly for those between the ages of 16 and 19. As we now spend two and half times as much as was spent on those sectors before we came to power, and as we have introduced a series of training initiatives, all of which were opposed—as far as I can recall—by the Labour party, it is likely that we can be expected to build on an excellent record, having inherited a somewhat bare cupboard.
    Mr. Forman: The Chancellor has every reason to be satisfied with our relative performance on economic growth as compared with our partners in the Community in recent times. However, does he recognise, and will he therefore take steps to push forward the idea, that we must be competitive internationally with the new super-competitive countries in the Pacific rim, where growth rates are significantly higher?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valuable point. For the next generation, we will remain at the forefront of developed and prosperous countries only if we are able to compete with our most challenging competitors—the Japanese and the countries of the Pacific rim and, probably, the north American economies if they recover their normal powerful growth. That is why we have not only to ensure that our own climate is right, but to persuade our European Community partners that Europe as a continent will fall behind if we saddle ourselves with costs on employment and restraints on economic change, which they do not impose on themselves when they are trying to earn their living in Japan or north America.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: As 60 per cent. of Britain's exports are to the rest of the EC, is not there a real danger that recession there will knock back the export-led recovery, which we need to sustain us here? Does not that make it all the more important that everything possible is done jointly with our European partners to get economic recovery going in Europe and not have further deflation? What new proposals will the Chancellor put to the European Commission, which is producing the White Paper that will be the basis for the joint economic policy under the Maastricht treaty? Is not it an indictment of the new Chancellor that he has not been able to tell us one new proposal for recovery this afternoon?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. It is extremely important to us that the rest of the Community comes out of recession, because it is our most important market and we need to see
    1106
    demand revived there. That is why I was glad to take part in the convergence process. I was glad that the Community welcomed the steps that the Government are taking to cut the public deficit and public finances and to improve prospects for recovery. That is why I look forward to urging the Community to take the necessary measures to tackle exactly the same problems, particularly of fiscal deficits, which many member states face.
    The main proposal that I shall make to the European Commission is that it should stop putting new burdens on employment and industry. We will certainly make our suggestions for the forthcoming White Paper. They will be based on increased efforts to improve the competitiveness of European industry, including our own, ever-more flexible labour markets, improved education and training, benefits systems that ensure that incentives for work are maintained and keep the unemployed close to employment, and all the other supply-side measures on which the Government have been leading the way in Europe for the past 14 years.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the manufacturing sector of the United Kingdom can make a major contribution to continued economic growth? Therefore, will he consider not only extending capital allowances, which run out at the end of October, but increasing them—they could either run on immediately from 31 October or be introduced in his Budget—because manufacturing industry, particularly epitomised through the Machine Tool Technologies Association, can make a major contribution not only to increasing efficiency and productivity, but to aiding our economic growth?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of manufacturing industry. That is why, when asked about other matters, I kept putting stress on the figures for manufacturing output that we had two days ago. They show that, in the past few months, we have already recovered about half of the drop in output that we suffered in the depths of the recession. My hon. Friend made a Budget representation about capital allowances, which I shall carefully bear in mind. I hope that he will consult his friends in manufacturing industry about his views on the social chapter and his proposed voting intentions in the light of what I have just said about placing burdens on manufacturing industry.

    Manufacturing Investment
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase manufacturing investment; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Dorrell: The Government will continue to foster an economic climate which will encourage investment.
    Mr. O'Brien: Is the Minister aware that many industrialists and business men in manufacturing do not share that complacent view of his policy? Is it not the case that manufacturing investment at constant prices year on year is still at a level below that at which it was when the Government came to office in 1979? Does he agree that that is not a good record? When will we have new policies that will start to increase manufacturing investment?
    Mr. Dorrell: It is extraordinary that we have been on Treasury Questions for 35 minutes and not a single Labour

    1107
    Member has chosen to refer to the fact that, today, we announced that unemployment has fallen for the fifth month in succession. The hon. Gentleman thinks that he has a point that will embarrass the Government, but he is wrong. If we compare business investment in 1992 with that in 1979–1979 being the top of the nearest thing that the Labour party got to a boom and 1992 being a poor year in our record—that in 1992 was 37 per cent. higher in real terms than that in 1979.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the drop in unemployment in my constituency, which is down to 7·5 per cent? Will he keep paramount in his Department the interests of manufacturing industry and the people who work in it and in commerce because it is on them that we all depend?
    Mr. Dorrell: Yes, I am glad to join my hon. Friend in welcoming the fact that his constituency, among many others, is enjoying a fall in unemployment and has been for five months this year. That is, at least in part, because business investment through the 1980s grew faster than in any other G7 country, with the single exception of Japan. That is in sharp contrast to the record of business investment growth in the 1970s when the country was at the bottom of the league—seventh out of seven. In the 1980s, it was second out of seven.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Is the Minister aware that, while the House welcomes his commitment to a general economic climate that will promote growth, the two essential ingredients necessary to achieve that are a competitive exchange rate and low interest rates? While we do not expect from him or from the Chancellor any commitment on those points, could not there be a general sign from the Government that those two quintessential requirements for sustained economic growth, which we are now witnessing, will be foremost in their minds, not only as they formulate the Budget later in the year, but in the next few weeks and months?
    Mr. Dorrell: If devaluation were the path to economic expansion, the 1970s would have been glory years rather than locust years. The Government believe that the best backdrop that we can deliver to allow business to invest, expand and create jobs and wealth is to provide monetary stability and price stability, which give the opportunity for long-range planning, rather than the short-termism that was imposed on the private sector when the hon. Gentleman tried to run a company against the impossible background created by the then Labour Government.
    Mr. Garnier: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the good employment figures in my own constituency of Harborough are to be welcomed? They are the lowest in the county, as he, as a Leicestershire Member, will recognise. Does he accept that one of the reasons for that is that manufacturers in my constituency have continued to invest in manufacturing industry, and that we have the fullest order books for some time, both domestically and in the export market? Would he care to comment on the good performance of Leicestershire manufacturing industry at the moment?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the success of manufacturing and, indeed, all other forms of economic activity in the county that both of us have the honour to represent. I have referred to
    1108
    investment as being one of the things that brought that about. Another thing, of course, is the fact that productivity has grown in the last 12 months by 8·7 per cent. That has made possible a decline in unit wage costs in British manufacturing that is the best on record.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Waterson: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming not only the lowest inflation rate for 30 years, but the fifth successive monthly fall in unemployment? Does he agree that the House deserves an apology from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) for predicting a steady rise in unemployment over the spring and summer?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is unkind to remind the House of the predictions by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. There have been a great deal of them—all wrong. If it would be for the convenience of the House, I will place a copy of them in the Library. The further fall in unemployment and inflation is very good news indeed. Unemployment has fallen by over 80,000 since the beginning of the year, and, taken with the remarkable figures on Tuesday for manufacturing output, we can now say with some certainty that there is clear evidence of recovery gathering pace.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister accept that it should be for the House to decide whether the social chapter is included in the British version of the Maastricht treaty?
    The Prime Minister: The House has examined the whole of the treaty. I expect to ratify the treaty that I signed at Maastricht. The House has shown its support for the treaty; I expect that it will do so again.
    Mr. John Smith: The Prime Minister has carefully not answered the question. Let me put it to him plainly and clearly. Whichever way the House votes on the social chapter, will the Government accept the decision?
    The Prime Minister: I have said to the right hon. and learned Gentleman before, and I repeat, that I expect the Government's motion to be carried, and I expect to ratify the treaty that I signed.
    Mr. John Smith: The House and the country will have noticed another failure to answer the question directly. Does the Prime Minister understand that, were he to defy the will of the House of Commons, it would be a monstrous violation of the rights of the House, and would at one fell swoop undermine our parliamentary democracy?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman perhaps does not understand the answers. I will make them more clear for him, so that he is in no

    1109
    doubt. We expect to ratify the treaty that I signed at Maastricht. The House has shown its support for the treaty; I expect it to do so again.
    Mr. Lamont: This month, like last, has seen a remarkable catalogue of good economic indicators. Is it not the case that, in addition to the fifth fall in monthly unemployment, we have seen the largest increase in industrial production for four years and the lowest inflation record for nearly 30 years? When one puts that into a European context and sees that Britain has a lower than average rate of inflation in the European Community, is the only country in the European Community in which unemployment is falling, and is the only country in the European Community in which industrial production is rising, I congratulate the new Chancellor on the rapid success of his policies.
    The Prime Minister: I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be most grateful for my right hon. Friend's support for his policies. It is entirely clear that we are coming out of recession and into recovery. It is equally clear that we are leading Europe into recovery.
    Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister reflect on the fact that the Government have said to their rebels that nothing will stop them from ratifying the Maastricht treaty, but they have said to the House that adopting the social chapter would jeopardise the treaty? Both statements cannot be true; which is?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten what he said about the social chapter. [Interruption.] I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has not forgotten, but perhaps I can remind the House what he said:
    "I believe what is now being put forward in the social chapter may well lead to a form of Euro-sclerosis."
    He continued:
    "The social chapter in the Maastricht agreement, it seems to me, is a really worrying attempt by Europe to try and rebuild in Britain the things that we have dismantled over the last 12 or 15 years."
    If that is the view of the right hon. Gentleman and his party, and he is true to his view, I shall expect to see him in our Lobby next Thursday.

    Portsmouth
    Mr. David Martin: To ask the Prime Minister whether he has plans to pay an official visit to Portsmouth.
    The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to do so.
    Mr. Martin: Does my right hon. Friend recall that he has not visited Portsmouth since the general election, at a time when the so-called poll experts were predicting not only a Government defeat in general but, even more shamefully, the loss of my seat in particular? Will my right hon. Friend visit us again soon, preferably in the 50th anniversary year of D-day? Such a visit would not only mark the premier naval port of Portsmouth's vital contribution to our defence needs in the past, but mark its present contribution and the efforts it will make for many years in the future.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is an extremely forceful advocate for Portsmouth, and I am grateful for his
    1110
    invitation. I understand how important the defence industry is to his constituents, and I hope that he will take every opportunity to remind them of two facts: that the Labour party would cut defence spending by a quarter, and that the Liberal Democrats would cut it by half. We hear a lot from the leader of the Liberal Democrats about taking military action in Bosnia; we hear rather less from him about how we would be able to take that action after his policy had dismantled the Army, the Navy and the Royal Air Force.

    Engagements
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McAllion: Is the Prime Minister aware that, because of the legal shackles on British trades unions, this week sacked Timex workers were banned from taking part in the national launch of the Timex boycott campaign, and banned from calling on the support of other British trade unionists?
    What is banned here is legal elsewhere in Europe. Sacked Timex workers have been in France this week, exercising the democratic rights denied to them in their own country. Is the Prime Minister not ashamed of the Government's record on labour law, which has isolated Britain in Europe and left British workers on their own, with no social chapter, no wages councils and no effective right to strike? The Government have turned Britain, once one of the workshops of the world, into one of the world's sweatshop economies.
    The Prime Minister: The sort of behaviour that we saw from trade unionists at Timex is nothing for the hon. Gentleman to be proud of. I dare say that the jobs lost at Timex as a result will stand as the clearest evidence that the hon. Gentleman's policy is utterly the wrong way to look at labour and trade union relationships.
    Mr. Kynoch: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Kynoch: Will my right hon. Friend thank and congratulate the anti-terrorist branch and MI5 for its continuing efforts to protect the public from terrorist crimes, and especially their efforts yesterday? Does he agree that had we failed to pass the prevention of terrorism Act and gone down the path of giving away Northern Ireland—the policy of the Opposition—the anti-terrorist branch and MI5 might as well have been told by us to pack up their things and go back to traffic duty?
    The Prime Minister: The police and the Security Service deserve our congratulations on their professionalism and vigilance. They have demonstrated that in fighting terrorism over many years. It is clear, and it has been endorsed repeatedly by the House, that we need the prevention of terrorism Act to defeat the terrorists. With the greatest goodwill in the world, I cannot understand why, year after year, Opposition Members have voted it down.
    Mr. Boyce: In view of the Prime Minister's utterances in recent days `bout nuclear weapons being defensive measures, may I ask him to take this opportunity to assure the House, the country and the world that Britain will never use them first?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should know better than to ask such a daft question.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Winterton: My right hon. Friend has announced this afternoon dramatic improvements in a number of economic indicators which are of immense interest to the House and the country. Will he continue to encourage manufacturing industry as a way of improving our economy, and will he ensure that in the Budget to be announced in December, the fragile recovery of our manufacturing base, which is vital to our future, will continue to be encouraged and that measures will be introduced to ensure that recovery and continued economic growth?
    The Prime Minister: The whole House knows and respects my hon. Friend's advocacy of manufacturing, so he will be as pleased as I am about the growing success of British manufacturers. As he knows, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) introduced measures in the Budget and autumn statement to help manufacturing industry. I say also to my hon. Friend that the one thing that would do great damage to manufacturing industry would be the provisions of the social chapter.
    Mrs. Mahon: Does the Prime Minister realise that 500,000 of the present unemployed are aged between 18 and 24 and that, because of the cuts that he helped to introduce, they are having to manage on £4·97 a day? Does he think that that is enough to keep them in food and on which they can live? Will he take action now to end the discrimination against that age group, instead of making cheap political points at the expense of the unemployed?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the hon. Lady has grasped the training opportunities that exist for young people. I want youngsters to take up those training opportunities. That is what they are there for and it is in their interest to take them up.
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Amess: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's trade union reforms have made a significant contribution to Britain's increased industrial competitiveness over the past 10 years, while the trade unions have made a significant contribution to the Labour party's electoral uncompetitiveness over the same period?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I came across an interesting quote last week from a delegate at a Transport and General Workers Union conference, who said:
    "We are not the tail wagging the dog. We are the dog."
    That is the true relationship between Labour and the unions. The unions are the dog and Labour is the lamp post.
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hain: What is the Prime Minister going to do about corruption in his flagship council in Westminster? When will he stop crooks financing the Conservative party? Why did he allow 44 of his own Members to vote themselves tax privileges in the Lloyd's amendments on Tuesday? Is that why he is the most unpopular Prime Minister on record?
    The Prime Minister: The best that can be said about that compendium question is that it is worthy of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Fry: In welcoming the unemployment figure, will my right hon. Friend also take time to express vividly to all those in employment the cost of the social security budget, currently running at more than £60 a week for every worker? Does not that large sum justify the Government's intention to re-examine that budget?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about that for the reasons that I have set out on a number of occasions in recent weeks. That problem is faced not only in Britain, but right across the European Community, in Japan, the United States and other industrial countries.

Open Government
3.30 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about open government. I am publishing today a White Paper—
Madam Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber do so not only quickly but quietly so that we can hear the statement?
Mr. Waldegrave: I am publishing today a White Paper which marks the conclusion of a review that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked me to undertake in May last year. It is a significant step forward towards more openness, on which the Government have already made considerable progress.
The White Paper draws together two strands of policy that are not always associated by those who have campaigned for freedom of information—the citizen's right to find out and the Government's duty to inform. Governments can wait to be asked, but, across a whole range of policy areas, the objective should be to initiate the publication of information that is of practical use to people. That is a principle of the citizens charter, aimed at providing more information about services in a form that helps users of services to understand, to compare, to assert their rights and, wherever possible, to exercise choice.
That is why we are determined, for example, to publish comparative information on schools and why we have attached such importance to the publication of information measuring performance in transport, health and many other areas.
The White Paper builds on what has been achieved and takes progress further with six new steps. First, it sets out a new code of practice on access to information held by central Government. It commits the Government, for the first time, to a clear set of principles governing what information will be available and what can properly be withheld. It deals with the information that we shall aim to provide as a matter of course, including the facts, analysis and reasoning that lie behind decisions; and explanatory material, including internal guidance, dealing with Departments' rules and procedures in their dealings with the public.
The code includes a commitment to meet reasonable requests for factual information relating to the policies, actions and decisions of Departments, filling the gaps in the framework of published information.
Obviously, some categories of information will be exempt from that commitment. They are set out in part II of the draft code in annex A to the White Paper. Those categories will be familiar to those who have studied overseas access legislation and many areas of confidentiality would have been exempt also under the Right to Know Bill introduced this Session by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). Chapter 3 of the White Paper explains the rationale for those exemptions, and for some issues on which we have taken a different approach from that adopted in the Bill.
The second and crucial step is that the new code will be independently policed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—the ombudsman—who has agreed to consider complaints that a Department has failed to provide information that should have been
1114
provided under the code. This can be done under his existing powers if referred to him through a Member of Parliament.
Citizens will thus have an independent investigator working on their behalf. The ombudsman will be able to report to Parliament if he finds that information has been improperly withheld. Ministers and their Departments can be called to account if they are criticised by the ombudsman, as they can now be called to account for maladministration and injustice. Parliamentary accountability is enhanced, not diminished.
The code will apply in the first instance to Departments and other bodies within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner and his opposite number in Northern Ireland. However, the Government believe that similar codes could apply with advantage to the national health service and to local authorities. We shall consult representative interests, including the relevant professions and the local authority associations, before publishing further proposals covering those areas.
People have a direct interest in the accuracy and privacy of information held about them by Government. That is why our third proposal is to introduce a new statutory right of access for the subject to see such personal information, applying to a wide range of public sector authorities. There will be exemptions broadly in line with the Data Protection Act 1984, for example, where disclosure would prejudice the prevention or detection of crime, the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, or the assessment or collection of tax. Confidential references will also be protected, as will certain other specified categories of personal information such as records relating to immigration, nationality and consular records.
The greatest number of representations received over the last year by my Department related to information held by Government in the area of public health and safety. That is why our fourth proposal is a new statutory access right to health and safety information held by public authorities, on the lines of the existing access right to environmental information. That will go beyond health and safety at work to include information on such matters as the safety of public places, transport, food and consumer goods and environmental health risks. Obviously, proper protection must be offered to genuine trade secrets and manufacturing know-how and we must honour past commitments where information has been given in confidence. However, it will be a key aim to make the process of regulation more transparent both to the public—in whose interest it is carried out—and to the industries affected, which have sometimes found regulatory requirements to be unclear or poorly explained.
Where there is a statutory right of access, there should be a right of appeal to an external authority on matters in dispute. The Government will be consulting further on whether new tribunals should be established to hear appeals arising from the two new access rights.
Fifthly, we have identified and listed in the White Paper the many statutory provisions that limit the ability of the Government to disclose information. Where those provisions run across the new access rights, provision can be made to set them aside. However, in the other cases we see no reason to revise the opinion of the Franks committee in 1972 that there is no contradiction between proper openness and the necessary protection of private information that has been entrusted to the state in confidence. Parliament has approved all those provisions,

1115
often on the basis that protection of confidentiality was quid pro quo for some invasion of privacy. The majority of them should stand. In future, however, we shall consider the selective introduction of harm tests into those statutory offences.
Sixthly, and finally among the main White Paper proposals, I come to the review and release of public records. An invitation that I issued to historians last summer has produced useful suggestions, which have led to some significant publications. Examples of those and of records released as a result of other initiatives are listed in annex D to the White Paper. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is releasing further papers today relating to the early history of intelligence operations.
A working party established by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has recommended, and my noble and learned Friend has accepted, changes in the criteria for closing records, reductions in the periods of extended closure and the application of a harm test, which will mean that, in future, records will not be closed for longer than 30 years unless actual damage would be caused by their release. That will lead to a substantial increase in the material available to historians.
I think it relevant to mention to the House that, in addition to the six main proposals in the White Paper, the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Committee is reviewing the D notice procedure in order to modernise it and to make it more open. Parliament will be notified of the outcome of that review shortly.
I believe that the House will recognise that those proposals, taken together, lay down a sure and lasting foundation for more open public administration and government. They are a series of practical steps that meet the principal objectives of those who have advocated a full statutory freedom of information regime, without the legal complexities that that would entail. They do so while strengthening the role of Parliament in calling Ministers to account, rather than sidelining it. I commend the White Paper to the House.
Ms Marjorie Mowlam: I begin by briefly acknowledging the work of Maurice Frankel of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, as well as the sterling work of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). Other hon. Members on both sides of the House, many of whom are here today, have also put in much work to try to bring more openness into our system of government.
I congratulate the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on having, at last, after many months of tough negotiations with other Ministers, brought into the open a White Paper on open government. We have had to wait some time for it. When hon. Members have time to read the report, they will see that it is a well-researched, carefully documented account. Nevertheless, unfortunately, it epitomises exactly the qualities for which the Chancellor is gaining a reputation, and which we have just seen him demonstrate. There were a lot of nice words and good intentions, the statement was high on rhetoric, but, in the end, there was a deep failure to deliver the policy of open government that many Members want.
The fundamental flaw in the White Paper and the basic problem with it, which the Chancellor tried to skirt, is the fact that, in the end, it will be a Minister who decides what information is available to the public. I ask hon. Members to reflect on the fact that that Minister will be one of the
1116
very Ministers who, in the past year, have refused to give information on the legal advice on Maastricht and the Matrix Churchill affair—the Minister who refused to put Lord Scott into the public domain, and refused to publish the accounts and records of the pits, the facts about the privatised prisons—[HON. MEMBERS: "Asil Nadir."]—and Asil Nadir and political donations. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friends are telling me, the list goes on and on.
Mr. David Shaw: Rubbish.
Ms Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman may shout rubbish, but will he deny that the Scott inquiry was carried out in private? Will he deny that Asil Nadir's donations are not in the public domain? That is the deep problem with the report, and that is the reason why it is flawed. Ministers will decide what is released. That is why, sadly, the White Paper will be the epitaph to what will in the end be seen as a weak ministerial career.
Will the Chancellor confirm that, under the code of practice that he outlined today, which I readily acknowledge covers many of the right areas and includes many of the right exemptions—I welcome the test of exemptions—it will be Ministers who can refuse access to information in the first place? If people want to appeal, they will have to do so to the parliamentary ombudsman. Will the Minister confirm that that is the same ombudsman whose average response time to queries is now 13 months and 18 days?
Mr. David Nicholson: That is cheap.
Ms Mowlam: If the hon. Gentleman had used the parliamentary ombudsman system, he would know that it is slow, bureaucratic and toothless.
Mr. David Nicholson: Even cheaper.
Ms Mowlam: To suggest that that will be the mechanism for appeals will not work—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: What about—
Madam Speaker: Order. I resent interventions from sedentary positions, especially when they continue, as in the case of the hon. Member.
Ms Mowlam: Will the Minister also confirm that a year ago he identified 200 Acts or other statutes that would be swept from the statute book? I remember the Prime Minister talking about the "cobwebs of secrecy" that would be removed when that happened. Will the Minister confirm that, ironically, as he has just told us, those 200 statutes cannot now be abolished, so they will remain? Three pages in the document argue with good All Souls logic why those statutes have to stay. In the end, they will stay.
Will the right hon. Gentleman further acknowledge that the real parentage of this White Paper is a 1979 Green Paper by Lord Callaghan, which contained exactly the same sections, section by section, covering a code of practice, tribunals and the ombudsman? Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that, in terms of the past 14 years, the Government have just caught up with 1979 and have learnt nothing from the freedom of information legislation that has been practised over the past 10 years in Australia, New Zealand and Canada?

1117
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that whistle-blowers, who have been gagged by current legislation and are unable to disclose information when that is in the public interest, will still be subjected to criminal sanctions after the publication of his White Paper?
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's comments about individual rights in respect of health and safety. However, will he please tell me why that proposal cannot go back before 1991, as many people with disabilities and those who are terminally ill would like to see those historical health records? The same applies to the exemptions on immigration to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
With regard to talking about the Government's commitment to open government, it is difficult to examine the details of the section on immigration, because it was only when I entered the Chamber at 3.30 pm that I was passed the White Paper. I received a copy of the Minister's statement 22 minutes before that. If that is an indication of open government, I should like to know what the Government's record is.
When the Minister replies, will he tell us why Opposition Members, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) and for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), are not allowed to visit scientific institutions in this country without a ministerial chaperon? That has just been confirmed by the Leader of the House. We cannot visit such institutions without a Minister being present.
Without substantive changes and without the kind of Right to Know Bill for which we have argued, and despite the many pages of rhetoric in the White Paper, ours will continue to be the most secretive Government in the western world.
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Lady was almost as impressive on this subject as she was on science. When her colleagues greeted the science White Paper, they made such a pig's ear of it that even the Opposition spokesman in the House of Lords took the opposite view. They have taken the precaution today of not asking for a statement in the House of Lords so that they do not fall into that trap again.
When the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) has done her homework—which her colleagues tell me she very seldom does—she will find that she has made a fool of herself. I am absolutely happy to acknowledge that many of the ideas in this White Paper were also endorsed by the Labour party. I do not think that that is a weakness for my argument. I believe that it is a weakness in the hon. Lady's argument.
Let me remind the House of the last Labour Government's record on openness. In 1974, the Labour manifesto promised to increase openness and to replace the Official Secrets Act 1911. In 1975, the Queen's Speech promised to increase openness and to amend the Official Secrets Act. In 1976, the then Home Secretary promised to replace section 2 of the Official Secrets Act with an official information Act. In 1977, the Queen's Speech promised to increase openness and to replace the Official Secrets Act. In 1978, the Government published a White Paper—and so it went on until 1979. I could read out the rest, but Labour did absolutely nothing and the Opposition have no right whatsoever to talk on this subject.
1118
The hon. Lady asked, more or less, a couple of questions. She asked about the speed of the ombudsman. She may like to know that in freedom of information regimes—the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, (Mr. Fisher) will remember this, as it was at the Campaign for Freedom of Information's conference that Mr. Grace warned of it—the legislative route, or Freedom of Information Act route, is much slower than the ombudsman route. In Canada, it takes about two years, as Mr. Grace himself said.
Mr. Mark Fisher indicated dissent.
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but I have the quotation with me. It is true that overseas regimes are much slower. I have already had discussions with the ombudsman, and it will be his objective to speed inquiries as much as he can, and that is right.
The hon. Lady said also that investigations of the statutes protecting privacy should be swept away. She cannot have thought about what she said. Is she really saying that statutes that protect privacy and make it a criminal offence to release private information should be swept away? Of course not. Lord Franks was perfectly right about that, and we have re-endorsed what he said.
There was very little else in what the hon. Lady said, except for her usual round of abuse about my college at Oxford, which obviously causes her to have a chip on her shoulder. I apologise for that. [Interruption.] She asked a question about retrospection; that is perfectly true. In relation to retrospection, we have taken the view that information given in good faith under one regime should not be released under another. It would be bad faith to release information when it was provided on the basis that it was going to be kept confidential. Most hon. Members, on reflection, would support that.
Mr. Paul Channon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, far from the carping attitude of the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), most hon. Members think that he has taken a larger step forward in this matter than any of his predecessors? Is not my right hon. Friend proposing that only when there are overwhelming reasons for it should information remain secret? Is not that a great step forward?
Is not it a further great step forward that the rights of the House are preserved, because the Parliamentary Commissioner will be taking a role and it will be left to an Officer of the House to decide whether a Department has behaved reasonably if it has refused access to a document in the described circumstances?
Will not the Parliamentary Commissioner criticise a Department for failing to produce a document, and will it not then be up to the relevant Committees of the House to decide whether his criticism is right? That is a great step forward, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on it.
Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend is right. The Parliamentary Commissioner will have the capacity to investigate whether the code has been properly followed. He will, as he does at present, have the right to say to Departments that he believes that it has not been followd and that they should put matters right. If a Department is so unwise as to resist him, he has the right to come to his all-party Committee and to the House.

1119
Recommendations of the Parliamentary Commissioner have invariably been followed by Governments, and it is right that they should be. The case is strengthened further by the fact that, in a sense, the Parliamentary Commissioner has the redress in his own hands in that he has the information. We have discussed the issue with him and he has fairly said that he has always given a Department the first opportunity to put the matter right; that is fair.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman's statement confirms that he has decided not to introduce a freedom of information Act and, therefore, the right of recourse to the courts for freedom of information, as successive Labour and Conservative Governments have refused to do. However, his proposals are a step forward and they are welcome in that respect.
In the proposals for the implementation of the new code, the right hon. Gentleman places reliance on the ombudsman. Will he provide extra resources to speed the work of the ombudsman, who will have a whole new work load as result? Will he extend the ombudsman's investigative powers to include consumer groups, interest groups, lobbies and others who, in other countries, use freedom of information provision to campaign on behalf of people, or will he stick with the current provision that the ombudsman can take up cases only when there is loss to an individual? That would invalidate the ability of the legislation to allow Governments to be properly scrutinised by other bodies.
Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his fair recognition that this measure represents a major step forward. It is perfectly fair to say that there is a resource implication for the ombudsman's work. We made it clear in the White Paper that the additional work load must not damage the already large work load that he has, so he will have to have more resources.
Under the code, the ombudsman does not need to demonstrate that there has been loss to an individual. If the code has not been followed, that will be evidence that the person does not have his rights. That will enable the ombudsman to make a recommendation. It is not for me to say what the scope of the ombudsman is; that is for the all-party Select Committee. At present, I have no plans to recommend any widening of his scope.
Mr. James Pawsey: I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement and urge him to disregard the remarks of the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam). I fear that she spoke without giving the matter her usual consideration. The statement does much to enhance the principle of open government. I certainly welcome the idea of a code of practice that will be closely supervised by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. As my right hon. Friend knows, the Parliamentary Commissioner is not responsible to Ministers or the Government—he is responsible directly to Parliament. That is, he is responsible to hon. Members on both sides of the House. As my right hon. Friend mentioned, the Select Committee—
Madam Speaker: Order. A number of hon. Members want to put questions to the Minister. On these occasions, I often ask for one question and a brief exchange, and I insist on that now.
Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Parliamentary Commissioner is the right person to administer the code of practice? Will he ensure that all adequate resources are available to the Parliamentary Commissioner? As the Select Committee is likely to suggest enhanced powers, will my right hon. Friend support them when they come before the House?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend, who chairs the Select Committee, correctly reports the situation. The Parliamentary Commissioner is a servant of the House and it is not for the Government to lay down the law about how he should behave. He has said how he will take forward this new duty, which his present powers enable him to carry through. In William Reid, we are lucky to have a formidable Parliamentary Commissioner. I will listen carefully to what my hon. Friend and his Select Committee say in so far as it relates to the responsibilities of the Government, especially with regard to resources.
Mr. Giles Radice: The White Paper rightly identifies section 118 of the Medicines Act 1968 as a barrier to openness. Why does not the White Paper recommend the abolition of that section, which was provided for in my Medicines Information Bill? That Bill was supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Mr. Waldegrave: The reason, which is set out in the White Paper, is that we believe that there should be further openness in this area. However, we believe that this is a classic case where steps should be taken on a Europewide basis. As the hon. Gentleman knows, European legislation is in preparation. There would be dangers to the extremely important pharmaceutical industry in this country if we did not proceed on a Europewide basis.
Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in practice, it is hard to find the right balance between the ideal of freedom of information and chaotic government in which both Ministers and civil servants are reluctant to commit anything confidential to paper? I congratulate him on taking many steps forward to more open government in the White Paper that he has announced today, especially the two new statutory rights for individuals which seem to meet many of the objectives of those who wrote in to support the Right to Know Bill.
Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. We have taken major steps forward. It was noticeable that the campaign of cards that were sent to many hon. Members—certainly to me—by the Campaign for Freedom of Information concentrated, understandably, on practical rights and acces that ordinary people want in their daily lives, especially with regard to health and safety. We are meeting those rights properly by statutory access and that will be welcomed by many of those people who lobbied hon. Members.
Dr. Tony Wright: I congratulate the Chancellor on his ingenuity. He has taken the existing system as far as it can possibly go. He finds himself in the same position as the last Labour Government, who struggled mightily to prevent themselves from having to introduce a freedom of information Bill. They succeeded, and he has succeeded. I welcome some of his ingenuity and the increased powers for the Parliamentary Commissioner. Can he tell the House and

1121
the country why, having come to the point at which the Government decided not to give a statutory right to know or to introduce a freedom of information Bill, he decided to do that?
Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his first remarks. The one difference between this Government and the Labour Government is that they agonised for seven years and did nothing, whereas our Prime Minister pledged in our last manifesto to increase openness and we have done something about it a year later.
The argument for not taking a statutory route was set out by the Labour Government at the time. Opposition Members below the Gangway, who are stalwart upholders of the rights of this House, seem to be on my side in this matter. Their hon. Friends seem to be arguing for moving responsibility for key matters away from the House to judges. On the rare occasions when there will be conflict—I do not believe that there will be conflict often between the Parliamentary Commissioner's advice and the Departments—it will be on a serious matter. Do we really want to delegate those decisions to appointed judges? We would not avoid the politics by that; the political decisions would simply be taken by appointed judges rather than, ultimately, by the House. That is why we, like the Labour Government, believe that we need to increase information at the same time as enhancing the powers of the House.
Mr. Robert Jackson: My right hon. Friend and his officials deserve warm congratulations on what has been a long march through the institutions. I particularly welcome the innovation in respect of the Parliamentary Commissioner. Will my right hon. Friend remind those who are, rightly, concerned to make progress with this issue that, because openness in Government depends on everyday decisions by Ministers and officials, it is just as important to get a new culture and attitude in Whitehall as it is to create new rights and entitlements?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. In many ways, it would be much easier, putting aside the inevitable arguments about getting parliamentary time, to pass an Act and say that by creating that confrontation the problem is solved. That would not be the case. Let me quote again the advice given to the information commissioner. In talking about legal compunction, he said:
"The power to compel means confrontation; it could put the information commissioner"—
in the Right to Know Bill of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central—
"in a chronic state of war with government institutions and would inevitably result in the most narrow legalistic application of the law."
I believe that to be right. It is far better for the ombudsman to work with Departments and get them to improve their practices, as he has done on administrative procedures, while having in the background the power to compel them, if need be. That is much more likely to change the culture in Whitehall.
Mr. Bob Cryer rose—
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Dennis—no, Bob Cryer. I call Mr. Cryer.
Mr. Skinner: I thought you said me, Madam Speaker. Hold on a minute. What is going on here?
Madam Speaker: Mr. Dennis Cryer means Mr. Bob Cryer.
Mr. Cryer: It is a very comradely arrangement—
Mr. Skinner: It is on this occasion.
Mr. Cryer: Will the proposals for a code of practice, as opposed to legislation, enable ordinary citizens to gain access to, for example, the secrets of installations such as Menwith Hill near Harrogate? For many years, concern has been expressed about that institution which has not had formal parliamentary approval. The Minister wants to give Parliament more power. Surely people have a right to know what is going on there, particularly now that any military justification, even by the Government's standards, has long since gone and especially as Menwith Hill is a spy on external, ordinary civilian telecommunications.
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman will understand that under my code, as under the Bill of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, proper national security will be protected. It should be protected. If information is requested and a refusal to give it is challenged, there will be an independent adjudicator, in the shape of the Parliamentary Commissioner, to assess whether the Department's decision has been fair.
Mr. David Nicholson: As a former civil servant, an occasional historian and a member of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, I welcome what my right hon. Friend has announced and greatly regret the unnecessary traducing of aspects of the Parliamentary Commissioner's work by the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam).
In view of the concern of my constituents about such matters as organophosphorus sheep dips and the results of an important derailing of a train carrying noxious liquids some 18 months ago, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the measures he is proposing on health and safety will greatly help the right to know on those matters?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend should not worry too much about the hon. Member for Redcar. She always does that.
On health and safety, the new statutory right will provide the sort of legislative clout that is based on statute, because it is proper that it should. In the process of passing the statute, we may need to override some of the statutory bars to the release of information that are listed, which we could not do through a code, and they will help my hon. Friend with the questions that he raised.
Mr. John Garrett: If the Minister is so keen on open government, will he abolish the Osmotherley rules, which so severely restrict civil servants' ability to give evidence to Select Committees? Will he, his colleagues and their civil servants tell us the criteria for the privatisation of Government agencies?
Mr. Waldegrave: There is no secret about the latter as those matters are debated widely. The Osmotherley rules cover the distinction between what it is right for civil servants to answer and what it is right for Ministers to

1123
answer. The rules are broadly correct, but, from time to time, the Select Committee on which the hon. Member serves considers them and the guidance given to civil servants, and comments on them.
Mr. John Gorst: Apart from that information to which we have a statutory right and information that is classified for some reason of privacy or national security, what is the status of all the rest of the information that may be given voluntarily, or may have to be prised out of the civil service and Government by the ombudsman?
Furthermore, is it consistent with any sort of freedom of information that the great wisdom and experience of one Government should continue to be denied to their successor Government by the arrangements that exist, or will it be open to the ombudsman to say that some of the things that were done by the Government or their predecessor should be made available, if requested, by their successors?
Mr. Waldegrave: All the information laid down in the code belongs, by right, to those who want it. As I said in my original statement, however, the Government should not wait to be asked. We should improve the practice of initiating the publication of information on many subjects, as we are doing.
Advice given to Ministers by officials should be covered by privacy laws, and I think that all freedom of information regimes throughout the world cover it. I believe that the rule that Ministers of a successor Government cannot demand by right to see the previous Government's papers on those matters is correct. It would damage the openness and frankness between officials and Ministers if officials thought that they would constantly have to explain to a successor Minister why they argued in a particular way.
Mr. Fisher: It happens in the United States.
Mr. Waldegrave: That seems to me to be an extremely bad analogy, because in the United States large parts of the bureaucracy change with the Government, at great cost to good government there.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why should anybody take a blind bit of notice of this Tory Government when they talk about open government? We have just witnessed the Prime Minister refusing to answer a question that the Leader of the Opposition put to him three times and he has refused to give an answer about summat that is going to happen next Thursday. If they believe in open government, why do they not tell us where they get the money from for the Tory party—from all the sleazebags round the world? Why does the Minister not tell us the names of the eight Tory Members of Parliament who are in Asil Nadir's pocket? That is open government.
Mr. Waldegrave: Perhaps one day the hon. Member will think up a really smart question to ask the Prime Minister, such as when he stopped beating his wife, and be cross when he refuses to answer.
Mr. Rupert Allason: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the publication of the code of practice. I also thank him for his generosity in agreeing to meet me and to publish the criteria for the retention of official documents within Departments and their release by the Public Record Office. Can he confirm that, under the new
1124
regime, the advisory committee that allows the Lord Chancellor to retain documents beyond the 30-year limit will now at least be allowed to read them?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. The advisory committee, which advises the Lord Chancellor and is chaired by the Master of the Rolls, will have access to papers when there is a dispute. Disputes between Departments about releasing documents are rare, but arrangements are in hand to see how that can best be done so that access to documents will be available.
Mr. Mark Fisher: I congratulate the Chancellor on the White Paper and many of the details in it. However, in responding for the Opposition, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) was right to say that, although the White Paper is well argued and researched and the code of practice furthers the principles of open government well, in practice it will not make much difference, because it contains no means of enforcement.
The Chancellor rests on the ombudsman, but the ombudsman is slower. He rests on Mr. Grace, but everybody knows—and his own research shows—that Canada has the worst form of enforcement. Australia has a better system, with delivery of material in 30 days, as my Bill provides. The Chancellor knows that the ombudsman's present record is, as my hon. Friend said, 14 months and 18 days. What specific extra resources will he provide? Will he publish a target for response times for the ombudsman?
The White Paper's real weakness is that Ministers will continue to decide. That is the position now and nothing will change. Ministers will be in the dock for not releasing information and will be judge and jury in their own case. They have been hiding information consistently throughout last year.
We need a freedom of information Bill and we shall have one, as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States and every other country have. The Government know that they have lost this argument this year. They are like King Canute. Having brought themselves to the brink of freedom of information with the White Paper, they have not the courage to jump in the water and accept that the game is up. We cannot be behind the rest of the world by not having freedom of information legislation any longer. I believe that the Conservative party will include freedom of information legislation in the next Tory party manifesto, but they will not have a chance to implement it because we shall be in government.
The British people want the right to know and they will get it. But the White Paper does not give people the right to know.
Mr. Waldegrave: Unfortunately for the hon. Member who is a real expert on the subject—unlike the hon. Member for Redcar—the Labour Government's record was outstandingly bad. When we measure progress under the two parties since the war, my party does much better. A famous example was quoted by a former Member of Parliament, Clement Freud, of the resounding minute written by the great Mr. Herbert Morrison saying that people had a right to know which he classified "secret". So that made little progress.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned timing. He said that the response time was 30 days and that is fair enough. We must have proper targets for Departments to respond.

1125
That is not the comparison with the two years which Mr. Grace was talking about. Mr. Grace meant the time that it took for disputes to go through the courts. It does not take 30 days to settle court disputes in Australia.
If the hon. Gentleman is saying that this country is likely to produce a much faster procedure in the courts than Canada, with all respect to my noble and learned Friends, he is a little optimistic. The ombudsman is much more likely to act more swiftly. It will be cheaper for the citizen because there is no need to employ lawyers and others, who tend to waste a lot of money. I believe that the ombudsman has worked extremely well. His recommendations have been invariably accepted by Governments and he is the obvious enforcement agency to use.

Business of the House
4.15 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week and a day or two beyond that. The business will be as follows:

MONDAY 19 JULY—Supplemental timetable motion on and consideration of Lords amendments to the Education Bill.

TUESDAY 20 JuLY—Opposition day (18th allotted day).

There will be a debate described as "The Threat of Government Policies to the Social Fabric and the Security of the Individual", on an Opposition motion.

Motions relating to immigration and asylum. Details will be given in the Official Report.

WEDNESDAY 21 JULY—Estimates day (first allotted day, second part). There will be a debate relating to domestic violence.

Details of the estimates concerned and the relevant Select Committee reports will be given in the Official Report.

Motion on the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 (Application of Provisions) (India) order.

Motion on the Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) (Amendment) measure.

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.

At 10 o'clock, the House will be asked to agree the outstanding estimates for 1993–94.

THURSDAY 22 JULY—Subject to Royal Assent being signified to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, there will be a debate on a motion considering the question of adopting the protocol on social policy.

FRIDAY 23 JULY—There will be a debate on the environment on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

MONDAY 26 JULY—Motion for the summer Adjournment.

Proceedings Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No.2) Bill.

TUESDAY 27 JULY—Debates on the summer Adjournment.

In view of what I have said about those last two days, the House will obviously wish me to say something about the contents of the motion for the Adjournment. Subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the summer Adjournment on Tuesday 27 July until Monday 18 October. The House may be also asked to consider any Lords messages that may be received.
I have already announced that the debate for Thursday 22 July is subject to the signifying of Royal Assent to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. It may be helpful to the House to know that the Government motion for that debate would be
That this House, in compliance with the requirements of section 7 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, notes the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the adoption of the protocol on social policy.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet on Wednesday 21 July to consider European Community documents as follows:

1127
Committee A, document No. 6654/93 on control of residues in meat; Committee B, document No. 9909/92 on human rights, democracy and development.
[Tuesday 20 July
Immigration and Asylum

1. Statement of changes in Immigration Rules ( HC 725)

2. Asylum Appeals ( Procedure) Rules ( SI 1661)

3. Immigration Appeals ( Procedure) (Amendment) Rules (SI 1662)

4. Immigration ( Restricted Right of Appeal Against Deportation) (Exemption) Order ( SI 1656)

Wednesday 21 July
Estimates Day
Class VIII, Vote 1, Police, Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and other grants, England and Wales; Class VIII, Vote 3, Home Office Administration, Immigration, Probation and Police Support Services, England and Wales; Class IX. Vote 1, Lord Chancellor's Department: Administration of Justice: England and Wales; and Class IX, Vote 5, the Crown Prosecution Service: Administration, in so far as they related to Domestic Violence.
The Third Report of the Home Affairs Committee, Session 1992–93 (HC 245–1) and the Government reply to the Third Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 1992–93 (CM 2269) are relevant.
Wednesday 21 July
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community document: 6654/93, control of residues in meat; relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 79-xxxiv ( 1992–93).
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: 9909/92, human rights, democracy and development co-operation: relevant European Legislation Committee reports: HC 79-xviii (1992–93); HC 79-xxv (1992–93).]
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: The Lord President of the Council will know that we have pressed on a number of occasions for a debate in Government time on the stocktaking exercise that was announced for Scotland. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman recalls that the major part of those proposals was the offer of extra meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee.
Is he aware that, despite an extra long Session, the Scottish Grand Committee has met less often than usual, rather than more? I understand from my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland that we would normally expect two or three meetings at such a stage in the Session. It is said that the Secretary of State has issued instructions to cancel all the meetings scheduled before the summer recess. Is not that a betrayal of the undertakings given in the House and of the people of Scotland? Should not the Secretary of State therefore come to the House to answer for that decision, preferably in a debate in Government time?
Is the Lord President also aware that the Opposition are concerned about the somewhat last-minute switch of Friday's debate? We were hoping for and would still press for a debate on the affairs of London. There is also concern at the guillotining of the sole day's debate allowed for the Education Bill, to which, I understand, some 600 amendments have been tabled in another place.
The Leader of the House should be aware that it is our view that, first, it is not fair to the House to allow only one day with a guillotine motion to debate that number of amendments. Secondly, amendments on that scale and
1128
scope do not suggest Government responsiveness to outside pressure, but either indecision in policy-making or incompetence in the execution of legislation.
I ask the Leader of the House to recognise that, although we all appreciate his statement that the Government's plans for the final week allow for some fluidity, we hope that he will accept that the House should be told officially by him if there are likely to be major votes in the final week.
Mr. Newton: I shall take the points in the order in which they were raised. On the Scottish stocktaking exercise, I understand that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) cancelled the meeting due this week with the Secretary of State to discuss strengthening the Scottish Grand Committee.
Mr. Tom Clarke indicated dissent.
Mr. Newton: I understand that the Opposition have repeatedly failed to take up all the opportunities available to them to debate issues in the Scottish Grand Committee. I note that there is some dispute about that from a sedentary position by the hon. Gentleman. I will certainly draw that and what the right hon. Lady has said to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The right hon. Lady asked about a debate on London. Her request left me slightly wondering whether I had inadvertently failed to announce the business for Friday 23 July. If I did, I shall put the matter right. There will be a debate on the environment, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. That is the debate that the right hon. Lady had hoped would be on London. The Government have concluded that it would be more appropriate for it to be on the environment. It is fair to say that there will clearly be opportunities for matters concerned with London to be raised on a number of occasions of the kind that take place before the House adjourns for the summer recess.
The arrangements announced for the Education Bill are for the general convenience of the House. I believe that the time that we have allocated is adequate for consideration of the Lords amendments. It is our intention that the opportunity for discussion should extend to midnight rather than to 10 pm. to take account of the concerns that the right hon. Lady expressed.
The right hon. Lady asked whether there would be votes in the final week. She will be aware that the motion for the Adjournment can technically be voted on, as can the motion that paves the way for the Consolidated Fund debate. She and her right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench may be able to have some influence on the question whether such votes take place.
Mr. Roy Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend be able to arrange an early debate on law and order issues, which are of great concern to my constituents and no doubt to the constituents of other hon. Members? Will he endeavour to ensure that such a debate takes into account the Government's announcements and the recent release of the Sheehy report? Will he ensure that law and order is shown as being at the top of the Government's priorities?
Mr. Newton: I very much appreciate my hon. Friend's reasons for adverting to this extremely important subject. It was only a fortnight ago, in the immediate aftermath of

1129
the Sheehy report, the royal commission report and the White Paper on the police, that the Government arranged for a full day's debate on law and order matters. However, the importance of the subject is such that I hope in due course to be able to provide further opportunities. My hon. Friend, whom I know to be an assiduous attender, may find an opportunity to raise the matter on the summer Adjournment, or he may wish to put in for a debate on the Consolidated Fund.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Leader of the House turn his mind to the possibility of a debate in Government time at the earliest opportunity on GATT? I understand that some progress was made at the G7 summit, but I know that there is a great deal of concern in textile communities and agricultural communities that there should be an early statement or debate on this very important subject.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that many share the hon. Gentleman's view of the importance of the subject, as the Government clearly do. It is difficult to see how to fit such a debate into the programme that I have announced. I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman may wish to go on holiday as much as others do.
Sir Teddy Taylor: To avoid any confusion about Thursday's business, can the Leader of the House confirm that, in the event of the House on Thursday approving an amendment that gives support to the social chapter, there will be an opportunity immediately thereafter, if the House so wishes, to vote down the motion as amended, and thereby to remove any commitment to or support for the social chapter?
Mr. Newton: It would be inappropriate for me to attempt to dictate the handling of the procedures of the House with you, Madam Speaker, sitting there with your eagle eye upon me. I will leave that matter to you.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 2317 on the siege of Sarajevo?
[That this House notes with grave concern that Sarajevo has been under siege for 15 months and that its people are living in atrocious conditions, including having to boil up sewage water for drinking water as there is no fuel to operate the pumps that could clean the water due to the Serb paramilitaries' refusal to allow United Nations fuel convoys through to the city; further notes that surgeons cannot wash their hands before performing operations, that the first cases of typhus have been reported and that the World Health Organisation is predicting imminent epidemics of typhus, dysentery and cholera; believes that the United Nations has the authority to lift the siege of Sarajevo; urges urgent action to lift the siege and save a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural community which has so far resisted ethnic division and which symbolises the values of the United Nations Charter; and welcomes the decision of the Helsinki Citizens' Assembly to hand in its appeal for action to lift the siege to the Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street, at 10 am on 15 July, along with samples of untreated sewage water, as a reminder of the atrocious conditions in which the people of Sarajevo are forced to exist.]
Sarajevo is a multi-ethnic, multicultural mixed community which has been under siege for 15 months and
1130
is now at the end of its tether. Water supplies have been cut off by Serbian paramilitaries, and there is a great danger of typhus and other epidemics spreading within the area.
Can we debate the situation in Sarajevo? Would the right hon. Gentleman like to drink the water that I have here in the Chamber, which is the sewage and untreated water presently being used in Sarajevo?
Mr. Newton: I need hardly say that the Government share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the critical humanitarian situation in Sarajevo and in other safe areas that have been established under UN Security Council resolution 836. It is deplorable that the parties involved in the conflict should withhold supplies of vital utilities. It is increasingly important that the early arrival of troops and equipments to implement the safe areas resolution should be secured. It is also important for Governments to step up their contributions to the humanitarian effort.
Mr. Simon Coombs: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has just made a statement to the House on open government. In that statement, he went as far as he reasonably could down the road towards open government, without being sidetracked into the primrose path of ungovernability.
It would be wrong of me to suggest that the summer Session be extended any further than has been proposed, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it might be helpful for the House to have an opportunity to debate freedom of information, as until now that opportunity has been given only to Standing Committee Members for a short time on one Friday earlier this month?
Mr. Newton: It would indeed be helpful, but it may be easier for me to be helpful later in the year, rather than next week.
Mr. Chris Mullin: When can we expect to have a debate on the report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice? Many hon. Members were surprised that there was not a statement from the Secretary of State for the Home Department. There is widespread curiosity about the Government's plans for implementing some of the reforms that are proposed in the report. When can we expect a debate on the subject?
Mr. Newton: Not next week, Madam Speaker. However, there may be time during Home Office questions on Thursday 22 July to raise the matter. As to the rest of the hon. Gentleman's question, I should have thought that probably everybody would think it sensible for the Government to spend time studying the royal commission's report before rushing to conclusions.
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend consider having an early debate on early-day motion 2319, which deals with the subject of an energy tax as outlined in a recent edition of Labour Party News?
[This this House notes the discrepancy between the policy expressed in the House and elsewhere by the Leader of the Opposition, especially regarding VAT on domestic fuel, and the latest edition of Labour Party News which invites Labour Party members to consider shifting taxation from 'good things', such as income, towards bad things, such as 'resource depletion', specifically suggesting an energy tax

1131
as one alternative; and calls upon the Leader of the Opposition to clarify his or his party's position by making a statement to the House at the earliest opportunity.]
As the right hon. Member for Derby South (Mrs. Beckett) seems reluctant to use an Opposition day for a debate on the subject, will my right hon. Friend consider using a Government day?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the somewhat curious position of the Leader of the Opposition and his hon. Friends. They have made a good deal of noise about VAT, but have also made it clear that they are considering wide-ranging proposals for energy taxes.
Mr. Ian Davidson: Will the Leader of the House take note of the revelations on television and in newspapers this week about outdoor pursuit centres? Some of those centres are still taking on staff without checking their qualifications. Those members of staff are likely to undertake hazardous activity with children.
Will the right hon. Gentleman note that one of the centres concerned was the St. Alban's centre in Lyme Regis, which was involved in a tragedy in which four of my constituents lost their lives? In view of the deep and bitter anger that is felt by my constituents who lost their children in that tragedy, and the fact that hundreds of thousands of children will be undertaking such holidays in the next few weeks, will the Leader of the House find time next week to debate that important matter?
Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake to find such time, despite the undoubted importance of the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised—although he may be able to find his own opportunity to raise it on one of the occasions to which I have already referred. I shall of course ensure that his remarks are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friends who are concerned with these matters.
Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend consider the fact that my constituents will be surprised that Parliament will not next week be holding a debate, at the request of the Opposition, to express pleasure at the fall in the unemployment figures? It seems that we are not to have a debate on the justice system, either. That, too, is surprising.
A music teacher's killer, who was high on drugs, who had been vandalising cars and threatening people in the neighbourhood, and who had a knife in his pocket, has not been found guilty of murder or of manslaughter and has been let off as a result of a clever legal plea of self-defence. Surely that constitutes a major problem, and Parliament should debate the justice system as early as possible.
Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's request, which is similar to one from my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason). Manifestly, I am not in a position to promise a full-scale debate next week. My hon. Friend will know that the Home Secretary has asked officials closely to examine the case to which he has referred to see whether there are lessons that can be learned. I am sure that the whole House supports such an examination.
Mr. Andrew Miller: Given today's statement on open government, will the Leader of the House arrange for his colleagues from the Department of Transport to make a statement on their policies of open
1132
government, especially in the light of a letter that they sent me yesterday about the extension of the A550 and the public inquiry associated with it? They should explain why, in this era of open government, the public inquiry is not to be held in the area cut through by the road; it is to be held outside the constituency—indeed, in the country next door, Wales. The place where it is to be held is not even known to my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones)—although I suspect that that may come up in the debate later this afternoon.
Mr. Newton: The safest course for me on this occasion is to draw attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is due to answer questions on Monday 26 July. If the hon. Gentleman cares to stay on that long—I might encourage him to go on holiday earlier—he might get an opportunity.
Mr. David Sumberg: My right hon. Friend will know of the concern in my constituency about the redrawing of the assisted areas map. Can he assure me that there will be a statement on that before we rise for the summer, and if possible next week?
Mr. Newton: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry will aim to make a statement at the earliest possible opportunity; but at the moment we are awaiting the European Commission's conclusions on the proposals that the British Government have put to it.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: As the Leader of the House already recognised the importance that hon. Members attach to the report of the Sheehy inquiry, could he arrange next week, or certainly before the House rises, to give us an idea of the legislative programme that will be followed in this context? Many Members will be discussing the matter with representatives of police forces during the summer recess, and it would be helpful to know whether there will be separate Scottish legislation, given the differences between Home Office and Scottish Office responsibilities.
Mr. Newton: The position on the Sheehy report is pretty much the same as that on the royal commission, about which I was asked earlier. It is not a report by the Government or a set of conclusions by the Government: it is a report which the Government and others need to consider.
As for the rest of her question, the hon. Lady has been here long enough to know that the Leader of the House does not anticipate the Gracious Speech in the autumn.
Mr. Stephen Day: Will it be possible at an early stage for the House to discuss the changes taking place in the Province of Northern Ireland, to allow us to debate the obvious abandonment of that Province by the Opposition, and the obvious failings of the Anglo-Irish Agreement? In such a debate, we could also put in context the Government's efforts to defeat terrorism and repeat our commitment to the people of Northern Ireland and to the union that it represents.
Mr. Newton: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is perhaps surprising that the Opposition have chosen to use their Opposition day next week to discuss the subject that I read out, rather than the extremely important signs that

1133
have been given about a major change in their policy towards Northern Ireland, which would call into question the whole constitutional basis of the arrangements.
Mr. Richard Burden: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that, this morning, the West Midlands regional health authority decided that the Department of Health has no moral obligation to the pensioners of Qa Business Services. Will he arrange for his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House next week to explain why it is felt that there is a moral obligation to give £10,000 to a discredited chairman of a regional health authority, yet pay nothing to people who have lost their security in their old age as a result of a bungled privatisation?
Mr. Newton: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to that question.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: My right hon. Friend will recall that, during the statement on the Defence White Paper a few days ago, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said that he would make a separate statement concerning the procurement of tanks for future British Army requirements. As there will be several opportunities for export sales of the Challenger 2 tank—opportunities that would be much enhanced by an early and positive statement, which would benefit greatly my constituents and the industrial infrastructure in Leeds—will my right hon. Friend see whether such a statement could be made as a matter of urgency?
Mr. Newton: I shall brief my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who is due to be here on Tuesday, on at least one of the questions that he may be asked.
Mr. John Gunnell: As the Leader of the House has already suggested that the Home Secretary will want to give time to debate the Runciman report, will he be willing to bring forward for discussion, with particular urgency, the recommendation for a criminal cases review authority?
Just as many hon. Members share the concerns of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) about the case that has occurred recently, it is also true that there are many instances where people are in prison and have maintained their innocence over several years. There is an urgent need for an authority to be set up, preferably with its own independent investigating officers.
Mr. Newton: I shall take that as a clear sign of support for one of the recommendations, but I do not want to add to what I said earlier about it being right for the Government to consider the report before jumping to conclusions.
Dr. Liam Fox: While I acknowledge the response that my right hon. Friend gave to an earlier question, will he reconsider, for the sake of the minority parties, the decision to hold an urgent debate for a day on law and order, as only one of the Liberal Democrats managed to attend the last such debate? Perhaps that would give them a chance to reassess the importance that they attach to the issue.
Mr. Newton: That is a helpful question. I note that it has been heard by the Liberal Chief Whip, who will no doubt ensure better attendance on a future occasion.
Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Leader of the House consider having a debate next week on the White Paper that the Government published on Tuesday about Sunday trading? Is he aware that the House should at least have had a statement from the Home Secretary on their complex document? Those who support one particular option would like to know why the Government are dictating to the House the terms of the option that any organisation may wish to offer regarding employment protection. The Government are under an obligation to present the House with a statement so that they can qualify on what grounds they are dictating the options that will be presented to the House.
Mr. Newton: My understanding is that there is no question whatever of the Government trying to dictate to anybody. There has been some difficulty in getting sufficient details of proposals from some quarters to turn them into the form in which they have appeared in the White Paper. As to the question of an early debate, the whole purpose of publishing the document at this time was to give all Members of the House a good opportunity to study the whole range of options and think about the issues before we debate them in detail later in the year.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will it be appropriate in the Adjournment debate on the environment on Friday to discuss carbon taxes and their role in preserving the environment? If it will be, could my right hon. Friend arrange to have copies of "Costing the Earth", "Looking to the Future" and the Labour and Liberal manifestos available in the Vote Office, so that people can look at those documents and their contribution to the debate on carbon taxes, particularly as the Liberal Democrats' manifesto called for a larger than VAT tax on energy, with the money so raised being used to reduce the VAT scales on luxury items?
Madam Speaker: Order. That is hardly a matter for next week.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has made some good points. I am not sure whether it would be proper for me to make the documents available, but I shall do everything I can to ensure that as many people as possible are made further aware of them, together with some other recent documents about an energy tax published by the Labour party. My hon. Friend makes a good point about next week's business, in that it would seem to me that there is a jolly good chance that it would be in order to consider such matters in the debate on the environment.
Mr. John Spellar: It is unfortunate that the Secretary of State for Employment has not taken the opportunity to make an announcement about the future of May day. There are three possible reasons for that: first, he intends to make an announcement in the recess, when it cannot be subject to scrutiny; secondly, he will make an announcement in the autumn, which will cause considerable inconvenience to the leisure trade and to the printing industry, which will be preparing diaries and calendars; thirdly, he has realised that the whole idea is a load of dogmatic nonsense and is trying to get rid of it.

1135
Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State to come to the House to make a statement and clarify the matter?
Mr. Newton: I will bring to my right hon. Friend's attention the hon. Gentleman's engaging speculations. All that I can say is that an announcement on those matters will be made in due course.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 2100 and my amendment to it?
[That this House condemns the heavy-handed and bullying methods employed by GrandMet in its manoeuvres against the Morning Advertiser's campaign on behalf of Inntrepreneur tenants; notes that the Agriculture Select Committee believed that the Government's policy towards the brewing industry has done nothing to help tenants whilst the six giant breweries have increased their market share by five per cent. to 82 per cent. since the introduction of the Beer Orders; believes that the issues raised by the Morning Advertiser report of 21st May call in question both the fair trading policy of Her Majesty's Government and the actual working practices of GrandMet; and calls upon the President of the Board of Trade to instigate and immediate inquiry into the state of the brewing and licensed trade before more tenants are forced out of business.]
It refers to the bully-boy tactics of Inntrepreneur Estates, the unacceptable face of the brewing industry, which is charging exorbitant rents, driving people into bankruptcy and causing disturbances in an industry whose problems were supposed to be solved after the report from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Despite the fact that the brewers distribute largesse to Conservative party funds, can we have a statement from a Trade and Industry Minister on what will be done to help the tenants and the consumers of the brewery industry's products?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman can ask that question directly of Trade and Industry Ministers, with luck, on Wednesday 21 July.
Mr. David Hanson: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement and a debate next week on local government reorganisation in Wales? On I March, the Secretary of State for Wales announced proposals for reorganisation, only for hon. Members to find yesterday, in the Welsh Grand Committee, that large chunks of these proposals had been ripped out and new ones put in. That is an affront to democracy, particularly as Parliament will have no opportunity to scrutinise the White Paper before the Bill is produced in October. That is a disgrace, and the Secretary of State should make a statement.
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise either a debate or a statement, but the organisation of parliamentary questions next week is turning out rather well, because the Secretary of State for Wales is here on Monday.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Leader of the House ensure that, when we have our debate on open government, it will include consideration of the procedures used in the House to correct untruthful parliamentary answers received by hon. Members?
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that today I received a letter from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces telling me that information given to me last month—that British soldiers in the Gulf were warned of the danger of depleted uranium shells—was completely untrue? Is it not right that, when untrue answers are given, they are corrected in Hansard with a supplementary answer and not given to individual Members in a private letter?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has clearly found a way to draw attention to the letter that he received. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to that point.
Mr. Cryer: Can I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 2315, headed "Questions of procedure for Ministers"?
[That this House notes that section 107 of the Rules for Ministers says 'Ministers must resign any directorships they hold when they take up office' and is concerned to note that in recent company returns Viscount Cranbourne is a director of Stalbury Trustees, which is devoted to the promotion of conservative principles; further notes that the honourable Member for Conwy is a director of Professional Secretarial Services Ltd., that the honourable Member for Richmond and Barnes is a director of Sheridon-Hanley Enterprises Ltd., and that the honourable Member for Suffolk South is a director of Aracol Holdings Ltd., a subsidiary of which has principally been engaged in security dealing; and calls on the Prime Minister to investigate these breaches of Ministerial rules and publish his conclusions.]
Does the right hod. Gentleman recall that the Prime Minister published that document? Therefore, breaches of rule 107 by four Ministers—there are more—holding directorships should be answered by the Prime Minister in a statement. It is no good publishing the rules for Ministers if they are to be breached behind closed doors. There should be accountability to the House to demonstrate that Ministers are not breaching the rules. The companies listed have nothing to do with Ministers' family estates.
Mr. Newton: I understand that, in all the cases that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, the companies are wholly concerned with private family financial affairs. The Ministers concerned are satisfied that there is no conflict between their private interests and their public duties. In those circumstances, there would appear to be nothing further to investigate.

Points of Order
4.45 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Questions to the Leader of the House are an important moment in the parliamentary week and one that Back-Bench Members treasure because it gives them access to a discussion of the subjects that are to be debated next week. Increasingly, that time is being used by some hon. Members to ask the Leader of the House to comment on party political points. That is a derogation of the rights of hon. Members and does neither the Government nor individual Conservative Members any credit.
Madam Speaker: That gives me an opportunity to remind the House that business questions should relate to the business next week. Far too many hon. Members go into great detail, making long comments about personal and constituency cases. It is an important period in our proceedings and I hope that hon. Members will take to heart the fact that they should ask questions relating directly to the business for the next week. They should be put briskly and directly to the Lord President, who, I am sure, will do his best to give short replies.

Summer Adjournment Debate
4.46 pm
Madam Speaker: I have a short statement to make about arrangements for the debate on the motion for the Adjournment which will follow the passing of the Consolidated Fund Bill on Monday 26 July.
Members should submit their subjects to my office not later than 10 pm on Wednesday 21 July. A list showing the subjects and times will be published the following day. Normally, the time allotted will not exceed one and a half hours, but I propose to exercise a discretion to allow one or two debates to continue for rather longer, up to a maximum of three hours.
Where identical or similar subjects have been entered by different Members whose names are drawn in the ballot, only the first name will be shown on the list. As some debates may not last the full time allotted to them, it is the responsibility of Members to keep in touch with developments if they are not to miss their turn.

Orders of the Day

  Welsh Language Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  [MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair.]

  Welsh Language Bill [Lords]
    New clause 1

      OFFICIAL STATUS OF THE WELSH LANGUAGE (No. I)
      That the official status of the Welsh language shall be not less than the official status of English in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice in Wales.'.—[Mr. Morgan]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.51 pm
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 2—Official status of the Welsh language ( No. 2)—

      '(1) For the avoidance of doubt, the Welsh language shall be regarded as having official status in the conduct of official or public business and in the administration of justice in Wales and shall be treated on a basis of equality with the English language in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

      (2) Official or public business for the purposes of this Act means business conducted in Wales or with persons resident in Wales by the Crown and by public bodies as defined in section 6 of this Act.'.

      New clause 8—National status of the Welsh language—
      'As the national language of Wales, the Welsh language shall be regarded, along with the English language, as an official language of Wales for the conduct of public business and the administration of justice in Wales, as defined by this Act, and both languages shall be treated on a basis of equality.'.
      New clause 9—Official status within Wales of the Welsh language for European Community purposes—
      'For the avoidance of doubt, in matters relating to which the European Community institutions may have jurisdiction, the Welsh and English languages shall be regarded as official languages in Wales and both languages shall be treated on a basis of equality.'.
      Mr. Morgan: With new clause 1, we come to what, by common consent, is the moment of truth for the Bill. It has been a long time getting to Report stage as we are the second House to deal with it, so the Government have had many opportunities to fulfil their promises to be a listening Government and to be conscious of the fact that the Conservatives are in a minority in Wales. When the Minister gives his final comments on the Government's opinion on the issue of official status and the Welsh Language Bill, he will have something constructive to say.
      The Minister is probably as aware as any other hon. Member that, throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have promised that, at the next stage or the stage after, they will have considered the objections made to the omission of reference to official status. There is no longer a next stage. Today is the day. Report is the penultimate stage, with only Third Reading to come. This is the last opportunity that the Government have—I am pleased to see that the Secretary of State has arrived for the moment of truth—to convert this Bill into what it says in

      1139
      its title. It says that it is the Welsh Language Bill, but unfortunately what we actually have is a Welsh language quango Bill—what might be called a quango for the lingo. We want it to be a genuine Welsh Language Bill, not a Bill simply about setting up another quango.
      When people in Wales hear that the Government have it in mind to set up another quango, they say, "Lord save us from another quango; do not create it, cremate it; cremate it before you create it"—or whatever their phrase might be. They are deeply suspicious about the Bill. It is all very well to have a Welsh Language Board, but there has to be a context within which it can operate, or Parliament is simply washing its hands of issues relating to the Welsh language and passing them on to a nominated body.
      We are therefore worried that the title of this Bill is a misnomer. It is rather like the incident in the 13th century—I am sure that some of the historians on the Back Benches will correct me if necessary—when Edward II told the Welsh princes that he was going to create a Prince of Wales who did not speak a word of English. They thought that he intended to choose one of them for the job, but he produced a babe in arms who did not speak any language at all.
      In presenting the House with a Welsh Language Bill, but not giving it a legal context within which to work in relation to aims, objectives, goals, status and rights, the Government have left the quango completely dependent on definitions of common sense, and all being good chaps and understanding roughly what the Government want in terms of doing something, but not going too far, not pressurising people too much, not spending too much money, and not conferring rights, which would be inconvenient. It is all far too reliant on what has been referred to elsewhere as the good chap theory of government. It is not our job as legislators to leave it to the good chaps, with the occasional statutory woman, perhaps, on the quango. Our job is to write good, tight, comprehensive, well-thought-out, long-lasting legislation and this is the last opportunity that we in this place will have to make sure that the legislation does last.
      Our new clause 1 is based on what we believe to be a compromise between new clause 2, which contains a declaratory statement about official status for the language, and the Government's use of the verbal device of the Welsh language being treated on a basis of equality. We are acting in the spirit of trying to meet the Government halfway and hope that the Government will respond by trying to meet us halfway.
      It sounded as though there had been no further movement on the Government's part—but there may have been further consideration since then—in the exchanges between the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and the Prime Minister in Prime Minister's questions on Tuesday. They were not promising at all, but we are hopeful that, if this Report stage is to have a meaning and is not some sort of charade, the Government have the ability and the freedom to consider what we shall be saying this afternoon. They have had two further days now to think about what the consequences will be if they completely reject any idea of linking the Bill with some form of official status.
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Has he noticed that, during the last two or three days, the Government have had representations from Beata
      1140
      Brookes, chairperson of the Consumer Council, urging official status, and from the Archbishop of Wales, numerous members of the other place, and different denominations of churches and chapels in Wales? The will of Wales on this matter has been quite clearly declared. Is not it time that the Government listened to Wales rather than their own advisers?
      Mr. Morgan: I could not agree more. I believe that the Government would like to be judge and jury in their own house because they won the election, but judges and juries in Wales have been pressing on them very strongly the idea that official status must be a part of the Bill if it is to have any meaning. The Government must show some humility with respect to their weak political position in Wales and their lack of democratic sanction for what they are doing. That is not to say that we expect them suddenly to resign over the issue, but they should recognise that they are not the majority party, or anything like it, and never have been since the secret ballot was introduced. They must be conscious, therefore, of who can, roughly speaking, say that they represent feelings in Wales, and not ride roughshod over the feelings expressed by people who can claim majority representation in Wales.
      We are very concerned that the Welsh Language Board, in the absence of a reference to official status, will be working in a vacuum. There is a difference between
      "on a basis of equality"
      and
      "that the official status of the Welsh language shall be not less than the official status of English."
      This amendment attempts to meet the objection that the Government have already mentioned in the other place and at different stages in this House: that the Bill might open up a legal Pandora's box and legal cases for years to come. Obviously, the Secretary of State is something of an expert on Pandora's boxes after his efforts on local government yesterday. Nevertheless, we believe that the Government must be conscious that, when they do things in relation to the Welsh language, they must not act like a colonial governor-general.
      We are not criticising the Government's lack of generosity in financial terms to the Welsh language. We can see from the Government's expenditure plans that they hand out a considerable amount of money to Welsh language organisations. They can boast about it in their mauve-coloured book. They can say that the Urdd Gobaith Cymru—the Welsh youth movement—gets so many hundreds of thousands of pounds every year, the Welsh Books Council gets a subsidy, the Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin—the Welsh nursery schools movement—gets a subsidy, and the National Eisteddfod gets £360,000, but these are all handouts.
      The age of the handout and the quango is considered very demeaning in Wales. People in Wales want rights, not handouts. There is always the thought of Secretaries of State, and even Ministers of State, who are from Wales—which makes a change—calling up the tribal chieftains, as it were, in their grass skirts and carrying their spears, and saying that they can have a collection of Gideon bibles, beads, and so on, but they cannot have rights; the natives must be kept quiet, but they are not to be given rights, although we will give them £150,000 for this and £250,000 for that.
      It can be said that, except in the context of a Welsh Language Bill, the Government do not have an opportunity to confer rights on people. They are in the

      1141
      handout business each year when they are looking at the budget for the Welsh Books Council, and so on, but we have an opportunity now with the Welsh Language Bill before us. That is why it is important to confer these rights on the Welsh language, the speakers of the Welsh language, and those who may not be Welsh-speaking themselves, but want their children to be educated in Welsh, as a matter of right.
      The Government have probably not, so far, understood the importance of the Welsh language to Welsh identity. They are probably misunderstanding the nature of the union of the United Kingdom, which this Parliament represents, and the difference between Scottish and the Welsh circumstances.
      The Scottish Acts of Union were not based on absorption; they were based on allowing the Scottish people to retain all their separate legal, administrative, educational and religious separateness, and their separate identity, because it was a relatively voluntary arrangement. The Welsh Acts of Union were not voluntary at all; they were based on the principle of absorption.
      Mr. Jonathan Evans: No. We absorbed the English.
      Mr. Morgan: Well, it may be possible to make out a case on one historic reading, but there was no doubt where the power lay, as distinct from where the office lay—although I do not want to go into the remarks of the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer on the difference between being in office and being in power now, because that would be a very considerable diversion.
      Wales did not have—except in relation to markets ouverts and, later on, Sunday drinking—any separate legal, administrative or educational structures; and, until the disestablishment of the Church in Wales, it had no separate religious structures either. So the only thing that prevented the complete absorption of Wales into England, until the arrival, possibly, of international rugby and football matches between Wales and England in the 1870s, was the language.
      In the preservation of Welsh identity in the 17th and 18th centuries, and most of the 19th, the language performed the function provided in Scotland by its separate administrative, educational and religious structures. We did not have that; our language was all that we had to prevent our being absorbed. That is why it is so important to appreciate the extent to which—even for those who do not speak Welsh—the language defines Welsh identity. Most people in Wales secure their national identity either by supporting Welsh rugby, soccer or other sports teams, or by speaking Welsh.
      5 pm
      I do not think that that point has been fully appreciated, especially by Conservative Members who are not Welsh. I remember when Billy Boston opened the Welsh Sports Hall of Fame in Cardiff. In the introduction to the ceremony, his wonderful rugby league career was described: it was said that he was the biggest rugby league scorer ever and had made more appearances in cup finals for Wigan and won more Great Britain caps in matches played against Australia than anyone else in the history of the game. When asked to say a few words, he said, "Yes, but I would have given all that up if I could only have won
      1142
      a cap for Wales." Every grown man present was suddenly in floods of tears. To Billy Boston, gaining a Welsh identity would have meant putting on the red jersey of Wales. Before 1880, it was not possible to play rugby league for Wales because it did not yet exist in any significant sense; in those days, the language linked people with their roots and gave them the identity about which the Scots do not need to worry.
      New clause 1 is critical. It refers to "official status", but in not making it declaratory we have attempted to meet the Government's objections. We believe that it also covers the point about reciprocity of European Community legislation. Those wishing to sell Welsh goods on the continent, and to list ingredients and the like in Welsh, would have the right to do so. They would have the right to put Welsh lava bread in bijou little containers and have it sold in delicatessens on the Champs Elysees, Unter-den-Linden or the Via Venezia, listing all the ingredients in Welsh, just as Greek ouzo is now sold in Queen street or St. Mary's street in Cardiff.
      The Government refer to "a basis of equality" in the Bill, but make no reference to official status. New clause 2 goes much further, including a declaratory statement with regard to official status—although it also defines and confines it in a way that I hope to discuss later. We have a few bob staked on new clause 2, but we basically believe that the Government should meet us half way by dispensing with the weasel words
      "a basisof "
      I have mentioned the importance of the Welsh language to Welsh identity and the importance of official status in repairing the damage done to the language—not only by the Acts of Union, but by the introduction of universal primary education exclusively in English in the 1870s and 1880s. That period marked the beginning of the numerical decline of the language from its peak in the 1880s and the start of the inexorable westward march of the English-Welsh dividing line across industrial south Wales. At roughly that time, it began in the eastern valleys of Monmouthshire; more or less every decade another valley has been picked off. Now, in the 1990s, the battle lines—although that may not be an appropriate term—for the future of the language have reached the Tawe and Swansea valleys and, to an extent, the Neath valley.
      The language continues to decline in one sense. There has been an apparent slowing down of that decline, caused by the number of children between the ages of three and 15 attending Welsh schools. However, if we ignore that age group, we find that, between 1981 and 1991, the decline in the census was very sharp. There was a fall of some seven percentage points in the number of people outside the school age group who spoke Welsh; the position was therefore rather artificial. The fear that the westward march of the English language across industrial south Wales will continue into the year 2000 is very damaging.
      The fact that informal official status has been given to the Welsh language by administrative action and devolution to Wales is a purely coincidental by-product of the rise to political importance of Lloyd George, the United Kingdom's only Welsh Prime Minister, and the arrival of Tom Jones as the United Kingdom's only Welsh Cabinet Secretary in the late 1910s and the early 1920s. From that arose the concept of public business with which the Bill deals.
      It was fortunate, perhaps, that in its early days the BBC was headed by a Scot, who was reasonably sympathetic towards matters Celtic. There were some counteracting

      1143
      forces in the public world. Nevertheless, even as late as the 1960s, the average person bringing up children in Wales probably thought it preferable for his children not to learn Welsh if they were to get on in life. That phrase was continually heard among the common people. Perhaps the middle classes picked up the idea first from the gradual re-establishment of Welsh in the world of education and the expansion of the university system, which placed some emphasis on the language.
      Gradually, the world of public business achieved a turnround in the status of the Welsh language and over the past 20 or 30 years people have thought about whether they want their children to be brought up speaking Welsh. However, it has been purely an informal process. Some of the residual damage done by the Acts of Union and the use of the Welsh knot to extirpate the language after the introduction of primary education on a universal and English-only basis in the 1870s is still present. Over the generations, fewer families have been Welsh-speaking and thus able to bring up their children as Welsh speakers.
      The Bill can act as the culmination of a gradual turnround that has been taking place since shortly after the first world war. The Government's attitude to the Welsh language has been converted: rather than trying to uproot it, on the basis that it was bad for everyone in Wales to speak Welsh—that it held them back from economic expansion—they have gradually perceived that that approach constitutes a denial of rights, identity and people's connection with their historic roots.
      The Government are introducing a Welsh Language Bill, but they have made no reference to what it seeks to achieve. As I have said, we want it to represent the culmination of the process that I have described. We believe that the Government should not only cease to try to uproot the language and get rid of it altogether, but confer official status on it to right the wrongs of the period' between the 16th and 19th centuries.
      The Secretary of State is gradually learning about matters Welsh. He experienced a great conversion on the road to St. Mellons in regard to unmarried mothers: indeed, he thinks that he may be the first person to speak about the matter publicly in Wales. Strangely enough, however, the main attempt to uproot the language was made by commissioners appointed by the House in the 1840s. The House was extremely worried about the Rebecca and Merthyr riots and about the Chartists; so three commissioners were sent to try to work out what was wrong with the Welsh.
      The commissioners said that there were two things wrong with the Welsh: they kept having babies without marrying and they spoke Welsh. I must tell the Secretary of State that the St. Mellons estate had not been built at that time. The commissioners arrived in Wales knowing nothing about it and believing that there was something seriously wrong with the Welsh—largely because they could not understand them and because their habits did not seem to meet the standards of Balliol or Wokingham.
      The Bill provides an opportunity to remedy that damage and repression. I commend new clause I to the House.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: I shall be brief because I am anxious not to take time from hon. Members whose names are appended to the new clauses, and I wish only to make a point of principle in relation to those clauses.
      1144
      The Bill starts with a preamble, as do all measures. But any lawyer who is used to addressing courts on the meaning of statutes knows that it is rarely appropriate, and even more rarely helpful, to address the court on the preamble. The substance of any Act of Parliament is contained in the text, not in the preamble.
      When examining a Bill of this kind, one looks to clause I for the principle underlying the measure. What are the people being told? Parliament speaks to the people of Wales by the way it acts in the measure. The message that clause l sends to the people of Wales is that there shall be established a Welsh Language Board.
      The establishment of that body has been welcomed. It has already done some excellent work, work which in some ways surpasses the excellence of the Bill. The creation of a statutory Welsh Language Board is at least equally welcome, but the people of Wales will not be satisfied with the creation of such a board and the consequent legal framework as an end in itself.
      We have few opportunities to create for Wales legislation which is as specific and momentous as this. So let us not run away from this opportunity to do something momentous for Wales. Many people in Wales are speaking Welsh fluently, many children from non-Welsh speaking homes are learning to speak Welsh fluently and many youngsters who have perhaps learnt Welsh at school and not at home have become fluent speakers. They are ambitious, not to leave but to stay in Wales.
      We should recognise those achievements by giving Welsh a status that is not a vague statement in the preamble to the Bill but is recognised in the first clause as setting out the aspiration of the measure and the determination of Parliament to provide something new and momentous for the people of Wales.
      There could be no better way to achieve that than by giving Welsh its true and proper official status as an equal language in Wales in all official respects. I have read with care all the reasons that have been given for preferring the phrase "equal validity" and leaving it in the preamble, compared with giving the Welsh language enacted official status in the body of the measure.
      The reasons given for that preference seem to be distilled into an assertion that there may be legal problems and that it may do nothing more than provide work for lawyers. Perhaps I should declare my interest as a lawyer practising in Wales. I have done that for the last 21 years. I am proud of that achievement—[Interruption.]—and I answer the catcalls by saying that, in a sense, I have been doing it for part of this week. I make no apology for fulfilling public duty in Wales in the courts earlier this week. Indeed, there are other Welsh lawyers in the House today who fulfil public duties in Wales of a similar nature, and there are others who would probably like to do so.
      We in Parliament should not be afraid to take the occasional risk of doing something bold which might mean the Government, the Welsh Language Board or some other public body finding itself the subject of an application for judicial review because it is not putting into effect the terms of the Act, as the measure will become. Without the availability of judicial review, by which citizens of Wales can establish that the status of the Welsh language has been sustained, what will the Bill really be worth?

      1145
      5.15 pm
      I do not demur from the view that goodwill for the Welsh language is the subject of attempted expression in the Bill. I do not say that the Government have acted out of bad faith. I simply suggest that by running away from the declaration of official status for Welsh-—I much prefer new clauses 2 and 8 to new clause l—the Government are running away from the aspirations of the people of Wales.
      Mr. Roger Evans: If Welsh had official status under new clause l, what, as a matter of law, would that mean? Would it mean that anybody—however few people in a constituency spoke Welsh; only 2 per cent. of my constituents say that they speak Welsh—could insist that community councils or local authorities must conduct their business in Welsh and publish their records, minutes and reports in Welsh? That would seem to be the inevitable general universal application of the type of argument and drafting that the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting.
      Mr. Carlile: The simple answer to that question is no. There is nothing in the new clauses which would lay down a requirement that the sort of extreme action to which the hon. Gentleman referred would have to be taken. I agree that it would be absurd for a community council in his constituency, in which 2 per cent. of the population speak Welsh as their first language, to have to publish minutes in the Welsh language. Indeed, in my constituency some community councils would find it extremely difficult to publish minutes in the Welsh language.
      That is beside the point. We are not speaking of a requirement that every document should be in the Welsh language. To insist on that would be a patent absurdity. We are talking about the status of the Welsh language, and the Government should recognise that the only way to enable the aspirations of the people of Wales to be met by the Bill is to include that declaration of official status.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: I need not delay the House because my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) covered most aspects of Welsh history relating to the matters that we are discussing.
      New clause l takes a minimalist approach. It is an attempt to draw the Government beyond the statement in the preamble. They should find our proposal acceptable because it provides a way to give definition to the official status of the Welsh language in Wales alongside that of English.
      Some weeks ago, the Welsh Language Board wrote to hon. Members pointing out that for the new board and its chairman to be effective, the Welsh language should have official status in Wales. More recently, to my surprise, the former Member of the European Parliament for North Wales, Beata Brookes, came out strongly in favour of the Welsh language having official status. I am sure that she is well known to Conservative Members. I imagine that, privately, she will have forcibly told them her views.
      I shall read one sentence from her letter, as chairwoman of the Welsh Consumer Council, to remind Conservative Members of the views of that redoubtable lady. She wrote:
      "But unless the Welsh language is given official status, the ability of the Board to give real support to the language will be seriously undermined".
      I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will take full account of her words.
      1146
      My constituent who was the chairman of the Welsh Language Board and who recommended that it should have official status was unable to continue as chairman of the board. I do not know whether it was because the Government did not offer him the job or whether he did not wish to continue, but whatever the circumstances, there is no doubt that, given his view that it was essential for the Welsh language to have official status, he could not continue as chairman because that was not the will of the Government.
      I hope today that the Government will at least accept new clause 1. I hope that they will accept new clause 2 as well, but let us hope that, on the ground of accepting a minimal compromise solution, they will accept new clause 1.
      Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: We are as much concerned with the status of the Welsh language as we are with the establishment of the Welsh Language Board. The feeling in Wales is that without a solution to the former, the latter will be an incomplete vehicle which will be hampered from the very beginning in the object for which it was set up.
      New clause 2, to which I speak, is of immense practical importance as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has said. It is of even greater psychological importance.
      Time and again on Second Reading, in Committee and in debates in the other place, the Government's view has been that a declaration of official status for the language would somehow open up a legal can of worms or an administrative Pandora's box.
      The Welsh Office view is best described as excessive legal caution. Time and again we are told that the lawyers have come out against a declaration, saying that the language already enjoys official status in Wales. However, if that is true, why can we not encapsulate it in legislation so that there can be no doubt whatsoever?
      The noble Earl Ferrers, on several occasions in the other place, referred to the need to clarify the position of the language and this is a great opportunity so to do. He said:
      "The concept of Welsh being an official language raises similar concepts of definition and uncertainty. It is the Government view that whatever uncertainty there may have been in the past concerning the official language of Welsh, it should be removed by the Bill."—[official Report, House of Lords, 2 February 1993; Vol. 542, c. 152.]
      In reality, there is no lack of clarity. The Welsh speaker in Wales is a second class citizen in his or her own country and the amendment tries to address that. Failure to embody a declaration of status, even in the simplest terms, will merely perpetuate that unacceptable position. Worse still, it will defeat the object of the Bill.
      The noble lord Lord Williams said in the other place that all the good in the rest of the Bill will be lost without a declaration of status. He said that there were many helpful measures in the Bill and I add my voice to that. I am not here to be a full-time critic, but without a declaration of status it will be an empty Bill.
      The noble lord Lord Hooson said that it is necessary to have a declaration of this kind within the Act to make it totally acceptable and I shall return to that in a few minutes.
      The Welsh Language Board has stated its clear view that a declaration is vital. The board took the view it

      1147
      should have been encapsulated in the long title. That could and should have been provided for; what is more, it could have been drafted without any problem whatsoever.
      Since the some what turbulent passage of the Bill through the House, the immediate past chairman of the Welsh Language Board, Mr. John Elfed Jones, a man whose obvious virtues are held in high regard by many in the Chamber and elsewhere, has expressed his opinion. On a previous occasion, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) said somewhat mischievously that Mr. John Elfed Jones had done more for the language than Mr. Saunders Lewis.
      I shall not debase the debate by pursuing that point, but it typifies the Government's esteem for Mr. John Elfed Jones who wrote to the Standing Committee on 18 June saying that, if the Bill omitted to include a declaration of status, the arguing and the tension in Wales would persist. Furthermore, and all-importantly, he said that the work of the board would be hampered ab initio and he spoke with the authority of having chaired the board.
      When I raised that important point with the Minister of State, I received a sarcastic comment from him to the effect that anything that that gentleman says is unacceptable to the Government. He went on to say, with a smile on his face, that the comment was made ex cathedra, referring to the fact that that gentleman had left his post. However, ex cathedra, in cathedra, in chapel or anywhere else, thousands of people in Wales agree with the past chairman of the board that there must be a declaration of status embodied in the Bill. By failing to make such a declaration after decades of waiting and agonising delay, the Government will fail the people of Wales.
      I have frequently said that I welcome the fact that the debates were not characterised by political point scoring. More importantly, the language was not sullied by such a scenario, but it should be asked whether it is acceptable for the Government in Westminster to deny the Welsh people. In any event, they have no mandate to rule Wales. They packed the Standing Committee with parachutists from England, people who went there to read their correspondence, who knew nothing about the Welsh language and cared even less. We had to argue our case against that brick wall. The Welsh language is our most valuable asset and we have to continue arguing against that dumb opposition.
      My amendment in favour of Welsh jury trials was lost on the casting vote of the Chair. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), somewhat uncharacteristically, sided with the Government. The cards were yet again stacked against the Welsh people. I deeply regret that I, who live my life through the medium of the Welsh language, have to plead, here in London, for the very existence of my own language. I am dismayed and angry about it.
      In the past few weeks, many eminent people have been writing to No. 10. They include judges, academics, bishops and the Archbishop himself, pleading with the Government to think again. My hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) raised the matter with the Prime Minister who said in his usual bumbling way that the language had an official status but no doubt we will be denied that in statute today.
      Even the Government's most ardent supporter and apologist, Miss Beata Brookes, the chairwoman of the Welsh Consumer Council and of the Conservative party
      1148
      for Wales, wrote to all right hon. and hon. Members on 12 July. Her letter has been referred to, but it is important none the less. It states:
      "unless the Welsh langugage is given official status, the ability of the Board to give real support to the language will be seriously undermined. The Welsh Consumer Council has consistently argued, in its response to Fforwm Iaith's Strategy and the Welsh Language Bill, that there needs to be"—
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Win Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is concentrating on an official status for the Welsh language in Wales. Has he had the opportunity to ask his fellow party member, who now holds a distinguished position of power and influence in this matter, whether he intends to treat Welsh as though it has official status in Wales?
      Mr. Llwyd: I am aware that the person concerned—Lord Elis Thomas—is within the confines of the House at this moment. I sincerely hope that he hears the pleas of hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. Had any hon. Members on the Conservative Benches any regard for the language, there would be pleas from them also. I have no doubt that Lord Elis Thomas will take into account what has been said today.
      Has the Minister accepted the view of many eminent people in Wales? There is no doubt that English is, de facto, an official language in Wales. It runs through every piece of legislation, going back over centuries. Because of that, the Welsh language has been treated as inferior. We now have an opportunity to put that right. Failure to do so will be to fail the people of Wales.
      On past occasions, I have referred to the wealth of good will in Wales towards the language and the large number of people each year who seek to learn it. I applaud and welcome that. I also applaud the fact that many of those who have moved to Wales recognise the need to nurture the language and its culture. They are aware of the great value that attaches to the language.
      When the Bill was first presented, there was a consensus. It did not meet with any vociferous opposition because we all accepted that there was good will behind it. For reasons that I have already explained, the language was not treated as a political football because a consensus was reached on the implicit understanding that the Government would table numerous strengthening amendments. Where are they? Last December we were told, "Don't worry—it is not what you want, but it will be strengthened." Now, after a great deal of debate, not one of the 70 or more amendments tabled by the Opposition parties has been accepted by the Government. That is a said indictment of the 'Government and of their real intention.
      The Minister said that he would strengthen the Bill—have we all been duped?
      Mr. Wigley: My hon. Friend could also ask whether the members of the Welsh Language Board have been duped. They were on the point of resigning last December, and would have resigned were it not for the Minister's promise that the Bill would be strengthened. Were they duped, too? Has everybody been duped at every stage simply to pass a Bill that does not give the Welsh language the rights to which it is entitled'?
      Mr. Llwyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, which are heartfelt across the party divide.

      1149
      Because not a single amendment was accepted by the Government, they have driven a coach and horses through the welcome consensus that they enjoyed when the Bill was first presented. Not only has the consensus in the Chamber disappeared, but in Wales the mood is one of anger, betrayal and exasperation. Many societies feel that their reasoned arguments have been dispatched without consideration or comment.
      We have presented the Minister with numerous amendments dealing with the official status of the Welsh language. Some of them were designed to meet his objection that granting official status would militate against the language's perceived status in other legislation. Some amendments were designed to meet the opposite view, which he also gave us, that the wording covered too broad an application. Some amendments were drafted by eminent lawyers in Wales. They have knowledge of the everyday working of the language in Wales and of the various pieces of legislation. It was all to no avail.
      The issue is important not just in this Chamber and in the United Kingdom, but in Europe. We will soon again be considering the Maastricht Bill; the Government must be wondering what that has in store for them. They have yet to ratify the charter on minority languages. In Committee, we were told that they were still considering it. I do not understand why they have had to take nine months to do so. I sincerely hope that that consideration will come to fruition before too long. If it does not and if the new clause fails, the language will not be official and neither will it have the protection of a minority language in Europe. It will be denied support from both this Chamber and the European Chamber. The Irish language has been recognised as an official language in Europe and it will receive European assistance. Whatever the outcome of our sad proceedings tonight, I hope that the Government will again consider the charter, without further hopeless prevarication.
      The retired archdruid of Wales, Dr. William George—a person whose views I hold in great regard—said about the Bill that half a loaf is better than no bread. On this occasion, I must disagree with him. The half loaf is stale and it will not provide sustenance to the Welsh language. If the new clause does not succeed, history will record that a truly golden opportunity has been missed, to the great sadness of hon. Members and the people of Wales.
      Some months ago, Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg and other societies urged me to vote down the Bill at the first opportunity. I said that as a Member representing a Welsh constituency, my job was to try to strengthen the Bill. I reminded them that, last Christmas, the Minister had said that it would be strengthened. It was because I was confident of that that I told them that I would not vote against it.
      The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): Does not the hon. Gentleman regard the amendments that we have made to the Bill—21 in all—as strengthening it? Have not we strengthened it by what we have said about written evidence, about charities and by our changes to company legislation? I resent some of the comments made by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
      Mr. Llwyd: Those amendments concern the minutiae of the Bill. I agree that the changes to company law, those
      1150
      relating to charities and the changes to one or two other words are welcome. However, the core issue is that for centuries the Welsh language has been treated as inferior, yet nothing in the Bill deals with that problem. I do not deny that there have been some cosmetic changes, one or two of them quite substantial—but by and large the important amendments dealing with the core issue have been ignored by the Government. [Interruption.] It appears that those of us who live and work in Wales do not know as much about Wales as those who live and work across the border. That is what they think and it saddens me.
      If the new clause is not successful, it will be a betrayal of the people of Wales and a denial of their legitimate aspirations. The Government will be directly responsible for any divisiveness and disharmony. I urge hon. Members to vote for the new clause.
      Mr. Roger Evans: What does new clause 1 as drafted mean? Does the phrase "official status" carry any legal practical weight whatever? If it does, it is dangerous, general and universal, and undermines the good will behind the Bill. If it is simply window dressing, what is the point of putting it in, except as a symbol? I respect the need for a symbol, but perhaps it would have been better to have put a grand statement in the preface, as Henry VIII's advisers would no doubt have done.
      Mr. Llwyd: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening to me, but I tried to make the explanation fairly explicit. One short example is the fact that Welsh is currently denied any assistance from the European sphere. That is one aspect that the hon. Gentleman may like to ponder.
      Mr. Evans: The effect in Europe is not clear. If the phrase had any meaning, the immediate practical effect of the amendment and others like it would be that, instead of a system that has been most carefully devised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, with piecemeal schemes where they are appropriate and reasonably practical in the circumstances, we should have a general, universal rule that had to be applied equally in all circumstances.
      I am prepared to listen to and even to accept the argument that there is something to be said for putting something suitably Welsh and passionate into the preamble to address the point that has been made—although it is now too late to do so. However, I object strongly to the corruption of the statute book by grandiloquent, general, American-sounding statements such as "the pursuit of happiness", which are legally imprecise and which will undoubtedly lead to litigation.
      I am not satisfied by the answer given by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) when I asked him what more we should have than we have at present if Welsh were to have a statutory official status. Would an individual citizen in Wales be entitled to have a document addressed to him in Welsh? Would he be entitled to have the committee minutes of my community council given to him in Welsh? What does the phrase mean? If the amendments were accepted, such decisions would have to be taken by the High Court, not by an expert body such as the Welsh Language Board.
      My right hon. Friend has devised a scheme whereby the needs of every part of Wales would be covered. The Bill is a monumental historical achievement. It is undoubtedly the best thing that has happened to the Welsh language for

      1151
      half a millennium and it is deeply saddening that an imaginative, effective Bill, well drafted to promote good will in Wales, should be so unfairly belittled.
      Mr. Martyn Jones: I shall not detain the House too long, because I know that many Members wish to speak and there is a lot of business to conduct on the Bill.
      As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) told us, Lord Ferrers said in the other place:
      "Welsh already enjoys official status"—[Official Report. House of Lords, 25 February 1993; Vol. 543, c. 347.]
      If that is the case, and if that is the Government's view, is it too naive to expect them to state the fact in the Bill? I do not believe so. That status should be declared in the Bill.
      It has been argued that that is not necessary, because the fact that Welsh is an official language is implicitly recognised in other statutes. However, the Bill must be the right place in which duly to recognise the statutory position of the Welsh language. If the legislation had been considered by the Welsh Grand Committee, as it should have been according to the rules of the House, the Welsh language would have been given official status and the Bill would have been stronger. It would have been considered by Members from Wales and there would have been more Members in the Chamber tonight. As we see, the Conservative Members who do not represent seats in Wales and yet were on the Committee have not chosen to come here tonight. Presumably they have decided to deal with their mail somewhere else.
      The Bill should promote the greater use of the language, which would promote its development and give it equal validity with English in the life of Wales. We have heard many quotations tonight, but here is another, from the Welsh Language Board:
      "Equal validity for the Welsh and English languages in Wales is a prerequisite for a fair society. Any status for the Welsh language that falls short of this is demeaning".
      It demeans the Welsh language.
      We have already heard some history tonight. Welsh is the oldest language in the United Kingdom. The Gododdin, the oldest Welsh document, dates from the 9th century, I believe, so Welsh is considerably older than the English that is known and used in the House today.
      The Government's policies will once again fail the people of Wales unless the principle of official status for Welsh is incorporated in the Bill. That is a fundamental request and if it were granted it would give the Welsh language new life and vigour. The Welsh Language Board put the position succinctly in paragraph 36 of its recommendations for a new Welsh Language Act:
      "Unless it be declared by an Act of Parliament that the Welsh language shall have equality of status with the English language it will continue in its existing state of inequality. It is therefore imperative that Parliament uses this opportunity to right some wrongs of the past and to provide the Welsh language with the status it deserves".
      If our new clause is not accepted, an historic opportunity to right 450 years of wrong done to the language will have been missed.
      Unlike the hon. Member of Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, I shall not oppose Third Reading, if only on the ground that half a loaf is better than no bread. I agree that the half loaf is probably stale, but at least it is something. It is a shame that we shall have only that stale half loaf and not a whole loaf for the people of Wales.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Donald Anderson: I shall be brief, not only because what I wanted to say has been said already, but because of my deep reverence for the Whips. I heard what the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) said about the Welsh Language Board being duped and his extremely passionate denunciation. I hope that he will have a brief word with Lord Elis Thomas and ask him to consider his position.
      The key difference between the two sides of the House is that the Government have clearly failed to understand the importance of symbolism for the language. New clause 1 offers them an olive branch and a way out. We do not know what "official status" and "a basis of equality" mean precisely, but whatever they mean we want Welsh to have the same status as English. I am not sure whether there is a Welsh word for "me too-ism". My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) suggests "fi hefyd-ism". If it is good enough for them, it is good enough for us.
      Mr. Cynog Dafis: The Bill has been received in Wales with a deep disappointment, felt most by those who are most committed to the future of the Welsh language—those who have campaigned long and hard to bring about such a Bill, and without whom the Bill would never have been introduced.
      The disappointment springs first from the total failure to establish in the Bill rights of any kind—crucially, perhaps, the right to receive education through the medium of the Welsh language. The second disappointment is the failure to make an unequivocal declaration of official and equal status. There is talk about
      "the principle that in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice in Wales the English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality".
      However, that statement is ambiguous and the ambiguity is compounded by phrases such as,
      "so far as is appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable".
      The principle is hedged about by all kinds of conditions, so it is both ambiguous and limited in scope. As we shall no doubt hear later, there is no reference to the privatised utilities and other such organisations.
      Campaigners for the Welsh language have seen a language Act not simply as a kind of totem, nor even as a symbol, but as a necessary basis for a practical process and for the restoration of the Welsh language to its proper position in the life of Wales. That is what the campaign for a Welsh Language Act has been all about. To use current jargon, the campaign has been designed to set in motion a process that some people call the reversal of language shift. That means bringing about an ever-wider knowledge and use of the Welsh language in Wales. The Welsh language has been undergoing the contrary process to that for the past century.
      Reversing language shift is no mean task. It is a serious business and is difficult to achieve, although not impossible. It is a major task that requires a great deal of understanding and much commitment of resources. Whether or not that task is undertaken, how seriously it is attempted and its prospects of success depend on the good will of one person—the Secretary of State for Wales, whoever he or she may be at the time. That is deeply

      1153
      unsatisfactory. In the absence of the establishment of rights and of an unequivocal declaration of official status, my colleagues and I find it impossible to support the Bill.
      Despite what I have said so far, I am prepared to concede that those who drafted the Bill, and in particular the Minister of State, seem to have been well intentioned. Theoretically, through the mechanism of the schemes, much could be achieved on certain conditions. What are the conditions which must be fulfilled? [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] I am entitled to say what I want to say and I am trying to do that. I believe that I am saying something that has not been said before.
      What are the conditions which must be fulfilled to ensure that the schemes' mechanism delivers something? The membership of the board must be determined on the basis of a commitment to, and an understanding of, the needs of the Welsh language. It must be based on that and not merely on acceptability to the Government of the day. The board's professional staff should have commitment, application, knowledge and ability. The board must be adequately resourced to fulfil its extraordinarily broad remit. It must be adequately staffed to carry out the complex procedures of dealing with the schemes with expedition to provide momentum to the process of increasing knowledge and use of the language. Momentum is all-important at this stage. At the end of the day, the legislation and the board should have the backing of the Secretary of State.
      If those conditions are met, the Bill might provide the means to strengthen the position of the Welsh language. In addition, the Bill might create a new political context within which voluntary campaigning and action on behalf of the Welsh language could flourish.
      If those conditions are not fulfilled—and that is what we fear—there will be disenchantment and frustration. We have no doubt about which of those two scenarios we want to be fulfilled. That is why we are so disappointed at the failure to establish rights and incorporate a statement on the principle of status. We want the positive scenario to reign in relation to the Welsh language in Wales.
      The irony is that the nature of the Bill that has emerged, and the success that may attend it, depend on the political will of the Government of the day in London. If I may say so, that places a heavy responsibility on that Government.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: I have been accused of excessive legal caution. I have been urged by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) to take a risk. I have been told by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) that I am not concerned about symbolism. I must remind the House that we are legislating. It is all very well to include something in a Bill which gives us a great glow of satisfaction, but it may not actually mean anything.
      Let me be quite clear. The Government start from the simple premise that the Welsh language already enjoys "official status" and can therefore be said to be an official language in Wales. That is, of course, what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on Tuesday.
      Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister give way?
      Sir Wyn Roberts: While the Bill serves to confirm the status which the language enjoys, it is not the intention of the Bill to confer that status on the language—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Hon. Members on both sides of the House should contain themselves and listen to the Minister. This is an important subject and hon. Members want to listen to the Minister.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: I was saying that this immediately gives rise to one of my concerns with some of the general declarations of status that have been proposed in the new clauses. If the purpose of the Bill is seen to be to confer "official status" upon the Welsh language, it follows that the language does not currently enjoy that status. The Government's view is that it does.
      Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister give way now?
      Sir Wyn Roberts: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
      I believe that that ignores the current reality and would lessen the status of the language in matters not covered by schemes. That is the acid test and one of the criteria that we have applied to the new clauses.
      The other criterion which, as I explained in Committee, we have applied to the proposals on this matter was that amendments on status should not have the effect of including in the Bill a general declaration of uncertain effect which could be interpreted only by the courts. The amendments should not include a provision which could be interpreted as corresponding to statutory bilingualism and they should not constrain the status of the language so as to be entirely dependent upon measures provided for in the Bill.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) was quite right to ask about the meaning of the phrase "official status". He is well aware of the point that I am making. The inclusion of that phrase would have an uncertain effect and lead to confusion. We do not require the inclusion of the phrase "official status" in the Bill to empower the board to perform its function which is already covered by other clauses.
      Mr. Wigley: The Minister said that there is doubt about the meaning of the term "official status". Only a few moments ago, he said that Welsh has official status. He cannot have it both ways. There may be doubts about the meaning of the "basis of equality", but he includes that in the Bill although it is open to interpretation.
      A case in the European courts involving a Dutch citizen and the Irish Government related to whether the Irish language was recognised as an official language within Ireland. Unless the Welsh language is recognised in law as having official status within Wales, we are open to similar cases being taken in the European courts. This matter must be cleared up now in the context of the Bill. If it is not cleared up tonight, it should be cleared up in the other place when the Bill finally returns there.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: The official status of the language in Europe can arise only from the unanimous agreement of the European Council. It does not depend on there being a legal declaration of status in domestic law in this country. I could tell the hon. Gentleman much about the situation in Europe because I have examined it most

      1155
      carefully. Passage of the Bill and its recognition of the Welsh language and its official status could be extremely helpful to the Welsh language in Europe.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the Welsh language now has official status in Wales, whatever that might strictly mean. Is not his fear that, if it is written into the statute, it will become an official language of the United Kingdom? Is not that the difference?
      6 pm
      Sir Wyn Roberts: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman heard what I said and what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on Tuesday—namely, that Welsh is an official language in this country. That does not have to be stated in law. It is not stated in law in respect of English. English is also an official language.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: The right hon. Gentleman said something interesting in answer to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). Does the Minister say that Welsh is an official language in the United Kingdom, or does he say that it is an official language merely in Wales? There seems to be great confusion about that and, of itself, that confusion is surely evidence for defining status clearly in the Bill.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that Welsh is an official language. The hon. and learned Gentleman should read what my right hon. Friend and I have said.
      Mr. Llwyd: If, as the Minister says, Welsh is an official language, surely his answer to me about the minority charter should have been that we cannot ratify it because it is an official language.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is somewhat confused about the status of the European charter. We are still considering whether we should subscribe to it and take further steps. The hon. Gentleman is aware that we meet all the requirements of that charter in respect of Welsh.
      I have considered the new clauses very carefully. They do not meet our requirements and they do not meet the criteria that I have set out. The inclusion of any of the new clauses would be contrary to the preamble of the Bill and they would certainly not provide a proper basis for the Welsh Language Board to pursue its function of promoting and facilitating use of the Welsh language.
      Mr. Morgan: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister should be aware that what he said about not wishing to express noble declaratory sentiments is in absolute contrast with what the Secretary of State said yesterday about local government. The Secretary of State said that we must legislate in a way that resonates with the people and agrees with the people's sentiments in respect of local government reform. The same applies on Thursdays as applies on Wednesdays. One cannot enunciate a principle one day and deny it the following day.
      In the main, the Minister addressed objections to the declaratory statements which characterise new clause 2. He barely addressed new clause I, which would align the status of the Welsh language by way of official status in Wales with the de facto and de jure status of the English
      1156
      language. The right hon. Gentleman shuffled papers and accepted interventions in a way that I have never seen him do before. He criticised the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) for being in a state of confusion. Perhaps the confusion is among Conservative Members. Perhaps the Minister has lost a battle that might have gone to Cabinet.
      A Bill which merely transfers from the Welsh Office to the new Welsh Language Board the right to hand out lollipops to the National Eisteddfod and the Welsh Books Council will not satisfy the demands of the people of Wales. The Government must recognise that. Therefore, I ask right hon. and hon. Members to support us in the Lobby.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 173.

      Division No. 335]

      [6.05 pm

      AYES

      Ainger, Nick

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Ashton, Joe

      Hutton, John

      Barnes, Harry

      Illsley, Eric

      Bayley, Hugh

      Jamieson, David

      Benton, Joe

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Betts, Clive

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Boyce, Jimmy

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Bradley, Keith

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Byers, Stephen

      Jowell, Tessa

      Callaghan, Jim

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Lewis, Terry

      Clapham, Michael

      Livingstone, Ken

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Connarty, Michael

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      McAllion, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Cox, Tom

      Macdonald, Calum

      Cryer, Bob

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Cummings, John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Dafis, Cynog

      Madden, Max

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Mahon, Alice

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Mandelson, Peter

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

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Dewar, Donald

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Dixon, Don

      Martlew, Eric

      Dowd, Jim

      Meale, Alan

      Eastham, Ken

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Enright, Derek

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Etherington, Bill

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Faulds, Andrew

      Morley, Elliot

      Flynn, Paul

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Foulkes, George

      Mullin, Chris

      Gerrard, Neil

      Murphy, Paul

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Patchett, Terry

      Godsiff, Roger

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Prescott, John

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Gunnell, John

      Rendel, David

      Hain, Peter

      Rogers, Allan

      Hall, Mike

      Rowlands, Ted

      Hanson, David

      Ruddock, Joan

      Hendron, Dr Joe

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Heppell, John

      Simpson, Alan

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hoey, Kate

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      1157

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

      Wigley, Dafydd

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

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Wise, Audrey

      Stott, Roger

      Worthington, Tony

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Vaz, Keith

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wallace, James

      Mr. John Spellar and

      Watson, Mike

      Mr. Ray Powell.

      Wicks, Malcolm

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Harris, David

      Alexander, Richard

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Amess, David

      Heald, Oliver

      Arbuthnot, James

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Hendry, Charles

      Ashby, David

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Atkins, Robert

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Horam, John

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

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

      Baldry, Tony

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Bates, Michael

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Hunter, Andrew

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Jack, Michael

      Booth, Hartley

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Jessel, Toby

      Bowden, Andrew

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Bowis, John

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Brazier, Julian

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Jopling. Rt Hon Michael

      Burns, Simon

      Key, Robert

      Burt, Alistair

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Carrington, Matthew

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Cash, William

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Clappison, James

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Legg, Barry

      Colvin, Michael

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Congdon, David

      Lidington, David

      Conway, Derek

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Lord, Michael

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Day, Stephen

      MacKay, Andrew

      Dover, Den

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Duncan, Alan

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Malone, Gerald

      Dunn, Bob

      Mans, Keith

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Eggar, Tim

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Elletson, Harold

      Merchant, Piers

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Milligan, Stephen

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Faber, David

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Fabricant, Michael

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Page, Richard

      Forman, Nigel

      Paice, James

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Pickles, Eric

      French, Douglas

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Gale, Roger

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Gallie, Phil

      Rathbone, Tim

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Richards, Rod

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Riddick, Graham

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Hague, William

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      1158

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Thurnham, Peter

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Tracey, Richard

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Tredinnick, David

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Trend, Michael

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Viggers, Peter

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Waller, Gary

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Waterson, Nigel

      Sproat, Iain

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Whitney, Ray

      Stephen, Michael

      Whittingdale, John

      Stern, Michael

      Willetts, David

      Streeter, Gary

      Wood, Timothy

      Sweeney, Walter

      Sykes, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mr. David Lightbown and

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Mr. Michael Brown.

      Thomason, Roy

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 3

      PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION (WELSH LANGUAGE)
      '.—(1) For the purpose of conducting investigations in accordance with subsection (3) below, the Board, after having consulted the Secretary of State, shall appoint a Commissioner, to be known as the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (Welsh Language).
      (2) The Commissioner shall be appointed within twelve months from the date on which the Board is established.
      (3) The Commissioner may investigate any action taken by or on behalf of a public body in respect of the preparation or carrying out of a scheme, in any case where—

      (a) a written complaint is duly made to a member of the House of Commons by a member of the public who claims to have sustained injustice in consequence of maladministration in connection with the action so taken; and

      (b) the complaint is referred to the Commissioner, with the consent of the person who made it, by a member of that House with a request to conduct an investigation thereon.

      (4) The Commissioner may exercise the powers to conduct investigations, call for evidence and issue reports referred to in sections 7 to 10 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.
      (5) The Commissioner may appoint such staff as he may determine, with the approval of the Secretary of State and the Treasury as to numbers and conditions of service.
      (6) The Commissioner and his staff shall receive such remuneration, travelling and other allowances, and pension entitlements as the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, may determine.'.—[Mr. Alan W. Williams].
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Alan W. Williams: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause provides for the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration for Welsh language matters—that is, an ombudsman specifically for Welsh language matters.
      In Committee, we discussed at some length the complaints procedure in clauses 17 to 20. When there is a complaint against the operations of the Welsh Language Board, the board is required to set up an investigation. It was pointed out by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd

      1159
      Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) that the procedure may be inadequate. An amendment tabled by Plaid Cymru called for a judicial review procedure if the Welsh Language Board is not receptive to a complainant.
      Under the new clause, the Welsh Language Board could take over such complaints. It would require the board, once established, to initiate discussions with the Welsh Office for the establishment of an ombudsman on language matters within 12 months of the language board being set up. That ombudsman would be a neutral referee, as we are used to in local government affairs.
      When the ombudsman service was introduced, it was a novelty to British administration, but, over the years, it has earned the tremendous respect of the general public and local authorities. It is unbiased, thorough and fearless. Generally, when recommendations are made, the ombudsman recommends fair solutions to, and reasonable settlements for, all problems.
      In the correspondence that we received before the Bill was introduced, the Welsh Language Forum pointed out the need for a neutral arbiter. The forum proposed a Bwrdd Cymodi Ieithyddol. That is a language reconciliation board. The Welsh Consumer Council in its submission to us elaborated in detail on the need for an independent complaints procedure. In January 1993, all Welsh Members received a briefing on the Bill from the council. In paragraph 9 it says of the language board:
      "We argued that an organisation set up `to promote and protect' the Welsh language could not also provide a complaints and conciliation service."
      The council then recommends an ombudsman to handle complaints. It further states:
      "The positive handling of complaints and prejudice is an extremely difficult matter. Proper complaints procedures are central to consumer rights."
      The one cannot exist without the other. My hon. Friends and I believe that there is a need for a neutral arbiter.
      Complainants can come from both sides of the fence. An individual may not be able to get a particular service in Welsh and may find that the Welsh Language Board is deaf to complaints. The complaint could be about a scheme devised by a public body not being sufficiently rigorous in a particular district, or the complaint could relate to employment.
      There is the danger of employment discrimination if a public body is over-zealous in insisting on Welsh speaking being a requirement for too many jobs. The Bill establishes the Welsh Language Board to promote the language—very properly. A complainant on one side of the fence would not expect justice from such a board.
      At present, the Race Relations Act 1976 is the only vehicle for complaints. Later, under a new clause, we shall discuss the inappropriateness of that Act. Its use it not liked by the people of Wales.
      The Labour party document before the last election, entitled "The Better Way for the Welsh Language",states:
      "Labour believes that the Race Relations Act is not an ideal mechanism for dealing with abuses in this field."
      Mr. Allan Rogers: I have been trying to understand the new clause. My hon. Friend raises the issue of people seeking employment complaining of discrimination because they do not speak Welsh. Many jobs in public bodies in Wales require Welsh. That prevents a large number of people—90 per cent. of my constituents—from annlying. How would they act under this procedure?
      1160
      I am not saying that I am against positive discrimination. It must exist to solve the problems of history, but how would my constituents act and what would the ombudsman do? Would he say that there had been an offence against the law or would he provide a conciliation and arbitration service? I find it difficult to see the mechanics under which this will operate.
      Mr. WilliamsThe issue is complicated and, obviously, there are strong emotions on both sides. The Bill makes frequent use of the words "reasonably practicable" and "appropriate in the circumstances". What are the accurate definitions of those terms? There must be a pragmatic definition. The situation in the Rhondda will be different from that in Cardiff, Dyfed or Gwynedd. We need some sort of referee to ensure that the interpretation of those terms is fair to English speakers and Welsh speakers in particular communities. I acknowledge that there are dangers. I tabled the new clause in an attempt to deal with the complex problem of employment discrimination.
      I would expect there to be more individual complaints about an inadequate service in Welsh than from the other side of the fence. As I said earlier, the Labour party recognised the problem before the last election and suggested in its policy document the establishment of an ombudsman.
      All Opposition Members want a much stronger language Bill than the Government have presented. We believe strongly in the principle of equality for the Welsh language and a status for it no less than that of English in Wales. At the same time, we want the legislation to be fairly administered to both Welsh and English speakers. The Bill simply embeds a complaints procedure in the Welsh Language Board. It does not provide a neutral arbiter. We need an ombudsman to whom to refer complaints.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: It may be helpful if I explain how the Government see the relationship between the Welsh Language Board and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the local government ombudsman and the health service commissioner.
      Schedule 1 makes it clear that the board will be an organisation whose activities may be the subject of an investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner. The commissioner will be able to investigate complaints of maladministration made against the board. The existence of the board may influence the way in which the commissioner investigates complaints of maladministration made against other public bodies that come within his jurisdiction, which concern the use of the Welsh language.
      To the extent that such cases involve the operation of Welsh language schemes under the Bill, we envisage that the commissioner and the board would have to reach agreement on the extent to which they would expect the machinery that we are providing for the board to investigate complaints to have been used before the commissioner decides to investigate. That would be a matter for the commissioner to decide in the light of individual cases.
      We would expect similar considerations to apply to the bodies that come within the purview of the local government ombudsman and the national health service commissioner. The Bill provides a means of redress for individuals who believe that they have been disadvantaged by the operation of a scheme.
      Mr. Rogers: The Minister mentioned two public areas: health and local government. He has said that the ombudsman has a right to look into problems of discrimination. Often when we refer a case to the ombudsman he says that it is outside his purview. Would the local government ombudsman, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration or whoever be able to take up employment issues in relation to the national museum of Wales, the Wales tourist board or any other organisation that may say that Welsh is compulsory as a condition of employment? Would not the ombudsman come back on that?
      In this case, would it not be better to accept the new clause for a separate ombudsman who could then deal with this specific problem? One of the big issues is that if the case goes back to the board, which becomes an arbiter, it must be partial in promoting the language. That would be wrong.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: May we leave the problem of employment until we discuss a later clause?
      In the first instance, ombudsmen are concerned about maladministration, rather than the specific subjects to which we have referred. I think that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) understands what I have said about the relationship between the complaints procedure under the board and the procedure that could arise because the board will be subject to the Parliamentary Commissioner. The schemes may also involve either the local government ombudsman or the national health service commissioner.
      We envisage that the ombudsman would expect the board's complaints procedure to have been exercised before agreeing to mount an investigation. Those matters will also be determined by agreement between the ombudsman and the board.
      The board will, therefore, have a distinct role, which is analogous to that of the existing ombudsmen but complementary to both. Nothing in the legislation will limit the locus of the existing ombudsmen. In particular, nothing in the Bill expressly prevents the ombudsmen from investigating complaints of maladministration involving the Welsh language.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Ted Rowlands: I believe that one of the reasons why the new clause was tabled is vividly illustrated by an example that has been given by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams). He mentioned a school in Carmarthenshire in which science was taught entirely in English, but the authority imposed a Welsh language qualification on the job of laboratory technician. What redress would a person seeking that post, and finding himself discriminated against on grounds of language, have under the system that the Minister describes?
      Sir Wyn Roberts: I should have thought that the system did not apply to such an example. Ombudsmen are concerned about maladministration. If there has been maladministration, there is a role for the ombudsman, but he has to be shown that it has occurred or that there is a prima facie case. Given what I have said about how we would expect the system of investigating complaints to operate, we would not gain anything by the introduction
      1162
      of yet another commissioner, as provided for in new clause 3. I regret, therefore, that I cannot support the introduction of the new clause.
      Mr. Rogers: I did not intend to speak on new clause 3 because my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) put the arguments well. However, I have listened to what the Minister said about the narrow range of complaints with which a commissioner can deal—as is the case with the present ombudsmen. I think that it ought to be incumbent on the Minister to come up with some form of alternative—if not now, certainly later.
      The crux of the argument about the development of the Welsh language is that one can spend all the money and resources in the world, but, without the good will of the English-speaking population in Wales, the language will not be developed as many of us want. When those of us who come from areas where the majority of people speak English developed our policies on Welsh language education in schools, we had to convince many English-speaking communities of the value of spending resources on the Welsh language. Gradually, that view has become more accepted.
      The Welsh language will develop only if hostility is not produced. We do not want people to say, "Our schools are falling down; classroom resources are not available for English-speaking children, but Welsh-speaking children, or people being taught in the medium of Welsh, can have those resources." It would be awful if there were a conflict in the community.
      The same principle applies to jobs. When English-speaking people find that they cannot get jobs because they cannot speak Welsh—let us not forget that we are talking about at least 80 to 90 per cent. of the population—hostility towards the language will build up, which none of us wants. It will also create an exclusive class of people who get preference as a result of speaking Welsh—as it already has in certain parts of Wales, especially in public organisations—which creates a great deal of hostility.
      What will the Welsh Language Board do in that situation? If complaints are made to the board and it has to be partial and make judgments, the basis of good will for the board will disappear. One side or the other will gain or lose. There will be a few contentious cases and the press will whip it up as a good story. Before one knows it, the issue of the Welsh language will again become a football to be kicked around.
      Frankly, the Government have rejected the new clause without thinking through the issue. The Minister should have said, "Yes, the arguments are valid; the answers may not be ideal, but we shall consider the subject and come back with something." That is the proper way to deal with the problem. I hope that the Minister will accept my criticism constructively, and realise the potential for damage to the language that will exist unless there is a reasonable forum for complaining and sorting out issues without their becoming a source of conflict.
      Mr. Rowlands: One of the unresolved questions in Committee was the extent to which the new language board would be a major instrument of positive discrimination in favour of the Welsh language. We asked that question over and over again and will come to it again later. There are huge legislative blanks in the Bill, which unfortunately do not allow us to deal with the issues that my hon. Friend is describing to the House.
      Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has put his finger on it. That question has been considered by hon. Members who had the privilege to sit on the Standing Committee. Some of us were not able to do so, but the Minister must take note of what we say.
      The Secretary of State can dream up policies on his feet, responding to the winds in whichever direction they blow. The Minister might find that difficult, but I appeal to him to suggest an alternative way of approaching the problem when the Bill comes back from the Lords.
      Mr. Alan W. Williams: I thank the Minister for his comments. When Hansard is published I shall study them carefully, but I do not think that it is enough for there to be discussions between the commissioner and the language board about the potential problems. That is a behind-the-scenes dialogue and, in the last analysis, power to investigate complaints will rest with the language board.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) highlighted the fact that there is a void in the law for people making complaints. They can have recourse only to the Race Relations Act 1976, which is an unfortunate piece of legislation to use in that context. So, in the spirit of the comments made by my hon. Friend, I hope that the Government will consider the matter more carefully, perhaps come up with a more carefully worked-out solution in the Lords, and will find a way to accept the new clause.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: The Bill is all about establishing good will and trying to remove many of the difficulties that we have experienced in the past. The board set up under the Bill will deal with many sensitive areas where it must exercise a great deal of caution. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) mentioned some of those sensitive areas.
      However, clauses 17 and 18 provide for a procedure for conducting investigations, and investigations could also arise in the context of the Parliamentary Commissioner, the local government ombudsman and the national health ombudsman. Moreover, in the event of disagreement, people will have a right to approach my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We have, therefore, covered most complaints.
      I remind the House that the Bill's entire purpose is to sustain good will, eliminate obstacles and induce as much harmony as possible into the language issue.
      Mr. Alan W. Williams: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 5

      RIGHT TO HAVE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS WHOLLY THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF WELSH
      '.—(1) In any legal proceedings in the courts in Wales, or in any tribunal, commission or other judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, the officer in charge shall ascertain at the outset of proceedings whether the defendant or litigant, or whoever the principal party may be, wishes the hearing to be in Welsh or English, and shall proceed accordingly; and after having chosen the language of the hearing, that person shall not be required to furnish translation of any statement or comment which he or she makes.
      (2) Where, in accordance with subsection (1) above, a case is to be heard in Welsh, it shall be the duty of the officer of the
      1164
      court to notify the Lord Chancellor's Department, who shall ensure that the hearing is conducted by a Welsh speaking judge and by Welsh speaking court officers and attendants.
      (3) In all prosecutions brought by the Crown in Wales, the prosecuting officer shall conduct the prosecution in the language in which the defendant has chosen to have his hearing.
      (4) In cases involving two or more principal parties, who disagree as to the language of the hearing, the judge, chairman, magistrate or inspector shall exercise discretion as to balance of languages at the hearing.
      (5) Section 3(2) of the Welsh Courts Act 1942 is hereby repealed.
      (6) In Wales, the judge or magistrate presiding at any trial, or hearing, the chairman of any tribunal or commission established by Act of Parliament and an inspector presiding at a public inquiry held by virtue of statutory authority may require the whole or any part of the proceedings conducted in Welsh to be translated into English or from English into Welsh if, in his opinion, the translation thereof is necessary in the interests of justice.
      (7) In the Welsh Courts Act 1942 there shall be inserted in section 3 after subsection (1), the following new subsections:
      "(IA) Such rules as specified in 3(1) above shall include a provision that only translators registered as having reached a sufficient standard of professional competence shall be employed in the proceedings of courts, tribunals, commissions established by Act of Parliament and public inquiry held by virtue of statutory authority in Wales, and translations by any other persons not so registered, shall not be admissable.
      (1B) The Lord Chancellor shall keep a register of authorised translators for the purposes of subsection 3(1A) above".
      (8) In order to make adequate provision for the purposes of the foregoing subsections of this Act, the Lord Chancellor shall, in making recommendations for the appointment of persons to judicial office, make reasonable provision to ensure that there is a sufficient number of persons holding judicial office who can use Welsh in the conduct of their office.
      (9) In appointing justices of the peace for the counties of Wales, the Lord Chancellor shall make reasonable provision for each county of justices able to use Welsh in the conduct of their office.
      (10) In appointing to the office in Wales clerks to magistrates, court clerks, Crown prosecutors, probation officers, police officers and inspectors charged with holding public inquiries and members of the clerical and administrative staff and ancillary staff attached to such officers, the appointing authority shall make reasonable provision for officers and staff able and willing to use Welsh in the conduct of their duties at all stages before to as well as at the hearing of any matter.'.—[Mr. Llwyd.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Llwyd: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also new clause 6—Amendment of the Juries Act 1974—
      `In section 10 of the Juries Act 1974, there shall be added after the words "on account of physical disability or insufficient knowledge of English" the words "or, in the case of a trial in Wales, where the language appearing likely to be used by the defendant or a principal witness is Welsh, insufficient knowledge of Welsh".'
      Mr. Llwyd: I shall try to be brief, because I have already argued the point at length. It concerns the right of a person in Wales to have a trial conducted exclusively through the medium of the Welsh language.

      1165
      Every time the matter has been raised, it has been argued that the fact that jurors are selected from a pool of Welsh speakers somehow detracts from the principle of random selection. That principle was dreamed up this century. It is not centuries old and cast in stone. Women were not included on jury panels until 1919 and, until 1972, there was a property qualification, which was subsequently broadened. Since 1974, persons over the age of 65, and latterly over the age of 70, have become ineligible to sit on juries.
      The main argument against the new clause in the other place and in Committee—somewhat slavishly—was that the principle of random selection has been called into question. I have practised as a solicitor for 15 years, and I understand that a jury should be drawn from one's peers. Including a Welsh language qualification will have no effect on that.
      Furthermore, it would be easy to do, because nowadays most juries are drawn from a computer sheet, and one simply needs to take the census figures. When people register to vote, they should be specifically asked whether they speak and understand the Welsh language. That information should then be taken on board when those facts and figures are produced in connection with trials by jury.
      I realise that others may have different opinions on this matter, but I adhere to the view that the principle of random selection, such as it is, would not be imperilled by this procedure, to which I have referred on the hoof. I am sure that other more apt arguments could be thought up.
      Random selection was discussed last week in connection with the Law Commission's report. I know what the Minister will say, because I have heard it before and have read his speech in the Lords Hansard. Indeed, I argued the point in Committee on that basis.
      Dr. Kim Howells: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the novel idea of people ticking a box to confirm whether they speak Welsh, may I point out that, before the last census was taken, advocates of the Welsh language advised people that, if they understood any Welsh at all, they should say that they spoke Welsh. That would not be helpful for someone accused of fraud, for instance, and opting for an all-Welsh trial. A case would be extremely difficult for jurors to understand if they had ticked the box simply because they could say, "Shw ma'i."
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Llwyd: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will know that Wales has always been referred to as "Gwlad y menyg gwynion" and I am sure that few large fraud trials emanate from Wales—[Interruption.] Some hon. Members seem to make a decent living out of them.
      I understand the hon. Gentleman's important point, but it is already catered for. Part of a judge's function is to ensure that jurors can understand what will be transacted before the court. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) will confirm that. If there is any doubt about it, the judge must decide whether a person is fit and able to sit as a juror, so the point could be taken on board at that stage. In any event, a selection process applies in all courts where juries sit.
      It is understood that translation is always second best and that principle goes back many years.
      Mr. John Morris indicated assent.
      Mr. Llwyd: The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who is an experienced advocate, is nodding.
      In 1575 a renowned judge, Sir William Gerrard, who sat on the Wales and Chester circuit, said that judges in Wales should be able to understand the Welsh language. He believed, as many of us do, that translation is strictly second best. I want the Bill to provide that juries, too, should be able to understand it.
      On Second Reading, I referred to a Privy Council case that established the principle that English jurors sitting in an English language trial must be able to understand English. That is painfully obvious, but it is appropriate in this instance, and it assists my case.
      If I thought that, in asking for provision for Welsh language trials, I was imperiling the interests of justice, I would not be moving the new clause. Clearly, that is a prerequisite. However, although translation is second best, it is wrong that a person who seeks to have his trial dealt with through the medium of the Welsh language should have it dealt with through translation. There are two reasons for that: first, anyone who has conducted a trial will know of the nuances involved in every sentence. Sometimes a word can mean everything in a case.
      Mr. Morris indicated assent.
      Mr. Llwyd: Again, the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon is agreeing with me.
      Although there are some excellent translators in Wales, ultimately translations are strictly second best, and we should not be prepared to sanction a system that delivers second-best justice in Wales.
      Secondly, with any form of translation, whether simultaneous or not, there is an inevitable time lag of a second or two, often longer, when it is possible that the defendant will have more opportunity to think of a more plausible answer. Perhaps the Minister will consider that matter. Many practitioners throughout Wales, who have, like myself, conducted many trials through the medium of the Welsh language, think that it is never as satisfactory to conduct a trial through a translation. I say that with the greatest respect, and I hope with a sincerity that the Minister will accept. I am pleading for equality with the English language to ensure equality of justice in Welsh courts.
      About 98 per cent. of trials in Wales finish their course in the magistrates courts and do not proceed to the Crown court. That argument again does not find favour with me, because there will always be a case where, conceivably, a person will not get the right quality of justice purely because of the language barrier. It is only right that Welsh should be an option, and I see no real difficulty in that approach.
      I shall return to the point with which I started about random selection—which, as we know, was thrown at every hon. Member who previously argued about it. The royal commission's report, published in the past week, said:
      "We are reluctant to interfere with the principle of random selection of juries. We are, however, anxious that everything possible should be done to ensure that people from the ethnic minority communities are represented on juries in relation to their numbers in the local community. The pool from which juries are randomly selected would be more representative if all eligible members of ethnic communities were included on

      1167
      the electoral roll. Even if this were to be, however, there would statistically still be instances where there would not be a multi-racial jury in a case where one seemed appropriate"
      The report says that the Commission for Racial Equality had also put that point:
      "The CRE considered whether the judge should have power to order that the three jurors from the ethnic minority communities should come from the same ethnic minority as the defendant or victim. They concluded, however, that this would be impractical. While this may be so, we believe that it should be open to the defence or prosecution to argue the point and to the judge to be able to order in appropriate cases that one or more of the three jurors should come from the same ethnic minority as the defendant or the victim. We so recommend."
      The principle of random selection has been used, not as a smokescreen, but rather as an absolute argument each time the matter has been raised. How long will it be cherished by the Government and remain as it is when the royal commission's views represent a substantial inroad into that principle?
      The suggestion of the royal commission is even less practicable than the suggestion that I made in Committee. Nothing is more simple than ensuring that there is an electoral list, with an indication by one's name of whether one can converse in Welsh and understand the Welsh language. It then proceeds by way of computer.
      In all honesty, I cannot see how the principle would suddenly be devalued. To those who may argue—although it seems that few will, probably because of lack of interest in the subject—with me about the Monmouth case, for example, on which the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) spoke so eloquently, where 2 per cent. of people speak Welsh, I say that, realistically, there could easily be a trial centre in south Wales, a Welsh trial centre in the north and one somewhere in mid-Wales. As a matter of practice, I have frequently been involved in Crown court cases that have been transferred from the town of Caernarfon to Knutsford.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point, although I do not agree with his basic premise that the transfer of Welsh cases out of Wales to Chester, and Knutsford especially, is wholly unacceptable. Does the hon. Gentleman support the efforts made—not always successfully—to prevent that?
      Mr. Llwyd: As a one-time secretary of the Gwynedd law society, I wrote several letters to the circuit administrator, and I know that some heed has been taken of that problem. I agree that it is a problem, but the general point that I was making was that trial centres could take place in one, two or three centres in Wales, which would create far less potential inconvenience than if the cases were transferred to Caernarfon or Knutsford at the last minute.
      It has also been argued that, if the new clause were accepted, potential jurors, be they English people or Welsh people who cannot speak Welsh, would be excluded. At the worst, one would have to hurt the feelings of jurors who could not sit on a jury because they did not speak Welsh. From experience, I would say that most potential jurors would be relieved not to have to sit on a jury, especially in a lengthy fraud trial. I say that out of a sense of jest rather than anything else.
      If it is a choice between hurting the feelings of a potential juror and achieving quality of justice, of course the scales weigh heavily in favour of the quality of justice. The Minister must be aware that, as Welsh language trials
      1168
      are conducted with ease in magistrates courts throughout Dyfed, Clwyd and Gwynedd, that facility should also be available in Crown courts. To continue with a second-class delivery of justice is unacceptable. I plead with the Minister at this eleventh hour to accept my reasonable new clause.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: I know that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) moved the new clause in complete sincerity and with a determination founded on principle, for which I respect him greatly. He will probably agree that we are discussing a tricky balance of interests. It is matter of judgment how the House decides, but I come down on the other side from the hon. Gentleman.
      As I said earlier—although I deprived myself of one year—I declare the interest of having practised on the Wales and Chester circuit for 22 years. I have conducted a great many Crown court trials and, I am delighted to say, some of them have been well instructed by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, who has an excellent reputation as a good solicitor in his county. I hope by saying that that I shall ensure that he instructs me again. I do not think that the rules against touting apply in the House—at least I hope not.
      I also defer to the remarks made on the subject by two extremely distinguished and senior legal colleagues of mine, who are both members of the Wales and Chester circuit: my noble Friend Lord Hooson and the noble Lord Thomas of Gwydir. Lord Thomas has now retired, but Lord Hooson is still practising. They both practised on that circuit for more than 45 years. They both came to the same conclusion as I did, but unlike myself, they are capable of conducting a trial through the medium of Welsh at any level and in any court. They share with me the experience of being involved in trials where witnesses have given their evidence through the medium of Welsh and where simultaneous translation has been used.
      I agree that occasionally nuances in a person's voice, a word used or even an inflection may make some difference. However, I have never been in a case in which I have found that the nuance has been lost through the simultaneous translation. Indeed, my experience of simultaneous translation, not only in criminal courts, but in other tribunals, such as planning appeals, is that the quality of simultaneous translation in Wales is now as good as that at the United Nations, where I have seen it in operation, and perhaps better. It is capable of ensuring that the court has a full appreciation.
      7 pm
      The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said that the time that translation gave a person to think might make what he said more plausible. The courts are not really concerned with plausibility. Plausibility is often what convicts a liar. The lie may be plausible, but it is all too easily detected as a lie by its very plausibility. The process by which juries reach a decision is sophisticated. Unfortunately, it is not well understood, although, as a result of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, we may be able to do some proper research into the way in which juries operate.
      I do not believe that juries are deprived of the opportunity to reach the truth by the fact that they may not speak Welsh as fluently as the defendant does, if they speak it at all. Indeed, the recent experience of those who

      1169
      might have wished to be tried by all-Welsh speaking juries, in north Wales at least, has shown that they are capable of obtaining substantial justice without the need for the new clause.
      Mr. Paul Flynn: I remember reading a recent translation in the organisation to which the hon. and learned Gentleman just referred. Someone said in French, "This issue depends on the good sense of the people of Normandy." It was translated in English as, "This depends on Norman wisdom." How can the hon. and learned Gentleman say that all the full nuances of a language are translated unless in his cases he has understood both languages with great fluency? Is he making that judgment on the basis of his fluency in Welsh and in English?
      Mr. Carlile: I am glad to have been able to take the part of feed to the hon. Gentleman's joke, which I suspect is more Morecambe than Wise. I have already said that, in my view, the simultaneous translation system available in Wales may be better than that available at the United Nations. I can speak only of my own experience, combined with the 90 or so years of combined experience of the noble Lords to whom I have referred. I recognise that there is a balance of interests, and it appears that my judgment does not accord with that of the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn).
      There is a fundamental misstatement of the nature of a trial in the new clause. New clause 5(1) refers to the principal party at a trial as if there was only one. There are two principal parties in any criminal trial in the Crown court. There is the defendant who is, of course, always regarded as the most important principal party, but the trial would not occur at all were it not for the other principal party, which is the Crown. In balancing the interests of the Crown, which also have to be protected as we have seen in a very controversial verdict in London in recent days, and the interests of the defendant, we come to the conclusion that the present system of jury trial in Wales is adequate.
      Many examples can be given of why it would not be just to enable people to choose to be tried only by Welsh-speaking juries. Harking back to an historical jury panel does not help the argument. I do not want to go back to jury panels that excluded women. I do not want to go back to jury panels that included only people of property. I do not want to go back to a jury class that was restricted by artificial distinctions.
      One of the greatest advances that we have made in attempting to secure fairness in jury trials during this century, and especially during the second half of the century, is to increase the number of people from whom jurors are selected. I believe that random selection is a principle worth holding to.
      More than just principle is at stake. Let us consider a few examples of what might occur. Let us suppose that there was a burglary in the town of Montgomery in my constituency. There was a burglary at Bunners Agricultural Ironmongers in Montgomery some time ago. It caused something of a stir because, in the middle of the night, the Dyfed-Powys police helicopter went out and caught the burglars en route back to the midlands.
      Let us suppose that there was another burglary in Montgomery, which was committed by somebody who said that he wanted an all-Welsh jury. That would exclude
      1170
      almost the entire population of Montgomery and of Welshpool from serving on that jury, because there are not many people in Montgomery and in Welshpool who happen to speak Welsh.
      It is a fair principle that the people of the area in which the crime has been committed have the right to serve on the jury. It is fair to say that they would be deeply offended—rightly so—if they found that they were excluded from being able to serve on a jury dealing with crimes committed in their area. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) in his place. The Monmouth example is too obvious to state.
      Let us take another example. In past decades, a celebrated and much-loved Queen's counsel on the Wales and Chester circuit was known for his success in fraud trials. I do not know whether this is a fair comment, because I never saw him conducting a fraud trial, but I am told that one of the reasons for his success was that he had a great capacity for so totally confusing the jury that it was driven eventually to return a verdict of not guilty because it had so failed to understand the case that it could not be sure that the defendant was guilty.
      Let us suppose that a guilty fraudster was prosecuted and that he had committed a fraud entirely through the medium of English, using an English accounting system while working for an English company in Wales. Being a wily fraudster, he decides that one way to cause confusion is to insist on having a trial in Welsh.
      That is not an absurd example. In 22 years of working in the criminal courts, I tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is no shortage of people around who would take advantage of such an opportunity. I of course acquit the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones), who is another good solicitor, of that charge. However, there may be solicitors around who would say to their clients, "Well, why don't you ask for a trial in Welsh so that we can confuse the issue further?"
      That is a realistic and practical problem. The establishment of Welsh language trial centres in different parts of Wales would not resolve the problems to which I have referred.
      Mr. Llwyd: I know of the hon. and learned Gentleman's advocacy in the Crown courts and of his experience, and I appreciate his point. However, I do not see why, in Welshpool, for example, it would be impracticable to empanel a Welsh-speaking jury. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Monmouth example. Next door to Monmouth there are tens of thousands of Welsh-speaking people in Cardiff. If the trial centre was in Cardiff, people in Monmouth would have to go only seven or eight miles along the road. There is the answer.
      Mr. Carlile: I would ask the hon. Gentleman why people from Monmouth should be excluded from serving on a jury when the alleged offences were committed in Monmouth. That, in my view, defies logic.
      Mr. Alan W. Williams: I wish to say two things about the hon. and learned Member's analysis. First, most Welsh language trials would be in Dyfed, Gwynedd or other Welsh-speaking areas. The hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about exceptional circumstances. Secondly, the hon. and learned Gentleman describes Welsh-speaking fraudsters and others who might choose to use the

      1171
      language as a vehicle to escape justice. I wish to point out that Dyfed and Powys have the lowest incidence of crime in Britain. I am sure that the situation is similar in Gwynedd. Welsh-speaking people are law-abiding.
      Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman will know, if he has been following the newspapers recently, that the largest fraud committed in Wales is now between conviction and sentence, and relates to offences that were committed in the counties of Powys, for the most part, and Dyfed. That is the Foulkes Ingram case. I can immediately contradict the hon. Gentleman on that score.
      Mr. Alan W. Williams rose—
      Mr. Carlile: I will not give way again. There may be other hon. Members who wish to speak, and we will want to hear the Minister's response.
      There is one aspect in which I echo the remarks of the hon. Gentleman for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy. It is essential that there should be enough judges and practitioners in Wales capable of understanding and speaking Welsh, to the extent that they are able to conduct with total fluency those parts of a trial that are heard in Welsh.
      We have a distinguished body of such practitioners in Wales. I mentioned the two noble Lords as examples. There are many Welsh-speaking judges of great distinction. The Minister of State's brother is one of the best known of them—a greatly admired and just civil judge in north Wales. He is known to other hon. Members also.
      I would be the first to say that I hope that the Lord Chancellor's Department will continue to follow the policy of looking for suitable Welsh speakers to fill judicial appointments. I also hope that the Crown Prosecution Service will pursue its policy of employing professional officers and others who can conduct trials and can assist the police with advice, where necessary through the medium of Welsh. It is important to do so. When it comes to the selection of jurors, the principle of random selection should be paramount.
      Let us not forget the final point that I wish to make. If there was a case in which it was patently unjust that the trial should be conducted by the jury panel that was selected by random selection through the computerised system that is now used, a procedure remains open to the defendant and his legal advisers. It is possible to make what is called a challenge to the array, which is a challenge to the whole jury panel. It is not often done, and is probably done successfully even more rarely. I certainly have seen it done on one occasion and I believe that I have done it once myself in 22 years. The opportunity remains in common law to challenge—in extreme circumstances—the panel that is brought to court.
      If a defendant came before the court on a serious charge and it were possible to show that he did not understand English sufficiently to be tried fairly, and that it was not possible for one reason or another for a simultaneous translation to meet the needs of the case, then the judge might exercise his discretion to allow a challenge to the array. The possibility ought not to be brushed aside, and I thought it right to mention it in the debate.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Flynn: I hate to intervene in what appears to be a private debate between lawyers, solicitors and the relatives of lawyers. That is probably why it has attracted so much attention in the House, attention that is out of all proportion to its importance.
      I was provoked by the failure of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) to answer my simple question. How did he come to make the statement that all the fine nuances of a language are communicated when it is translated from English to Welsh? It is not possible, unless one has a thorough knowledge of both languages.
      The hon. and learned Gentleman was silent on that particular issue—I respect his right to silence. I have never heard him speak Welsh. I look forward to that joy, and it is a moment for which I shall live. I do not know on what the hon. and learned Gentleman bases his judgment, but if he does not speak Welsh there is no way that he can make a decision on the matter.
      The hon. and learned Gentleman made another point—one of some, if not great, importance—which was that people have a burning desire to make judgments on crimes that have been committed in their own countries. There may be something in that. However, overriding that are the needs of people who speak Welsh as a first language. No one speaks another language in the way that they speak their first language, which is usually learnt in the cradle. It is the language in which we are happiest, and most comfortable. People have different personalities in different languages. We can all think of people who are dignified and on whom we look with respect in one language who are stuttering buffoons in another. It happens in many languages. The right to speak in a proper and comfortable way is more important than the right to speak on juries.
      I shall finish with one brief point. I was in the town of Harlech and wrote a cheque in Welsh at a strange bank. I handed over the cheque and my identification, but the person behind the counter brushed the identification aside, and said in Welsh that there was no need for identification. "Crooks do not use Welsh."
      Mr. Morgan: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) I feel a degree of diffidence about this matter, and as a non-lawyer, I am fearful of sounding like a "stuttering buffoon."
      The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): As a non-lawyer also, I wonder when I hear lawyers talk about balances whether we should also hear about the "cheques".
      Mr. Morgan: The Secretary of State is trying to prove that the description of him in The Guardian last week was true. The newspaper described him as having the eyes of Hannibal Lecter and the hairstyle of Bob Monkhouse. He was trying there to show that he has also the wit of Bob Monkhouse. Most people would not want to be associated with Bob Monkhouse, even if they did. not mind being associated with Hannibal Lecter.
      My point was about the practicality of the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) about computerised jury lists. The case for eligibility for jury service is currently denoted on the computerised version of electoral rolls—although, I

      1173
      believe, not on the versions that appear in print—to ensure that OAPs are no longer called for jury service. It seems a practical extension of that principle to provide the same electoral computerised roll, only stating the availability of and the competence of a person to act as a juror in Welsh.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: How would the hon. Gentleman test the ability of those who perhaps might put the letter "W" on an electoral roll to indicate that they spoke Welsh?
      Mr. Morgan: That is a practical problem which seems far from insuperable when it comes to the selection of a jury at a trial. It would not be difficult for a judge to put a request to the jurors before the start of a trial, asking them to assure the court that they were capable of handling the case, whether it be a complicated fraud case or a relatively simple, open and shut burglary case. It is not an insuperable practical problem, but it would help to solve the long-standing grievance that people have felt over their inability to claim a jury trial in Welsh.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: The debate has concentrated largely on the jury system. We had a similar debate in Committee. Hon. Members who represent the legal profession showed then that there is a division of opinion among them about the matter. I am sure that that would also be the case in the House as a whole.
      I set out in Committee, the Government's policy about all-Welsh juries and the Government's view remains unchanged. We do not consider it appropriate to make provision to require juries of trials conducted through the medium of Welsh to be composed solely of people who understand Welsh, mainly because we cannot allow anything to interfere with the principle of random selection of juries nor place further hurdles in the way of the administration of justice.
      I call in aid not only all the arguments put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) but the findings of the report by the late Lord Edmund Davies. The Government's policy conforms with the recommendations of his report and I remain firmly of the view that the best way to safeguard not only the interests of Welsh speakers but justice generally is by means of simultaneous translation.
      I have heard what the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) has said about nuances and so on, but, as I understand it, the translation service has improved considerably in recent years.
      I can tell the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) that I am aware of the royal commission's recommendation on jury composition, but I have to remind him that it is only a recommendation. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will consider many matters relating to jury composition in the light of the royal commission's recommendations. However, the commission itself, as I think that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, has stressed the difficulty of departing from the guiding principle of random selection, even in a limited way. I am sure that we will want to move with extreme caution in any matters relating to the selection of juries.
      It is worth reminding the House that the Bill re-enacts the provision in the Welsh Language Act 1967 which gives the right to a defendant or another party at a legal hearing to give evidence in Welsh should he or she choose to do so.
      1174
      I was pleased to be able to table an amendment in Committee that further clarified the position of written evidence in the courts. In future, the Lord Chancellor will produce rules of court governing the submission of written evidence in Welsh. They will be able to cover detailed matters including the need to give notice and the need to protect the interests of parties to a hearing who do not understand Welsh.
      Many hearings in Wales, particularly in magistrates courts, take place entirely in Welsh. That policy will continue, but is a matter that must remain at the discretion of court authorities. Therefore, the Government cannot agree to the proposal set out in the new clause that the matter be left to the discretion of the defendant or litigant.
      I am pleased to be able to reiterate today the undertaking that I gave during Committee that the Lord Chancellor's Department will continue to seek to facilitate the use of Welsh in the court service wherever it is reasonably practicable and will not interfere with the efficient administration of justice. He must be able to have regard to all the relevant criteria in appointing judges and other legal officers in Wales. The Government do not, however, believe that it will be acceptable to restrict the discretion of the Lord Chancellor to make the most suitable appointments, as the new clause suggests.
      In view of what I have said, and in concluding this short debate, I hope that the new clauses will not be pressed to a division.
      Mr. Llwyd: The Minister says that he is unpersuaded. Frankly, I am unpersuaded towards his view. We shall beg to differ on that. In the light of the Runciman proposals in the royal commission report, if there were a change of practice following on that which I described earlier and of which the Minister is aware, will he reconsider?
      Sir Wyn Roberts: I am sure that when the Home Secretary considers the royal commission's recommendation he will take into account what has been said today on the Floor of the House.
      Mr. Llwyd: In that case, I do not wish to press the matter to a Division, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 7

      DISCRIMINATION (SECTION I(B) OF THE RACE RELATIONS ACT 1976.
      It is hereby declared that for the purposes of section 1(b) of the Race Relations Act 1976 a person does not discriminate against another by reason only of the fact that such person applies to that other a requirement or condition that he or she be able to communicate in Wales through the medium of the Welsh language.'.—[Mr. Wigley.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Wigley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The clause deals with the way in which race relations legislation has been brought into matters relating to the Welsh language over the past decade. We had a fairly extensive debate in Committee and our feeling is that the issue was not satisfactorily resolved in Committee. That feeling has been strengthened by evidence that came to my notice before the Committee stage came to an end.

      1175
      There was a case some eight of nine years ago concerning appointments to an old people's home in Ynys Mon, where, if I remember correctly, 29 of the 30 residents were Welsh speaking. When the jobs were advertised, a requirement was that applicants should be Welsh speaking. An attempt was made to bring in the Commission for Racial Equality on the basis that it was racial discrimination to include such a clause. I accept that there are many jobs where knowledge of a particular language is irrelevant—it does not matter whether people are train drivers, or perform a host of other jobs. However, there are many jobs where a knowledge of the Welsh language is important—broadcasting and teaching speak for themselves.
      In constituencies such as mine, where Welsh is the main language of 84 per cent. of the population, it is important that those appointed to jobs dealing with the public can deal with them in whichever language the public wish. It is a matter of considerable offence if, when a local authority or any other employer—or potential employer—makes it a condition that the ability to speak Welsh or have an understanding of it is necessary for a certain job, it may be taken before the Commission for Racial Equality on the basis that it is acting in a racist manner. That is nonsense.
      That was not the reasoning behind the legislation that set up the CRE. It is an abuse of the Race Relations Act 1976 to use it for that purpose. There has been continuing discussion about that over many years. From meetings that my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and I had with the Minister of State, I thought that the Government would table an amendment, on Committee or Report, that would resolve the problem, and that there would be a change in legislation that would meet that, although perhaps not using the wording of the amendment—I think a Labour amendment—in Committee. We have tabled similar amendments.
      I was flabbergasted when the Minister rejected the arguments outright in Committee. He said:
      "I am pleased to reassure the Committee that current employment law provides the flexibility that we require."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, I July 1993; c. 217.]
      He said that it was not necessary. I checked with the CRE as to exactly its position.
      7.30 pm
      In a letter that I had this month from Herman Ouseley, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, he says:
      "In the past there was a conflict between the Commission and the Welsh Language Board over the issue but I am informed that a compromise was agreed in 1991. The agreed position now is reflected in the proposed amendment to Section 4 of the Race Relations Act 1976 in the following terms:"
      He then details the specific agreed proposed amendment to that legislation:
      "For the purpose of the Part of the Act a requirement or condition relating to ability to communicate in Welsh shall be justifiable where the person to whom it is applied would, in the course of employment to which the requirement or condition applies, deal on a regular basis with persons who normally use Welsh and the level of ability required is no greater than is needed to do so."
      There is a subsequent subsection.
      That wording is very similar to the wording of the Labour amendment in Committee. The chairman goes on to say:
      "I hope this clarifies the position of the Commission."
      1176
      The position is, therefore, that the commission has agreed with the Welsh Language Board that there is a problem; it has agreed on the solution and that it can be by means of amending legislation. So what on earth are we waiting for, I ask the Minister. Here is the vehicle for doing it.
      I accept that the wording of our new clause 7 is not identical to the wording that the Commission for Racial Equality has before it. But, if that is indeed the position, I urge the Minister to accept new clause 7 now, and he can amend that in the House of Lords, when the Bill goes back there, by putting in the wording agreed by the commission and the Welsh Language Board. That is a simple mechanism that is open to him and enables him to keep his options open, in order to put right what is a very strongly-felt perceived wrong.
      The question goes beyond the technicality that I have described. Here we have what is essentially the Government's own approach to how to deal with the Welsh language. We have the Welsh Language Board dealing with an institution—the Commission for Racial Equality in this case—and coming to an agreement. That is the whole basis of the Government's set of schemes and proposals enshrined in the Bill.
      What happens, then, when there is an agreement and it is necessary for Parliament to put it into effect, as will be the case with many other schemes that flow from this legislation? If Parliament turns its back and says that it disagrees and will not implement the agreement, it blows asunder the argument that the Minister made at various times in Committee that the schemes can deliver the goods, and that the Secretary of State or the Minister will adopt an agreed position arrived at through negotiation and discussion between two interested bodies.
      We have very clearly a test of the Government's own approach to legislation. The argument is conclusive. The attitude of the Minister in private discussions that we had in his office a few weeks ago showed that he had sympathy with what we were trying to do and it was a matter of having an agreed form of words. We now have an agreed form of words.
      I therefore put it to the House that we should accept new clause 7, although it may be flawed, with the intention of the Government coming back in the House of Lords to see whether the agreed formula that I have had from the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality can be built in at that stage, and this long-running, long-festering ill can be put right once and for all.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: I will certainly look into the point that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has just made about the agreement between the Welsh Language Board and the Commission for Racial Equality. If I heard him correctly, the proposal was for an amendment to the relevant legislation under the Race Relations Act 1976.
      Mr. Wigley: I understand that the Minister has not had a copy of this letter. Had I thought in advance, I would probably have made a copy available to him. I apologise for not doing so. However, in the same way as new clause 7 amends section 1(b) of the Race Relations Act 1976, the proposed new amendment would put in a subsection (a) to section 4 of that Act. It is clearly in order for us to do that through this legislation, otherwise new clause 7 would not

      1177
      have been accepted for debate tonight. Using that as a basis, the question can be approached in another place and the argument taken on.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: I certainly take on board what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I will look further into that matter. We have already had to look very carefulLy at the issue of stipulating Welsh as a condition of employment during the course of our preparations for the Bill. It was important, because one result of the Bill will be to require the presence of Welsh speakers in certain posts in the public sector in Wales. That is already the case for many jobs and it will remain the case in future. We therefore had to be satisfied that the provisions in employment law governing discrimination would not stand in the way of employment policies that aim to do no more than ensure that public bodies are able to comply with the terms of the legislation.
      This is a complex area in which there seems to have been a fair degree of confusion in the wake of the Gwynedd case, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The confusion seems to have obscured the fact that employers are entitled to stipulate Welsh as a condition of employment so long as they are able to justify such a requirement. The law requires, not that an employer should demonstrate that such a requirement is absolutely necessary, but that it should be able to be justified. That, of course, is a lesser test. It would be for the courts to interpret in individual cases.
      The amendment that was before us in Committee sought to define what the justification criteria amounted to. Earl Ferrers acknowledged in the debate in another place that this was an interesting way to approach the issue, and this was something that we looked at very carefully.
      As I explained in Committee, the conclusion that we reached was that a formulation of this sort would not place employment policies beyond legal challenge. In particular, whatever we said in our domestic legislation would not necessarily remove such policies from challenge under European employment law. It would not be acceptable to pursue policies in this country which did not conform to European law. New clause 21, proposed in Committee, came closer to meeting these legal difficulties than does the present new clause, but I regret that neither is able to overcome them all.
      The other important point that I sought to explain during the debate in Committee was that the introduction of Welsh language schemes would be an important factor in reducing the uncertainty that there might have been in this area. The Government's legal advice is that a public body is likely to be regarded as justified in requiring that an employee speak Welsh if, otherwise, there would not be enough Welsh-speaking employees in suitable posts to cope with the demand for Welsh language services. In other words, the introduction of Welsh language schemes will serve to give some indication of what is justified in this context, and will therefore serve to reduce whatever possibility there may be of employment policies being successfully challenged.
      Mr. Rowlands: This has just begun to sink in to me—I am a bit slow this evening. Are we to take it from the Minister's remarks that he has not seen the draft
      1178
      amendment by the Commission for Racial Equality and was unaware of the discussions between it and the Welsh Language Board and of the agreed amendment?
      Sir Wyn Roberts: I was not aware of the amendment. I gather that it was contained in a letter to the hon. Member for Caernarfon that he received fairly recently. I have said that I will certainly look into the matter further. I do not think that the House would expect me to go further this evening. I am trying to outline the situation as I see it, and the impact of this Bill on the subject under discussion.
      The need for employment policies to be justifiable provides important safeguards. In particular, it reflects our view that the delivery of Welsh language schemes should not be dependent on every employee in the public sector being a Welsh speaker. We know that that is not the case. As I have said, much can be achieved through the use of translation and interpretation services.
      Having looked at the matter very closely, I am satisfied that existing employment law, while not entirely removing the possibility of legal challenge, provides us with the required flexibility to put Welsh language schemes into effect.
      Mr. Wigley: I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said. When he replied to me earlier, without the advantage of his notes, he was more sympathetic and warm than he is now that he has got back to his rehearsed script.
      The Minister said in his earlier remarks that he is prepared to consider our proposal. If that assurance is to be meaningful—and if there is to be an agreed proposed amendment that requires legislation—he will need a hook on which to attach it in another place.
      There is no other amendment under which the legislation can be included when the Bill goes back to the other place. If, after having looked at the matter, and having considered it with the Commission for Racial Equality and the Welsh Language Board, the Minister agrees that the change should be built into law, it would be sensible to accept new clause 7 tonight. That would provide the Minister with a vehicle to which he can attach the legislation. If, after having looked at it, he considers that there is no need for legislation, the new clause can be taken out in the House of Lords. That would allow him flexibility one way or the other.
      If the Minister does not accept that, he is saying, "Yes, this is a form of words that I am willing to consider, but in practice I am closing my options now."
      Mr. Rowlands: I think that the hon. Gentleman is being persuasive. We have all been here long enough to know that the Government are not likely to table an amendment to the Race Relations Act in the next parliamentary Session to deal with this particular point. The only chance is to use the Bill as a vehicle, and I hope that the Minister will accept that.
      Mr. Wigley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is not of great party-political import. I suspect that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to avoid cases going to the Commission for Racial Equality, industrial tribunals and so forth.
      The Minister said that we must act within both our employment law and European employment law. I accept that, but I remind him—very gently—that our earlier argument about status was that European employment

      1179
      law was the basis of the case taken to the European Court when a Dutch citizen objected to a language condition on a job in Ireland. That reminds me of his own words: he said that European employment law, the status of the Welsh language and the interplay of the Welsh language in United Kingdom legislation are vitally important, just as it is important in Irish legislation.
      I believe that there is a way forward. I hope that the Minister will tell me either that there is another mechanism whereby this can be put into practice in another place—if he agrees to accept what the CRE and the Welsh Language Board—want or that he will accept new clause 7. If there is some other way of doing it, that is fine.
      We want to make progress so that when there may be an element of racism—which exists in Wales, as it does everywhere else—the people concerned can legitimately go to the courts. The courts should not be tied by the use of this legislation for matters for which it is not intended.
      Has the Minister any comment before I decide whether to press the issue? I would rather elicit an agreement to further consideration in the House of Lords than press for a vote that we might lose.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: I have had a great deal of advice on the Groener case, and I gave the essence of that advice earlier. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) referred to an agreement between the Welsh Language Board and the CRE. He will know that I do not legislate on the hoof, and that the matter is properly one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment—whom I would certainly have to consult, as well as the Government as a whole, before I could give any commitment to legislate. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will examine the matter.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Wigley: I do not want this to drag on—the guts of the argument have been adequately rehearsed—but unless something is done on Report to give the Minister a vehicle with which to legislate, the provision will not be put into the Bill in another place.
      I asked the Minister to clarify whether there was an alternative way of handling the matter in another place. I assume from his silence that there is not. Unless a new clause such as this is introduced tonight, there will not be a hook in the other place on which the Minister can attach any new clause, such as the letter that I have cited suggests.
      I understand that the Minister must discuss the matter with his colleagues, but if at the end of that he says, "Yes, fine, this is what is needed", he is going to close his option tonight unless he accepts the new clause, or he can tell me of some other way of handling it. Surely it is a reasonable way to make progress. It is the way in which the House should legislate. We should consider all the possibilities and see how they can be met. There is a consensus on what we want to do; it is a matter of how we do it. That gives us the possibility of doing something in the House of Lords.
      Unless the Minister can give some indication of a way of handling this matter in the House of Lords, we shall have no alternative but to divide on it.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: I can say nothing more about the hon. Gentleman's main point. However, he should not forget that every public body operating in Wales, including the CRE, will be obliged to produce a scheme. I think that the
      1180
      matters to which he has referred are likely to feature in such a scheme and that may well be the proper place for it.
      Mr. Wigley: That may be the case; it may be something that is appropriate for a scheme. However, the CRE and the Welsh Language Board have reached an agreement that there should be a change of legislation. If that was the outcome of many of the other schemes—that discussions will take place between the Welsh Language Board and a host of other organisations in Wales—and bodies come forward and say, "Well, this and that needs to be done, Minister", and the Minister says, "No, I am sorry; you have reached an agreement but I am not going to do it", that would underline our fears about the way in which the board will work without any statutory rights.
      The Welsh Language Board and the CRE have determined that there needs to be a statutory provision. The Government are apparently unwilling to use the Bill as a vehicle, even though it is an eminently suitable one. They are not even willing to keep the option open for the few days until the Bill comes back from the House of Lords, presumably next week. The Government are showing an unreasonable unwillingness in not allowing that facility to be kept open for the next few days.
      If the Minister has said his last word on the subject and can add nothing further, we shall have no option but to divide the House. It is sad that we cannot take this step when it is what the Minister wants to do—in line with the conversations that we have had—when it is what the Commission for Racial Equality wants to do, when it is what the Welsh Language Board wants to do, when it is what the overwhelming majority of the people of Wales want to do and when, I suspect, it is what the majority of hon. Members want to do.
      Mr. Morgan: May I, too, press the Minister, bearing in mind the fact that we have probably reached a crunch point in tonight's proceedings? The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) says that if new clause 7 is not accepted, the right hon. Gentleman will have pre-empted the possibility of the Government's accepting an agreement that appears to have been struck between the CRE and the Welsh Language Board. If the new clause were accepted, the Government would not be pre-empted from introducing a form of words in the other place when Commons amendments are considered there.
      If the Government find that such a provision is not practical, that the agreement to which the hon. Member for Caernarfon referred does not exist or that the matter has been misunderstood, they can take action in the other place to remedy matters. But if the Minister does not accept the new clause tonight, there will be no possibility of using the Bill to enact the agreement that has been struck between the Welsh Language Board and the CRE.
      Mr. Wigley: I was making that precise point. There is no alternative to what we are suggesting. If the new clause is not accepted now, the whole issue is closed. I urge the Government to examine the matter to ensure that the wording of the new clause reflects the point that we have in mind.
      Mr. Morgan: They are frightened of losing face.
      Mr. Wigley: If that is all it is, the Government are adducing the worst of all arguments. Leaving aside any question of saving or losing face, we simply want to get rid

      1181
      of a problem that all concerned agree exists. I repeat, if the Government find, after scrutiny, that the drafting of new clause 7 does not represent the way in which the Welsh Language Board and the commission wish to make progress, the provision can be removed or amended in the other place.
      Mr. Flynn: Many hon. Members, including myself, are hearing the argument for the first time and are totally persuaded by what the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) says. Many accusations are made about the unreasonableness and elective dictatorship of the Government. The Conservatives have little support in Wales—32 seats out of 500 at the last election—and are being unreasonable tonight.
      The hon. Member for Caernarfon is simply arguing that the options must be kept open. We had a vivid demonstration last night of the dominance of the Conservatives in the other place. It is clear that they will be able to do what they like when the Bill arrives there. They can remove the new clause or alter it at that stage. If they do not accept it tonight, they will be slamming the door closed until a future Government bring forward another Welsh language measure. That will probably not happen in the lifetime of any of us here now. If the Government do not accept the new clause, they will be acting against the wishes of the people of Wales.
      Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman voices my feelings. If the Government are not willing to keep their options open for a few days while they investigate the issue—knowing for certain that they can remove the provision in the other place if the wording is not acceptable—they will be seen as having been totally unreasonable in their handling of this legislation.
      Accusations are already flying around in the context of the earlier debate, in which plenty of emotion was expressed. We have had a cool and calculated discussion of a matter which we all agree has been a problem. If the Government do not use the vehicle of this Bill to deal with the issue now, they will be open to all sorts of accusations in Wales.
      I am trying to save the Government from themselves, although they seem determined to go down a different avenue. I urge the Minister and the occupants of the Treasury Bench at least to keep their mouths shut when the Question is put, so enabling the new clause to become part of the Bill.
      Mr. Rowlands: I make a final plea to the Minister. It is astonishing that such a discussion could occur between the Welsh Language Board and the Commission for Racial Equality, resulting in a well-drafted amendment being produced in respect of a piece of legislation that has already been before the House, yet neither the Minister nor his officials knew anything about it.
      We are old enough to know that, unless we take advantage of this Bill to put that matter right, the chances of the next Government or the one after that finding time to make such a change will be negligible. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to accept the new clause, thereby giving him time to examine the matter afresh, after which he can move to delete it or redraft it in the other place to reflect what has been agreed between two sensible organisations.
      1182
      I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman must consult the Secretary of State for Employment, but as it seems that he does not oppose the idea and as the House would be willing to give it more than a fair wind, he should accept the new clause. As I say, the chances of passing a separate piece of amending legislation on the subject in the near future are slim.
      I beg the Minister to prevent the House from dividing on the matter. We are all basically on the same side. Perhaps the Minister agrees with us, having had time to reflect on it, and will now accept the new clause. It would not involve him getting sacked. He has managed to survive for 14 years, so accepting it on the hoof, as it were, should cause him no problem.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: I assure the House that we considered the matter thoroughly before the debate took place. We do not find the new clause acceptable. I have outlined the position in relation to employment law and the Welsh language. It is not Government practice to accept amendments in which we do not believe and which we think are incorrect.
      The position is that there is agreement between the CRE and the Welsh Language Board. As far as I am aware, the Government have not been consulted about inserting that agreement in legislation. I hope that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) will not press the matter to a Division, but, if he does, I shall ask my hon. Friends to oppose it.
      Mr. Wigley: I make a final plea in a debate that has shed light not only on the subject under discussion but on the way in which the Government listen to our arguments and respond to them. I recall taking a deputation concerned with disability issues to see a Minister of lower rank than the right hon. Gentleman who has charge of this measure. That junior Minister listened to us and said, "The advice of my civil servants is that I must resist your request but, having listened to you, I shall accept it."
      Mr. Morgan: I understand that a letter has been sent by the chairman of the Welsh Language Board on the matter to the Secretary of State or to the Minister of State. I wonder whether we might elicit some information about whether he responded to that letter.
      Mr. Wigley: I, too, have seen the press reports this week. There seems to have been some confusion between what is understood in the Welsh Office and what is understood by the Commission for Racial Equality and the Welsh Language Board. As there was a report of that, in the Western Mail a few days ago, I should have thought that by now the Government would at least have found out what the position was. I should have been surprised if there had not been some correspondence.
      8 pm
      Mr. Rowlands: The matter is becoming more serious. The Minister made a clear and unequivocal statement that neither he nor his Department knew about that arrangement.
      Mr. Wigley: That was the comment made earlier. Clearly, the Minister had not seen the letter I received, but I should have imagined that the contents of a letter sent to me as a Back Bencher would have been similar to any proposals that had been brought to the attention of the Minister.
      Mr. Morgan: Has the Minister seen it?
      Mr. Wigley: I also ask whether the Minister has seen the correspondence with the CRE. I understand that it is being checked out at the moment and I shall be interested to hear whether he has seen it.
      If he has seen it and he is aware that there was an agreement, and yet he responded in the way that he did in Committee, he was misleading the Committee. If, however, the correspondence has arrived since the Committee, it is new information on which the Government should be acting. The response from the Minister is the same as that which he gave us in Committee. In other words, I am not quite sure whether Welsh Office Ministers have been on top of their act. It sems not only that they have not, but that they are not prepared to consider the possibility that there is other information and that they need a vehicle to find a way out of it.
      The debate has continued long enough and the embarrassment of the Government has been exposed for all the people of Wales to see. I hope that there is some way in which the Government can do something in the House of Lords, but I do not believe that there is. I believe that the Government, by their shout in a few moments' time, will be closing the options to something that they believe should be done. It is an incredible reflection of the Government's behaviour.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: I want to clear up one thing. I said that I had not seen a copy of the letter sent to the hon. Gentleman. I am aware that there have been discussions between the board and the CRE. We at the Welsh Office have been discussing these matters with the CRE for some time. We considered the amendment that he is now putting forward quite a long time ago, but we reached the conclusion that it was not an acceptable amendment and we have not changed our conclusion.
      Mr. Wigley: I take it, therefore, from what the Minister is saying that he had seen the amendment to which the letter I received refers. If he had not seen it, he could not make that judgment. So he has seen it; presumably it was not a rushed decision as the judgment was made in 1991—two years ago—and there has been adequate time to find a way forward.
      It is a portent of what will occur between the Welsh Language Board and the Government. There will be schemes that take months to agree between the Welsh Language Board and various parts of the public sector in Wales. They will be sat on for two years by the Government and then, at the end of the day, Ministers will refuse to accept the unanimous advice from Wales.
      We had hoped that we could have supported the legislation. Our discussion tonight underlines why we believe that there is a central vacuum in the Bill; it contains no rights at all. All the rights are there, but the Government are not willing to use them and the people of Wales will suffer.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided:—Ayes 31, Noes 135.

      Division No. 336]

      [8.03 pm

      AYES

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Campbell, Menzies (File NE)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Barnes, Harry

      Cryer, Bob

      Betts, Clive

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      1184

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

      Rendel, David

      Flynn, Paul

      Rowlands, Ted

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Harvey, Nick

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Stott, Roger

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Wallace, James

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Wise, Audrey

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Mr. Cynog Dafis and Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones.

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Jack, Michael

      Alexander, Richard

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Amess, David

      Jessel, Toby

      Arbuthnot, James

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Key, Robert

      Atkins, Robert

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Baldry, Tony

      Legg, Barry

      Bates, Michael

      Lidington, David

      Bellingham, Henry

      Lightbown, David

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Lord, Michael

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Booth, Hartley

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Malone, Gerald

      Brazier, Julian

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Burns, Simon

      Merchant, Piers

      Burt, Alistair

      Milligan, Stephen

      Chapman, Sydney

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Clappison, James

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Congdon, David

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Conway, Derek

      Page, Richard

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Paice, James

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Pickles, Eric

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Day, Stephen

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Richards, Rod

      Dover, Den

      Riddick, Graham

      Duncan, Alan

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Elletson, Harold

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Faber, David

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Fabricant, Michael

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      French, Douglas

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Gale, Roger

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Gallie, Phil

      Sproat, Iain

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Steen, Anthony

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Stephen, Michael

      Hague, William

      Stern, Michael

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Streeter, Gary

      Harris, David

      Sweeney, Walter

      Hawksley, Warren

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Hendry, Charles

      Thomason, Roy

      Horam, John

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Tracey, Richard

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

      Tredinnick, David

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Trend, Michael

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Hunter, Andrew

      Viggers, Peter

      1185

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Wood, Timothy

      Waterson, Nigel

      Wells, Bowen

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Mr. Robert G. Hughes and Mr. Andrew MacKay.

      Whittingdale, John

      Willetts, David

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 10

      RIGHT TO WELSH MEDIUM EDUCATION
      '(1) Every local education authority in Wales shall provide for every child or young person of school age in Wales whose parents so desire, the opportunity to receive education in, and through the medium of, Welsh, within a reasonable distance of their home.
      (2) The cost of providing education through the medium of Welsh in accordance with subsection (1) above shall be taken into account by the Secretary of State in determining the capital and revenue support requirements of each local education authority in Wales on an annual basis.'.—[Mr. Wigtey.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Wigley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 9, in clause 5, page 2, line 32, after '(1)',insert
      "Except as provided in subsection (2A) below."
      No. 11, in page 2, line 45, at end insert
      '(2A) The scheme referred to in subsection (1) above shall not include measures in connection with the provision by a local education authority of education in the medium of Welsh.'.
      No. 13, in clause 6, page 3, leave out lines 21 to 23.
      No. 15, in clause 7, page 4, line 7, at end insert
      '(2A) A notice under subsection (1) above may not require a local education authority to prepare a scheme in relation to the provision of education in the medium of Welsh.'.
      Mr. Wigley: I hope that we do not take as long discussing new clause 10 and the associated amendments as we took to discuss the previous group. The new clause relates to the right to Welsh-medium education. Those who served on the Standing Committee will recall the considerable debate on that matter. As a result, the new clause that we tabled in Committee has been revised to give the right to Welsh-medium education to all children of school age.
      The new clause contains a provision to meet the fears expressed by some Opposition Members that an additional financial burden would be imposed on Welsh local education authorities. Subsection (2) states:
      "The cost of providing education through the medium of Welsh in accordance with subsection (1) above shall be taken into account by the Secretary of State in determining the capital and revenue support requirements of each local education authority in Wales on an annual basis."
      That subsection should allay the misgivings genuinely and properly expressed in Committee, for which I had some sympathy.
      I shall not rehearse the arguments deployed in Committee. I say only, in summary, that the provision of Welsh-medium education varies considerably from area to area. In Committee, I quoted examples of people in certain parts of Wales who had considerable difficulty in getting Welsh-medium education within a reasonable distance of
      1186
      their homes. That has aroused considerable passion in some parts of Wales. Of course, in other parts good and improving provision is being made.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Alan W. Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are parts of Wales—his constituency may be one—where it is equally difficult to get English-medium education, especially at infant and primary level, within a reasonable distance of home?
      Mr. Wigley: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman does not understand Gwynedd's education policy on primary schools. Its objective is to get every child to be thoroughly bilingual by the age of 11. If that is the hon. Gentleman's objective in what he is advocating in Dyfed, I salute that. There is a campaign in Dyfed by a small minority of parents who want to avoid any Welsh-medium education that would go anywhere near to making their children bilingual by the age of 11.
      Mr. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?
      Mr. Wigley: I suspect that this will be a dialogue.
      Mr. Wiliams: I had not intended to become involved in the debate. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in infant education, children aged between five and seven should have the right to learn to read and write in their mother tongue—that is, the language of the home? If that applies to Welsh speakers, it must also apply to English speakers if we are to uphold the principle of equality to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
      Mr. Wigley: There should be a facility within Welsh education to make all children thoroughly bilingual as quickly as possible. The most practical way to do that is by considerable immersion at an early age. Children aged five to seven are like blotting paper and they can pick up languages easily.
      Mr. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Wigley: No. I am sorry: the hon. Gentleman can make this own speech in due course. I am not being discourteous; I do not want to detain the House.
      Children have the ability to pick up languages at an early age. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of children in my constituency speak only Welsh at the ages of three and four, but learn English at five and six and are verbally thoroughly bilingual by seven.
      Over the past 20 years, there has been a tremendous growth in something known as the Welsh schools movement. It operates in the non-Welsh speaking, mainly industrial areas in Wales. A great deal of progress has been made in, for example, the old areas of Glamorgan, especially Flintshire. Great progress has been made in Cardiff, where Welsh-medium education is mushrooming at a tremendous rate. Although the parents are non-Welsh speaking, they want their children to be educated in Welsh, not just as a subject but through the medium of Welsh.
      The way in which that has succeeded academically as well as socially has overcome some of the worries that I know many hon. Members had 10 or 15 years ago about building ghetto societies. We are not doing that. Society moves on in some of the English speaking industrial valleys in which a large proportion of young people—perhaps even 30 or 40 per cent.—are educated through the

      1187
      medium of Welsh. That is the key to the ability of the Welsh language to gain tremendous new ground in this generation.
      Such education should be available within a reasonable distance of every person's home. People should not have to travel 20 or 30 miles for it, and there certainly should not be generations of young people who did not have the opportunity at all, as, regrettably, happened in some parts of West Glamorgan. I hope that things are moving forward there now, but for a long time young people have missed the opportunity. Thousands of young people in Wales who could have been fluently bilingual by now, and whose parents wanted them to be, were denied that chance because of the lack of a statutory right.
      I accept that the new clause is based on the statutory rights approach. I know that the Government do not like that approach for the Bill, but I do not see how, with a statutory right, it would be possible to safeguard the position through the Welsh Language Board.
      Indeed, as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said, the Welsh Language Board and local authorities could be brought into tremendous conflict. I hope that that will not happen, but I can see the seeds of the possibility, and I would rather see a statutory right through local education authorities, with the Welsh Language Board being there to advise, to help and to come in where there are real difficulties. The basic responsibility should be laid on LEAs.
      No doubt the Minister will say that it will be possible to develop schemes between the Welsh Language Board and local education authorities, and I accept that. But we heard in an earlier debate what happens when there is an agreement between two such bodies. The agreement can be two or three years down the line and still the Government do not accept it. They may have some reason best known to themselves why an agreement between two bodies in Wales is not accepted in Whitehall and Westminster. Provisions for schemes such as those suggested by the Government do not even begin to meet the requirement. There should be a statutory right in the Bill.
      Mr. Rowlands: My amendment No. 11 has been grouped with the new clause, and I do not know whether I would have tabled it had I known that the two would be taken together, because I want to support whole heartedly the idea of a statutory right for parents to have their children educated through the medium of Welsh.
      At the same time, for reasons that I have already explained and shall not repeat, I am deeply reluctant to allow the Welsh Language Board to become involved in the detailed development of education policy within communities, especially communities such as mine, which are sensitively balanced, with much genuine effort being made to achieve that balance and to avoid division and friction. I have a feeling that, accidentally—I do not mean this in any offensive way—the Welsh Language Board could bumble into such situations and create problems where there could have been harmony. I oppose the considerable extension of the board's activities into the details of local education authority policies.
      As a quid pro quo, I certainly support the new clause, which gives parents a statutory right. I consider it far better to proceed by giving people rights and letting them exercise them. If those rights are denied people must have proper procedures for obtaining redress through the Secretary of State or the courts. The Welsh Language
      1188
      Board should not become involved in the arguments and be dragged in, whether it wants to intervene or not. One repeatedly sees people using the board as a means of appeal when arguments are taking place locally. Such a role would damage the integrity and status of the board, and the support that it should receive.
      I thank the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for withdrawing his original new clause as a result of representations from other members of the Committee, because subsection (2) was not then part of it. Now the new clause is balanced, and ensures that the resources issue will be tackled when we grant the right. I support the new clause, and if a vote is forced I shall vote for it, but I hope that that will be taken in conjunction with my considerable reservations about the prospect of the Welsh Language Board's having a major role and bring able to intervene in the development of individual LEA policies on the Welsh language.
      Without opening too many divisions among ourselves, may I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) that in my overwhelmingly English-speaking community my children were brought up and educated through the medium of Welsh. I cannot remember my wife or myself having taught them English, yet I am happy to say that my eldest son has graduated in English, my second son achieved a grade A in English at A-level, and I hope that my daughter will achieve something similar a year hence.
      Whatever pressures my hon. Friend may be under, let me tell him that, even in communities such as mine, we have managed to bring up children bilingually without the fear that they would not learn English as a result. Young children have an enormous capacity to learn and enjoy languages, and I believe that teaching them more than one language makes them more fluent, and more interested in sounds and in language itself.
      Mr. Alan W. Williams: My hon. Friend's wife, who was born just outside my constituency, is from a Welsh-speaking background. That makes a vital contribution. It is much easier for children if they are educated in their mother tongue, so it was entirely natural for my hon. Friend's children to go to a Welsh-speaking school.
      My hon. Friend referred to pressures that I may be under. I am under no pressure at all—or at least, the only pressure is my desire for there to be equality between the Welsh and the English languages in my constituency and throughout Wales.
      Mr. Rowlands: I do not think that my hon. Friend's case will hold water. I do not want to point the finger, but my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), the shadow Secretary of State, sends his children to a school where everything is taught through the medium of Welsh, although I believe that neither parent is Welsh speaking. It would not have been possible to have made children bilingual in Merthyr unless such commitments had been made. The process did no damage whatever to the standard achieved in English. We should not set up bogeys, because they do not exist.
      Mr. Alan W. Williams: Of course I am delighted, and I know very well, that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has chosen a Welsh medium of education in the Rhymney valley for his daughter. However, the difference between that situation and the problems in my constituency is that my hon. Friend the

      1189
      Member for Caerphilly was in a position to choose. It was a matter of voluntary choice, whereas in my constituency, and in large areas of Dyfed and Gwynedd, parents have no choice other than Welsh-medium education. Surely that cannot be right.
      Mr. Rowlands: It is sad that for a long time parents could not choose to have their children brought up bilingually. If I lived in Dyfed and my children went to a school that taught all subjects in Welsh, I am sure that they would also be taught English, and would emerge effectively bilingual—unless that did not happen for other educational reasons. I did not wish to start too much of an argument with my hon. Friend; I simply wanted to draw to his attention the experience of a household in an overwhelmingly English-speaking community.
      I support the new clause, and I hope that the Welsh Language Board heeds the warnings that we gave in Committee, which I repeated through the vehicle of amendment No. 11. The board should tread warily when dealing with the detailed aspects of LEA policy. If it does not tread carefully, it could create tensions within the local communities. So long as the board listens to the messages that we have sent from this Chamber and from the Committee, we will have a sensible and balanced approach to these issues. We should support the idea of a right of the kind suggested in the new clause.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: I also support the new clause. The advantage of a right is that it creates a corresponding duty. In my constituency, and throughout Powys, bilingual education has not been available in a Welsh-medium school. That has caused great anger among a large group of parents. The situation is simply unacceptable.
      8.30 pm
      The issue has been considered time and again by the local education authority of Powys county council. However, because there is no duty to make the provision, it has fudged the issue time and again. That is not acceptable. As a result, the anger of the growing group of parents who wish to have their children educated at a secondary level through the medium of Welsh has grown. A quite unnecessary political issue has arisen.
      At the moment, a solution has at least been found for part of Powys. A proposal has been put forward for a building, which has been used as a special school, to be created as a Welsh medium unit for the first three, or possibly four, years of the Caereinion high school at Llanfair Caereinion. The matter is now before the Secretary of State for a decision. I want to take the opportunity of tonight's debate to urge the Secretary of State to reach a decision as soon as possible.
      The last schools decision from the same valley—the Banw valley—which went to the Secretary of State took 10 months. That related to an application, which was eventually granted, by a primary school for grant-maintained status. I hope very much that the decision to which I referred a few moments ago can be reached in 10 weeks rather than 10 months. Even 10 weeks would seem more than long enough.
      Mr. Jonathan Evans: The hon. and learned Gentleman must recognise that Powys county council's proposal to the Secretary of State may well resolve certain issues in
      1190
      relation to the provision of Welsh-medium education in the hon. and learned Gentleman's part of Powys. However, given the immense geographical size of Powys, it will not be of any real assistance to parents in my part of Powys who are also seeking Welsh-medium education.
      Mr. Carlile: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was about to say that, even if that provision is granted and the application by Powys is allowed, that will not meet all the needs of my constituents in the part of Powys which is Montgomeryshire.
      I should be much happier to see an entirely new Welsh medium school established somewhere reasonably accessible—perhaps near Newtown—to all those children who wish to be educated through the medium of Welsh or whose parents wish that for them.
      The problem which the new clause raises is that if Powys decided to make such a provision, and it might well decide to do that on the merits of the case, it could not afford to do so. The Government should shoulder the responsibility of meeting the cost of that provision throughout Wales, or at least throughout those parts of Wales where it is reasonable so to do. However, in saying "those parts of Wales where it is reasonable so to do", I do not mean for a moment to dilute my belief that every parent in Wales should have the right to choose the medium of Welsh for the education of their children.
      I would go so far as to say that this is one of the key issues in the Bill. Many of us will determine how we vote on Third Reading after listening to the Government's considered response on this point. If the Government refuse to give Welsh official status, as they have already refused tonight, and if they refuse to give a right, which sounds pretty reasonable, for children to be educated through the medium of Welsh, what is left in the Bill? All that is left is a Welsh Language Board which will no doubt produce some interesting schemes, many of which I suspect it will not be possible to enforce, and which will not have created a single worthwhile right which a single citizen in Wales can enforce through the courts of law. If that is what we are left with, it will look pretty threadbare.
      Mr. Alan W. Williams: I had not intended to intervene in this debate. However, having heard the contributions of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), I felt that I had to point out once again that the socialist principle should apply.
      I strongly support the spirit of the new clause and the opportunity for Welsh-medium education. The clause is fine and I have no problem with it. However, it does not carry with it the principle of equality. Throughout Wales, there should be the opportunity for Welsh-medium education and for English-medium education.
      The Minister of State is aware of our problems in Dyfed. Those problems also pertain to Gwynedd. If English-speaking parents move to our rural heartlands of Llanelli, Llandovey and Lampeter from Swansea, Neath or Merthyr, they will find that the local primary school is mainly Welsh medium. It teaches children to read and write in the Welsh language.
      Parents want to help their children, especially their infant children, when they are at primary school. It is impossible for English-speaking parents to help their

      1191
      children to learn to read and write if the primary school teaches in the Welsh medium. That takes away a vital part of parenting and part of the enjoyment of being a parent.
      It is amazing that that has happened. Over the past few years, there has been a rolling programme in Dyfed which has affected the rural areas. One hundred and eighty eight primary schools in Dyfed are mainly Welsh medium. That is fine so long as the children come from Welsh-speaking homes or if the parents choose that for their children.
      I admire my hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). Although they are not Welsh speaking, they have decided to send their children to Welsh-medium primary schools. However, that should not be compulsory. In large areas of Gwynedd and Dyfed we effectively have compulsory Welsh-medium infant education. That cannot be right for children.
      It was said earlier this evening that children pick up languages like blotting paper. That is simply not true. It is an absolute myth. Coming from a Welsh-speaking home, I was brought up with Welsh and English and I learnt them quite easily. However, I had the advantage of bilingual parents—they spoke both Welsh and English. Children can readily be brought up bilingual in a bilingual home. However, it is otherwise quite difficult and especially for average or below average children.
      The hon. Member for Caernarfon referred in Committee to Europe and to trilingualism and quadralingualism and to a tremendous facility with language. That is not the case across Europe. It applies only to very small minority groups. Nearly all children in France are taught through the medium of French. Very few French people speak English or German. The same applies in Germany where there is one dominant language.
      Mr. Wigley: There are millions of people in France whose first language is not French—
      Mr. Alan W. Williams: No, a small minority.
      Mr. Wigley: Yes, there are millions. A standard work refers to a figure of in excess of 10 million people who had a language other than French as their first language. A country like Holland experiences several languages running together because it is at the crossroads of Europe. When the Dutch football team was competing in the World cup finals, six of the 11 players could give interviews in four languages. There are times when some hon. Members cannot give an interview in one language. That is the reality of multilingualism.
      Mr. Williams: The hon. Member for Caernarfon has started to believe some of his mythology. It is a case of repetition after repetition and then he believes myths. The vast majority of people in Europe are monolingual. It should be a fundamental right for all children to learn to read and write in the language of their homes—in their mother tongue—so that their parents can help them. That right is not available in large areas of Dyfed and Gwynedd. My difficulty is that the new clause does not relate to problems in my constituency.
      Mr. Rowlands: It might sound a banal comparison, but if I were a younger parent, and we moved to Wokingham, I would not have expected my children to be able to learn in a Welsh-medium school. Therefore, if I as a parent lived in Dyfed or Gwynedd where the major provision is Welsh, surely I would have to accept that as a natural constraint
      1192
      because I had chosen to move there and accept the education facilities that are available there. My hon. Friend is making a wrong case.
      Mr. Williams: Some schools in my constituency have been categorised as mainly Welsh medium, and 90 per cent. of the children come from English-speaking homes. In most of my constituency, 50 per cent. of people are from Welsh-speaking homes and 50 per cent. are from English-speaking homes. In rural areas, there is the deliberate exclusion of the English language between the ages of five and seven. [Interruption.] That is the case. The hon. Member for Caernarfon might have convulsions at the thought of that, but it is the reality.
      Even though I support the spirit of the new clause, when there is no English-speaking education for many of my constituents, it does not address the problem of the Welsh language in education in my constituency. If the clause had been redrafted with the Welsh medium and the English available, it would have included the concept of equality.
      The hon. Member for Caernarfon voted with us in the first Division this evening. We in Wales want a status for the Welsh language in Wales that is no less than the status of English, and the principle of equal status and equal validity. That is a two-sided coin, and hon. Members must accept that. Although we want the availability of Welsh-medium education throughout Wales, and I support that, we must also have English-medium education throughout Wales.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney talked about the appropriateness of the Welsh Language Board vis-a-vis local education authorities. He is right. Local education authorities carry the primary responsibility. It is a little odd to see education introduced in one new clause in respect of a 20-clause Bill.
      Hon. Members must think more about this matter. We in Wales need to examine our education system in total and not just automatically adopt what is happening in England. We need a separate education Bill for Wales. Such a Bill could cover primary, secondary, further and higher education and find a place for the Welsh language.
      I should like equality to prevail throughout our education system. That means the availability of the Welsh medium in infant, primary and secondary education throughout Wales, together with the availability of English medium education.
      If the hon. Member for Caernarfon presses the new clause to a Division, I will not be able to support him because the principle of equality is absent. I would not vote against it, but I would abstain.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Flynn: I will not repeat what was said in Committee when we discussed this matter at length. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) was an isolated figure in Committee, as he will be in the House, and as he is throughout most of Wales for his point of view on this issue. The reason is that he is fighting against the commonsense approach that has been adopted in every corner of Wales from Monmouth to Caernarfon.
      No one has suggested that the same rules for the language—the same conditions—should apply for every part of Wales, just as no one would suggest that everyone

      1193
      in Monmouth could go to a school on the border and demand Welsh education. They would not get anywhere if they did that.
      In Carmarthen, a certain line has been pursued by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams). A tiny group of people have written to us—they are not the most rational letters that we have received. My hon. Friend has opposed the policy of the county council.
      Mr. Alan W. Williams: My hon. Friend refers to that tiny group of people. Let me assure my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), because he referred to a similar matter, that when in Carmarthen town, Lampeter, Cardigan, Llanelli and towns in Dyfed there is a free choice between Welsh-medium education and English-medium education, the overwhelming majority of Welsh-speaking people choose Welsh-medium education and the large majority of English-speaking people choose English-medium education. It is not a tiny number. In rural areas, thousands of people are being deprived of the opportunity to educate their children in the language of the home.
      Mr. Flynn: The tiny group I am referring to is called Education First. It is a campaigning group. I was about to say that elected representatives of the people of Carmarthen on Dyfed county council have selected a language policy which they regarded as right for that complex county. It was a different policy in different areas—just as it would have to be in every other county of Wales that has strong Welsh-speaking areas and areas in which Welsh is not the first language. My hon. Friend is trying to impose absolute equality on education, which is totally impractical.
      We have accepted that we cannot ask Monmouth district council to do things that Dwyfor district council is doing. We have accepted the complex linguistic pattern of Wales. It is not sensible to talk about a socialist principle to do it that way. It is a very crude argument that my hon. Friend is applying which, in practice, cannot work either in education or in any other aspect of the language. We must temper what we are trying to do with much common sence and an understanding of the linguistic map of Wales.
      Mr. Morgan: The House will be pleased to know that I intend to be very brief and that I do not intend to enter the hornets' nest that is raised by new clause 10 which relates to the transverse rights of English-speaking people in Welsh-speaking areas; nor do I intend to try to settle the problems of the Bretons and the Basques in France. I wish briefly to refer to a matter that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), which was the function or duty that will be given to the Welsh Language Board and how it relates to the duties of the Curriculum Council for Wales, which we will discuss on Monday.
      In case the Minister of State has not seen it, I refer to the advertisement for the chief executive for the new Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales, although we are encouraged to refer to it by its Welsh acronym of ACAC. The Minister of State has already claimed not to have seen one document. I do not want to embarass him, but I am sure that he reads The Sunday Times and has checked the advertisement that was. I
      1194
      suppose, partially issued in his name, although it has come out through the PA Consulting Group on behalf of the Government to select the new chief executive, on the presumption that the Education Bill will pass through Parliament. The advertisement states that the ACAC
      "will be, subject to the passage of the Education Bill through Parliament, the main central agency in Wales for taking forward the National Curriculum"—
      That is fair enough—there is no problem there. The advertisement then says:
      "and developing Welsh language education".
      One assumes that it is not simply confined to the teaching of Welsh as a core curriculum subject in Welsh schools; otherwise that is what it would have said.
      Presumably, education through the Welsh medium is included. That is confirmed by the Welsh translation of the version where it refers to the duties of the ACAC as "Datblygu Addysg Gymraeg". That takes it into the area of Welsh language education generally, not merely the subject of Welsh as taught in schools—literature and language, as it were. Presumably it will be Welsh language education generally, including Welsh learner courses and, obviously, the way in which the Welsh language is used to teach physics and biology or any other subject that is taught in a school through the Welsh medium.
      That raises the question asked earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney: which quango will do that job? Will we be subjected to turf contests between the Welsh Language Board and the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales over who will have the last word on Welsh language education matters, assuming that Welsh language education is not simply confined to the teaching of Welsh as a core curriculum subject?
      Before the Education Bill comes back to the House on Monday, we should be clear about questioning whether it will be the Welsh Language Board, because it was not excluded. Indeed, in Committee, the Minister said that the board will be heavily involved in looking after the interests of education through the Welsh medium, but apparently the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales has been given the job. I hope that the Minister, on receipt of the advice that he is always able to get on such matters, will clarify the position before we proceed any further.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: The debate has ranged widely and I shall try to be as much to the point as I possibly can. We all agree on the tremendous value of Welsh-medium education and the progress that has been made. What we tend to forget is that that progress has been made under the Education Act 1944. The strength of that Act is that it treats the English and Welsh-medium sectors evenhandedly. My concern about new clause 10 is that, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) pointed out, it does not deal with the two languages even-handedly.
      The Bill is about treating English and Welsh on a basis of equality. I do not believe that we would be treating the English and Welsh-medium sectors of education on the basis of equality if local education authorities were placed under a duty such as that in new clause 10 with regard to Welsh-medium education without there being a comparable duty concerning the provision of English-medium education.
      The terms of the 1944 Act are admirably suited to reflect the difficult issues that can surround the most effective delivery of Welsh-medium education alongside the English-medium sector. The 1944 Act does not seek to

      1195
      impose the same pattern of education in all parts of Wales. As I explained in Committee, it requires that, to the extent that it is compatible with efficient instruction and the avoidance of unreasonable expenditure, pupils should be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents. We propose that that statutory duty will remain unchanged as a result of the Bill. The success of Welsh-medium education in areas such as Mid Glamorgan is an indication that the 1944 Act is admirably suited to governing the conduct of LEAs in this respect.
      The change that we propose to introduce is that the Welsh language scheme that LEAs will be required to produce should include their policy on the provision of Welsh-medium education. In preparing their scheme, LEAs and any school funding council that may be established will need to have regard to the guidelines that the board may produce on the subject and consult parents. Our intention is that the changes should ensure that, while recognising that the issue will often involve difficult and sensitive issues, the delivery of Welsh-medium education should be as closely attuned to the reasonable expectation of parents as possible.
      The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) was anxious about the board's role with regard to education. While granting the board a role in education, we are not advocating that it should become responsible for the delivery of Welsh-medium education. That responsibility will remain with LEAs and any school funding council that is established in due course.
      Mr. Rowlands rose—
      Sir Wyn Roberts: I will spell it out for the hon. Gentleman, but I will give way if he wants me to. The board will have an important role to play alongside the LEA, but will not take the place of the LEA. For example, we do not foresee the board becoming involved in detailed issues concerning the delivery of Welsh-medium education in specific schools. That will be a matter of day-to-day management for LEAs and schools.
      The board will simply not be in a position to become involved in such local issues. Its role will be to look at LEA proposals for Welsh-medium education covering the authority as a whole. It is only at that strategic level that sensible decisions can be made about whether the Welsh and English languages are being dealt with on the basis of equality.
      Mr. Rowlands: The Minister started by telling us that an LEA or school will have to submit to the Welsh Language Board a scheme for the provision of education in the Welsh medium and the board must then approve that scheme.
      That will inevitably mean that the board will get involved in the provision of education in a community. The moment the board gets involved, parents who are dissatisfied with the provision of Welsh-medium education will appeal to the board, and the Minister and the board will get dragged into that issue. Whatever the Minister says, the danger of that is considerable, and his explanation does not give me any comfort.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: I reiterate that the scheme will not work out as the hon. Gentleman anticipates because the strength of the board is that it will be able to develop a breadth of perspective concerning the position of the Welsh language across all phases of education. That
      1196
      breadth of perspective can only serve to compliment the roles of the bodies that are charged with the delivery of Welsh-medium education.
      Mr. Wigley: I listened to the Minister's description of how the board will have only a strategic responsibility for the provision of Welsh-medium education. How, then, will it in practice sort out the kind of problem that has gone on for years in Swansea, where it has been impossible to get Welsh-medium education?
      Sir Wyn Roberts: I said that the board would work out with each local education authority, in the light of the guidelines that will be approved by the House, the precise scheme under which Welsh-medium education will be provided. In so far as such schemes will be matters of negotiation, arrangement and agreement between the board and the LEA, I can certainly foresee benefits emerging.
      One must also remember that these schemes will be the result of consultation. We shall accept a Labour-inspired amendment later which provides for extensive consultation. It will affect non-Welsh-speaking as well as Welsh-speaking parents. We are looking to the board to achieve a beneficial influence in the local authority context to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The board has not simply a strategic role, but real strength, power and influence.
      Without, therefore, interfering with local decision making in any way, the board will have an important role to play in education. It will be important that the board exercises that role with considerable sensitivity. In recognising the importance of the issue, I am confident that that is what the board will do.
      9 pm
      The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) referred to the advertisement in The Sunday Times for a chief executive for the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales. The role of that authority, which we shall discuss further, is to develop the curriculum and carry out assessment in Wales. The authority will certainly have a role in developing Welsh as a subject in the national curriculum, both as a first and as a second language. It will have a role also in relation to assessment in Welsh and other subjects. It will also be responsible for the provision of teaching materials for use in Welsh schools. We may well have an opportunity of returning to the detailed provisions, powers and responsibilities of the authority.
      Mr. Morgan: The exact phrase used in the advertisement is
      "the development of Welsh language education".
      The Minister may be telling the House that the advertisement is inaccurate and that PA Consulting Group should be given a rap over the knuckles for perhaps misunderstanding its instructions.
      Surely "Welsh language education" would be construed by most people as going much further than simply Welsh as a curriculum subject, whether first or second language and whether curriculum or assessment. To most people "Welsh language education" would include education through the medium of Welsh, would it not?
      Sir Wyn Roberts: Yes and, arguably, "Welsh language education" would extend right through further education into higher education, as the hon. Gentleman suggested earlier. We must remember that the hon. Gentleman is

      1197
      referring to an advertisement for a particular post. Those who may be suitable to respond to that advertisement will know the proximate role of ACAC.
      It will be for ACAC, the Welsh Language Board, the LEAs and all others concerned with education in Wales to work out their relationships. Certainly the authority will be expected to produce a scheme in much the same way as any other non-departmental public body will be expected to produce a scheme in Wales.
      Mr. Wigley: I have listened carefully to the Minister, but I am far from convinced that the provisions of the Bill will answer the weakness of the Education Act 1944, on which he based so much of his argument.
      In numerous places in Wales—although not a majority—it is impossible to get education through the medium of Welsh within a reasonable distance. There has not been a positive drive to do that. If the board succeeds in getting guidelines that meet that requirement, and thence local strategies, and can persuade people of the need, that is fine, but we know that if the Government resist the new clause—as they seem to do—there will be no statutory rights. Everything depends on good will, which may turn to ill will, as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said, and all sorts of in-fighting may result.
      I hope to goodness that the provision of educational schemes in the Bill achieves what the Minister wants, but I have reservations, because, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said, unless one has rights that create duties, there is no certainty that that will happen and no way of ensuring that it does.
      I shall respond briefly to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams). Our objective in wanting Welsh-medium education to work thoroughly and to maintain the natural schools that provide Welsh in Gwynedd and Dyfed and parts of other counties is to create an integrated community; a community that is not divided by language, and where young people can speak both languages and, therefore, can apply for any job and take part fully in that community.
      I am not persuaded by the hon. Member for Carmarthen that he is campaigning to ensure that the non-Welsh-speaking children in non-Welsh-speaking homes have the access to the language that gives them the opportunity to play a full part in the community in which they are brought up. There is a danger of producing an apartheid approach; of creating two societies growing up side by side, and never the twain shall meet. At one time, there was a fear of that in the south Wales valleys, but it has not turned out to be justified.
      Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Wigley: No. I am bringing the debate to an end.
      That apartheid approach is a recipe for disaster, which is why I am so encouraged that few members of the Labour party go down that road.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 11

      OBJECTIVE AND FUNCTIONS OF THE BOARD
      .(1) The Board shall have the objective of maintaining and expanding the use of the Welsh language.
      (2) The Board shall—

      (a) advise the Secretary of State on matters concerning the Welsh language;

      (b) promote and facilitate the use of the Welsh language in public business;

      (c) advise persons exercising functions of a public nature in Wales on

      (i) the use of the Welsh language in their dealings with the public; and

      (ii) how they may best give effect to the principle that in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice, the status of the Welsh language shall not be less than that of the English language; and

      (d) advise other persons on the voluntary use of the Welsh language in their dealings with the public.

      (3) Subject to the following provisions, the Board may do anything which is incidental or conducive to the performance of its functions, and may in particular—

      (a) make grants and loans and give guarantees;

      (b) make charges for the provision of advice or other services;

      (c) accept gifts of money or other property.

      (4) The Board shall not—

      (a) make a grant or loan,

      (b) give a guarantee, or

      (c) acquire or dispose of any interest in land,
      except with the approval of the Secretary of State given with the consent of the Treasury'.—[Mr. Morgan.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
      No. 23, in page 1, clause 3, leave out from beginning of line 17 to end of line 24 on page 2.
      No. 18, in page 2, line 18, at end insert—

      (d) formulate and publish from time to time guidelines and codes of good practice as to the use of Welsh in commerce and other fields of activity as it may think fit;

      (e) provide translation and interpretation services for Government departments, public bodies or other persons and organisations;

      (f) commission and carry out research relating to the Welsh language and publish information obtained thereby;

      (g) advertise and otherwise promote its activities'.

      Mr. Morgan: This is an attempt by our team of parliamentary draftsmen to redraft new clause 3 completely and replace it with a fallback position. We half anticipated that the Government would not make any concessions or movement towards us on the issue of official status in new clause 1. We thought that if that were to happen, the only way to put some meat on the somewhat threadbare—to mix my metaphors—structure of the Bill would be to insert a set of goals and objectives for the board by completely taking out the existing clause 3 and replacing it. We have retained some of the powers to give grants and so on that were in the original clause 3, but have said what the board is supposed to do.
      The Bill will succeed or fail on the basis of the Minister of State's answer when he is asked, when eventually he gives up the reins of office, "What did you do for the Welsh language, Daddy?" As he may already be a granddaddy, he will probably be a great-granddaddy by then. He will

      1199
      say, "I set up a quango for it". We want him also to be able to say what the quango was supposed to do. That is not clear from the Bill because the quango is not given any objectives. It is given a function, but it cannot test that function against an overall objective.
      Our new clause states that
      "the Board shall have the objective of maintaining and expanding the use of the Welsh language."
      We want the Welsh language to remain a common language of fluent use in the countryside and in some of the few remaining industrial areas of Wales—in the anthracite coalfields, the tin plate areas of west Wales, the former slate quarrying areas of north-west Wales, and so on—where it may not be much of a written language.
      We also wanted to expand the use of the Welsh language by adding written fluency as well as public and private sector use of the language. Clearly, in the spirit of the Bill, private sector use would have to be voluntary.
      I mention that because page 50, paragraph 4.47, of the White Paper on public expenditure, command 2215, boasts about the constructive activities of the Welsh Language Board and says:
      "It has achieved significant progress in a number of areas including the "Iaith Gwaith" (Working Welsh) scheme which encourages the use of Welsh in the workplace and the "CYSILL" Welsh-language computer spellcheck project."
      Both those projects—mainly the first but to an extent the second—are of enormous interest to the private sector. But as the Bill makes no mention of the private sector we have added a reference to it and said that it should be able voluntarily to be included. The Welsh Language Board would therefore not be acting outside its statutory powers by getting involved with the private sector. Although there would be no compulsion on the private sector, the board would have every encouragement to spend its resources on schemes in the spirit of the "Iaith Gwaith" and "CYSILL" projects, about which the Government thought it worth while to boast in their most recent reference to why they were spending money on the Welsh Language Board while it remains non-statutory.
      New clause 11 is infinitely superior to clause 3 because it gives an objective and a statutory basis to activities involving the private sector.
      Mr. Rowlands: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) for introducing the new clause because it does at least endeavour to establish objectives for the language board.
      I started out as a fan of the Bill, but, as the Report stage has proceeded, I have grown increasingly disillusioned by it. One of the reasons why disillusionment has crept in is that the Bill asks for a legislative blank cheque, which I have grave doubts about whether we should grant. For example, the Bill empowers public bodies to form schemes, but we have no idea of the character of those schemes. The Bill contains no illustrative ideas or draft models of the schemes. The schemes have no boundaries or content and we do not know the principles on which they are to be based. They must follow guidelines, but we have no idea what the parameters of the guidelines will be because they are not defined in the Bill.
      The Bill also establishes a board, but we do not know how much it will cost because Ministers have refused to give even an estimate. Thus the Bill will establish a board costing an unknown sum annually to draft guidelines to be followed by public bodies drawing up schemes. But we
      1200
      know the shape and size of neither the guidelines nor the schemes. All that we know about the board is that 15 persons will sit on it.
      It is time that the Minister gave us a clearer indication of the nature of those schemes and guidelines. Exactly what will the board propose? Until the Committee stage, I thought that I knew what the board was supposed to do because the invaluable document, "Guidelines to the Public Sector", gives an idea of the character of the present language board's activities. Based on the sensible, well-balanced view about the role and future role of the language and its promotion, I thought that I could support that excellent idea. We do not know if that is the sort of objective of the new statutory language board. We discover more and more that it will wander into all sorts of areas of activity that, in my opinion, will cause the board a lot of problems and will create a great deal of tension around its work.
      9.15 pm
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West rightly said that we must better define the board's objectives, I shall ask the Minister two or three simple questions and this time hope for answers. What will be the likely average annual cost of the board? I asked him that question over and over again in Committee. If he cannot give us an estimate, will he tell us what estimate the present Welsh Language Board has given him? I understand that it has estimated the costs and has presented them to him. We are entitled to know what the Welsh Language Board, as the most authoritative institution on that matter, has estimated. Will the Minister give us that figure?
      We are told that the Welsh Language Board will take over the responsibility for allocating some of the available grants, as set out under clause 3. Will the Minister specifically confirm that, under the provisions of clause 3, power to allocate grants will be given to the Welsh Language Board? As I understand it, most of the grants that we call section 26 money under the Development Board for Rural Wales Act 1991 and the bodies that receive them are listed on page 49 of the White Paper on Government expenditure. In total, £2·7 million of grants are listed which are given to a variety of bodies and organisations. Is the intention that the decision on who should receive those grants listed and their disbursement will be transferred to the Welsh Language Board? What percentage of the money that goes to the Welsh Books Council, for example, will be handled by the Welsh Language Board? Will the board be able to make such decisions?
      The allocation of grants is an important function. Are we to transfer what is currently a Welsh Office responsibility lock, stock and barrel? If we are not, which grants that are currently paid under section 26 are to be administered and disbursed by the Welsh Language Board, which will therefore have the discretion to change and move such disbursements? Those are vital questions about the nature and functions of the Welsh Language Board. We were not given any answers in Committee and we deserve them now. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West has done a great service in trying to force the Minister to provide a better clarification of the character, nature and scope of the board.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: New clause 11 largely replicates the terms of new clause 3. There are some significant

      1201
      differences that cause me concern, especially the recasting of the board's main duty. The alternative duties contained in the new clause serve to confuse what we intend the board to do and what we hope will happen to the Welsh language as a result.
      The board's function of promoting and facilitating the use of Welsh has been deliberately cast in the most flexible terms possible. There is no restriction on the board's function, so that seems to be a fair description of the contribution that we can fairly expect it to make. It does nothing to clarify the board's legal duties to confuse it with matters that are ultimately outside its control.
      We may all agree that one of the board's objectives is to maintain and expand the use of the Welsh language. That is not something that we can sensibly reflect on the face of the Bill. We shall, of course, want to agree objectives for the board and those will be matters to be discussed in the context of the board's corporate plan. We shall also need to be able to monitor whether the objectives have been achieved over a reasonable period. The outstanding characteristic of the objective proposed in the new clause is that it could be monitored only over a very long period. It would, therefore, be of little use in holding the board to account for its actions. The new clause does nothing to clarify the board's main duties and powers. It serves rather to confuse the board's actions with what we might hope would be the outcome of those actions.
      As I made clear in Committee, I am pleased to be able to agree that each of the elements referred to in amendment No. 18 is an activity with which the board should have the power to become involved, although we see the board's role in translation and interpretation as that of an enabler and facilitator, rather than as a provider. The amendment could introduce legal uncertainty about whether the board had the power to undertake other promotional activities that are not specifically listed in clause 3(3). Keeping the list in the clause as short as possible ensures that whatever uncertainty may arise on that point is kept to an absolute minimum, thus allowing the board maximum flexibility.
      To further that flexibility, clause 3 is deliberately restricted to listing the board's main promotional and advisory functions. That will ensure that there will be no legislative obstacles to the board's promoting the language whenever or wherever it is spoken. That reflects the arm's length nature that we intend should be a feature of the relationship between the board and the Government.
      The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) asked me some specific questions. I understand that the board's estimate has been submitted to my officials. Of course, we have to study those estimates and the eventual allocation to the board will be our decision. It is too early in the day for me to give any further information on that point.
      Mr. Rowlands: The Minister has an estimate. I do not seek to tie him down, because I know that the decision is for him, his Department and the Government, but will he tell us what it is?
      Sir Wyn Roberts: The board has submitted an estimate. That estimate is subject to discussion between the Welsh Office and the board. We shall have to go over it. We have not agreed it as an accepted estimate.
      Mr. Rowlands: What is the estimate?
      Sir Wyn Roberts: It would not be proper for me at this stage—
      Mr. Rowlands: What is the estimate?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that seated interventions of that kind are to be deplored, however anxious he is for an answer.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman—
      Mr. Rowlands: Why is the Minister so coy? Before we approve the Bill which will establish the board, we are entitled at least to know what is the estimate of the present Welsh Language Board. Will the Minister just tell us? We are not tying the Government to a figure. Will the Minister please tell us what the board's estimate of the cost is?
      Sir Wyn Roberts: It would be misleading for me to give a figure to the House because it might raise or decrease expectations. It would be misleading because the estimate that is under discussion may bear no relationship to the eventual allocation made. I cannot go further than that at this stage.
      The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney asked me about responsibility for grants. The board will inherit from the Welsh Office some of the responsibility for making grants in support of the Welsh language under section 26 of the Development Board for Rural Wales Act 1991. It is envisaged that that will be a gradual inheritance to facilitate the smooth transfer to the Welsh Language Board of that important function. It is important that the Welsh Language Board learns to walk before it can run. With that in mind, the Welsh Office will for some time retain responsibility for the larger grants, including the Welsh Books Council, the National Eisteddfod, the Urdd and the Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin.
      The amount of money available to assist Welsh language initiatives during this year was £2·8 million, of which £2·2 million was allocated to the larger organisations. That leaves £600,000 to be distributed among the smaller grant recipients for which the board will be in future responsible.
      Mr. Morgan: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 5

      DUTY OF NOTIFIED PUBLIC BODIES TO PREPARE SCHEMES
      Mr. Rowlands: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 45, at end insert—
      '(2B) The scheme referred to in subsection (1) above shall not include measures in connection with the broadcast programmes or scheduling policy of the British Broadcasting Corporation in Wales.'
      The amendment relates to a specific piece of information of which I was not aware in Committee—an interesting document that gives the response by the Welsh Language Board to the consultation document "The Future of the BBC" that was published by the Department of National Heritage in November 1992.
      In the submission by the Welsh Language Board, there are two statements which worried me. I have been consistently concerned about the degree to which the Welsh Language Board will interfere in issues for which

      1203
      other organisations and bodies are statutorily responsible. Those organisations may have their own accounting procedures and degree of accountability.
      Paragraph 3.1 of the document says:
      "clearly the Welsh Language Board would see as one of its main responsibilities that the television service broadcast by S4C is properly protected from commercial and political pressures since it plays a vital part in both the strategic development and the promotion of language."
      Under what power is the Welsh Language Board seeking to intervene in an organisation that was set down in the House in statute with its own board and its own systems of accountability that go through to Ministers and to the House? What will be the function of the Welsh Language Board in that regard? Is that an agreed objective of the board and, dare I ask after today's discussions, has the Minister seen the document? If so, does he agree that that is a proper function in which the Welsh Language Board should get involved? That was in relation to S4C.
      Paragraph 3.5 contains a statement with regard to BBC Wales:
      "The Welsh Language Board is mindful of the danger of creating a ghetto for Welsh language broadcasting which would negate the aim of creating a bilingual society in Wales. It is for this reason that the Welsh Language Board considers the totality of the BBC's programme services in Wales are its concerns, de facto and its Welsh language is its concern de jure."
      What are we to make of that? The programming of BBC Wales, in both Welsh and English, is governed by its charter and its statutory responsibilities. It has its own advisory BBC council and, through that, its own chain of command and accountability through the procedures and structures laid down by the BBC. How will the Welsh Language Board establish both de facto and cle jure responsibility and supervision over BBC Wales programming?
      Mr. Jonathan Evans: I have seen that document and it worries me. The hon. Gentleman will have seen within the document that the view expressed by the Welsh Language Board is that the functions of the controller of BBC Wales may be changed also. He will have seen paragraph 4.5, which says:
      "The Welsh Language Board expects the future pattern of the BBC's services in Wales through the medium of the Welsh language to be incorporated in the scheme which the BBC as a public body will be required to submit to a new statutory Welsh Language Board under the terms of the Welsh Language Bill."
      I have read the Bill and I do not think that the BBC is one of the organisations covered by it. In the circumstances, what observations would the hon. Gentleman like to make about that?
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Rowlands: I had not yet reached the paragraph in question—I was working my way down—but as the hon. Gentleman has drawn the attention of the House to it, I should point out that it is an extremely sweeping and rather frightening statement.
      Systems of control are laid down by charter, but this is an example of the WLB gaining the capacity to interfere with the fundamental responsibilities of an organisation established, in the case of the BBC by charter, and in the case of S4C by statute. The hon. Gentleman has therefore raised an important point.
      As for how the BBC will get caught up by the scheme-making powers, I assume that clause 6(1)(o)
      1204
      means that the Secretary of State will announce that the BBC and S4C will be expected to produce relevant schemes. If so, such schemes should certainly not involve the pattern of BBC services. That pattern and accountability for it are laid down by charter, with a clear chain of command and responsibility. We have a BBC governing body in Wales and a BBC advisory board, so how in the name of heaven does the Welsh Language Board have a right to crawl over and scrutinise the BBC's services in Wales?
      I hope that the Minister will not answer me with weasel words and that he will give me an unequivocal statement to the effect that he will not endorse the right of the WLB to get involved in matters that are properly covered elsewhere by charter and in statute. I am afraid that this is another example of the WLB becoming improperly involved in issues of public life in Wales which are already provided for in other ways.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's views. The views expressed by the Welsh Language Board in response to the Green Paper were those of the non-statutory board. Knowing the hon. Gentleman to be a reasonable man, I suggest that he has not, perhaps, paid enough attention to the requirement that the guidelines from which the schemes will result must be approved by the Secretary of State and must come before Parliament, when we are likely to have another opportunity of discussing the principles involved.
      Of course, we would not expect the board to become involved in the detail of the BBC's scheduling policies. Including the BBC in the list of public bodies that may be required to produce schemes does not mean that the board will assume responsibility for the place of the Welsh language in the broadcasting system of Wales. The BBC's policies will remain a matter for it, determined under its charter and, after 1996, under its new charter. The board will not be able to interfere with the terms of the BBC's charter; nor will it be for the board to interfere with the BBC's obligation to provide 10 hours of programmes every week to S4C. The BBC does, however, fall into the class of bodies from which the board may require a scheme that illustrates how, in the context of its entire output, it gives effect to the principle of English and Welsh being dealt with on a basis of equality, when that is appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable. In proposing its scheme, the BBC will be able to reflect the complex nature of its responsibilities in Wales, which include its separate radio networks and television broadcast in English and Welsh.
      Despite the importance and sensitivity of broadcasting, I am not persuaded that we would be justified in ruling out at this stage that the board should be excluded from that sector, but the detail of broadcasting policy will remain a matter for the BBC. It is worth underlining that it would not be the role of the board to express a view on any editorial matters. Schemes will be solely concerned with the principle of English and Welsh being dealt with on a basis of equality. To deny the board any role in that sector would be to deny the importance of broadcasting in the Government's overall policy of support for the language.
      I suspect that we are all agreed on the influence that broadcasting, and television broadcasting in particular, has on any language, be it Welsh or English. Therefore, it seems only sensible that broadcasting should be included within the board's remit. I am confident that it is a task

      1205
      that the board will discharge effectively, and in a way that builds on the excellent contribution that Welsh language broadcasting already makes to the well-being of the Welsh language.
      In that sector, as in so many others, the board will have to be sensitive and have regard and respect also for the other contractual or statutory obligations that apply to those bodies with whom it deals.
      Mr. Rowlands: I listened with great care and interest to the Minister's considered statement. I hope that the new Welsh Language Board will hear the message that we want to send out from the House, that if it treads in those sectors, it should do so warily.
      As we shall have the chance to consider the guidelines when they emerge, it must be made clear to the board that such guidelines should avoid the worries and concerns that I have expressed, which arise from the language used in the consultation document or in the submission by the old Welsh Language Board. If it heeds that lesson, I hope that such a problem will not occur. However, we should give the new Welsh Language Board more than a gentle warning that if it intrudes into issues of the kind that we have raised—the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) shares my queasiness—a big row will ensue. I hope that the new board will heed that message. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 10

      APPROVAL OF GUIDELINES
      Amendment made: No. 2, in page 5, line 7 leave out `people who speak Welsh' and insert
      'members of the public who may be affected by the schemes'.—[Sir Wyn Roberts.]

    Clause 13

      CONSULTATION ON PREPARATION OF SCHEMES
      Amendments made: No. 4, in page 5, line 44 after first 'of insert 'both'.
      No. 3, in page 5, line 44 after 'Welsh-speaking' insert 'and other'.
      No. 5, in page 5, line 44 at end add
      'who may be affected by the scheme'.—[Sir Wyn Roberts.]

    Clause 26

      MEANING OF "PUBLIC BODY"
      Amendment made: No. 6, in page 10, line 32 at end insert—
      `( ) Where the powers conferred by this section are exercised in relation to the form of a document or a form of words, a reference in an Act or instrument to the form shall, so far as may be necessary, be construed as (or as including) a reference to the form prescribed under or by virtue of this section.'.—[Sir Wyn Roberts.]

    Clause 35

      REPEALS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendment made: No. 7, in page 14, line 27 at end insert—
      `( ) In the Appendix of forms in Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983, in paragraph 2(a) of
      1206
      the directions as to printing the ballot paper, for the words from "except" to "and the" there shall be substituted the words "except the direction to vote for one candidate only and the".'.—[Sir Wyn Roberts.]

    Schedule 2

      REPEALS
      Amendment made: No. 8, in page 19, line 11, at end insert—

      '1985 c. 50.

      The Representation of the People Act 1985.

      In Schedule 4, paragraph 85(a).'.—[Sir Wyn Roberts.]

      Order for Third Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      9.38 pm
      Mr. Wigley: It is with considerable regret that I rise to explain why my hon. Friends and I will vote against Third Reading of a Bill for which we have campaigned for so long—the best part of 10 years—and in such depth. The objectives of the Bill, as we have understood them, were to create a new framework of hope for the Welsh language and to provide mechanisms that would ensure that the difficulties that have been experienced in recent years would be overcome. We are unhappy about six parts of the Bill because of the way in which the Government have failed to deal with the issues in the House of Lords, in Committee and again on Report.
      The first and overwhelming problem was the subject of an earlier debate—official status. There has been pressure from all directions on the Government on that. There is no doubt about the will of Wales. The chairman of the Welsh Language Board—a Government appointee, on whose work the Bill is based, and whose period of office is coming to an end—said in a letter to us about official status for the Welsh language:
      "We believe that this should be stated in totally specific terms in the Bill. If it is not included, the debate will continue in Wales, quite rightly, about the failure of the Government to act on this matter—and that debate would be totally understandable—and this would devalue everything else which otherwise would be possible under this legislation. This can only mean that the Welsh Language Board will be under a disadvantage from the very start."
      I pay tribute to the Welsh Language Board—to John Elfed Jones, to Winston Roddick for the work that he has done on the legal side, and to the chief officer, John Walter Jones, for his work. The Bill has let them down and I feel sorry for them. The central question of status, on which the Archbishop of Wales wrote to the Secretary of State only a few days ago, requesting a Government rethink, has not been dealt with.
      There is then the issue of rights, and particularly rights to education, another subject on which we touched. The Bill has not provided rights for anyone other than the Secretary of State and the Government. There are no additional rights for Welsh speakers. The Bill has not given statutory rights on which people can base a claim to use the Welsh language. That is a major weakness in the Bill.
      We have already had a debate on juries and the need for juries that understand what is transacted and spoken in courts. We have debated race relations and we exposed the way in which the Government have not tackled that

      1207
      problem. After two years of discussion between the Welsh Language Board and the Commission for Racial Equality, the Government have not been able to introduce the change in legislation that both those bodies, and the people of Wales, want.
      A matter that we discussed in Committee and that was debated at length in the other place was that part of the private sector which provides public services, including telephone, water and electricity services. We expected that those essential services would be included in the Bill, but they are not. There is no guarantee that information on the forms will be in Welsh. There are schemes and a bureaucratic mechanism that can go on and on, but that lack of a guarantee in the Bill is a missed opportunity.
      I would rather that we came back with a Bill in another form in the next parliamentary year than put on the statute book now something that we shall no doubt be told has to last for another 25 years, with all those central weaknesses. The Welsh Language Board will find it immensely difficult to do its work when it is not underpinned by any principle, any right, any guarantees. There is a vacuum at the centre of the Bill where they should be.
      I feel sorry for the Minister because he has undertaken a great amount of work on the Bill.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman should not feel sorry for me. I am the one who is sorry to hear him say what he proposes to do. Does he not realise that the Bill is an enormous advance for Welsh-speaking people and that he is risking that benefit to them by voting the way in which he intends to?
      Mr. Wigley: I note the right hon. Gentleman's anger and I understand it. He has put an enormous amount of emotional commitment into the Bill and has tried to get a consensus. No doubt a consensus could have been reached, but he is a captive member of a Government that have little knowledge of what is going on in Wales and he has been unable to get his own way on matters such as status, on which he had based so much of his own hopes. Had he succeeded there, he could have got the unanimity that I think was available in Wales to support the consensus across party lines.
      We made it clear at the start that we were looking for basic things to be added to the Bill as it went through Parliament—the sort of things that the Minister promised to the Welsh Language Board in December when its members were on the point of resigning because the Bill was so weak. These things were not forthcoming, in the House of Lords or in the House of Commons.
      Then we had the Bill in Committee—a Committee packed with nine Tory Members from English constituencies to make sure that they got the majority in everything. The 70-odd amendments and the 20 or 30 new clauses that were put forward were just steam-rollered out of existence, with not an inch being given on any of them.
      I do not hold this against the right hon. Member for Conwy, no matter how angry he may be with me, but there is sadness about the opportunity that has been lost. I do not know whether, by doing anything else, he could have persuaded the Government to do the things that the people of Wales want. All that we know now is that the Bill is woefully inadequate to do the job that was wanted by both the right hon. Gentleman and the Welsh Language Board. We are not getting it.
      1208
      It is a sad night and, yes, I do feel angry about it. Not against the Minister of State—we have to know who our enemies are when it comes to the language—but against the system that tells Wales, despite the feelings of the overwhelming majority of Welsh Members on this issue, that we must have what a Conservative Government give us.
      If ever there was an argument for us to have our own parliament, to make our own laws on matters relevant to our own country, this is it. If the Government think that this is the end of the story, my goodness it is not; this is the beginning of the story and the beginning of a campaign. On the way that we have been treated over this Bill, we will build the movement until we get our own government and our own parliament to pass our own laws in these matters.
      9.47 pm
      Mr. Alex Carlile: It is very difficult to follow so powerful and heartfelt a speech as we have just heard from the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). I agree with much of what he said on all the issues that he mentioned, apart from the matter of juries, on which I spoke earlier.
      The Government will have their majority tonight, as the Minister of State knows; the Government will have their Bill. There is no risk to the Bill caused by those who protest against the Government's views by voting against it tonight, as I shall.
      We see that a statutory Welsh Language Board is to be set up as a result of the Bill, and that really is the end product. I join the hon. Member for Caernarfon in praising the non-statutory Welsh Language Board, which has been remarkable, has covered a period of years and has devoted a great deal of thought to the issue and done much to benefit the language.
      I offer all good wishes to the statutory Welsh Language Board, but I think, like the hon. Member for Caernarfon, that it will find itself frustrated by the limits within which it operates. It runs the risk, at least, of being not a great deal more than a paper tiger. I hope that it will express its views so strongly that they can rarely be ignored, particularly by many of the public bodies in Wales which in years gone by have shown a good deal of resistance to the march of the Welsh language, which most of us, including the Minister of State, welcome.
      In my view, the real deficiency of the Bill is that, after all the years of discussion upon it, all the efforts of the Welsh Language Board, the debates here and in the other place, and the lengthy and detailed debates in Committee, not one citizen of Wales will have a single right that he or she can enforce by judicial review through the court, or by any other means. Not one organisation in Wales, apart from the statutory Welsh Language Board, will have a duty which the citizen can enforce against it.
      That is a profound disappointment. It is a sufficient disappointment for me to advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to join the Members representing Plaid Cymru in the No Lobby a little later tonight.
      9.49 pm
      Mr. Flynn: For a brief period in 1988 I was my party's Front-Bench spokesman on Wales and the first subject that I raised was the need for a Welsh language Bill. Never did I foresee that, some years later, I would find myself having to vote against such a Bill. The former arch druid

      1209
      said that half a loaf is better than no loaf at all. Sadly, he overstated it. What we have left tonight is not half a loaf, but a few crumbs that have been given to us by our colonial masters.
      In Committee,we had many hopes of what would come from the Bill, but every one of those hopes has been trampled on—not by our elected Members from Wales, where there has been an extraordinary unanimity, from the almost totally English part of Wales—where the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) has adopted a reasonable attitude to the Bill and defended his own position—to the almost totally Welsh language-speaking parts of Wales. The unanimity has been there.
      When there was a vote as to whether Welsh-speaking defendants should have the right to elect juries that spoke their own language, that right was denied. That was a remarkable result. It is a basic right that exists in almost every corner of the world. By whom was it denied? By the hon. Members for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). Those are the people who have trampled on the Bill.
      The Minister has a proud record and we all pay tribute to him. He is now in his 15th year of ministerial office and he has made great contributions to the Welsh language. He has been a great servant of Wales and we have all been generous in our contributions. That is why we feel angry tonight: he has turned down reasonable Opposition propositions.
      The language raises strong passions in all of us, as it should. It is the most ancient language in Europe—a language that was spoken here in London many years before Anglo-Saxon, the mother language of English, appeared in these islands. It is a language that had rich literature and sophisticated poetry 2,000 years ago. That language has not been helped one jot tonight.
      What we have heard all the time is "it may", "perhaps" and "there will be schemes". When the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) rightly argued tonight for the Minister to lose a bit of face and agree one minor amendment—which he could correct later, if he wanted to, in the other place—he trampled on that amendment.
      What the Government have done tonight has inspired new nationalism in Wales. They have shown the people of Wales that we are a subject race. We are being abused by people who cannot be elected in Wales; who have been rejected time and again by the electorate of Wales. Tonight we have seen the arrogance of an elective dictatorship.
      9.52 pm
      Mr. Morgan: The problem with the Bill is that it suffers from the Secretary of State's St. Mellons syndrome: he visits a community and pretends to take a great deal of interest in the subject under discussion, but a week later he drops a large amount of organic mushroom fertiliser on it from a very great height.
      The right hon. Gentleman has not fought the battles that he should have fought in the Cabinet. He and the Minister of State have visited the subject of the Welsh language, but when anything important arose he resisted the changes that were proposed and the compromises that were offered by the Opposition. There has been no give and take and he has not done his duty.
      1210
      As for the St. Mellons syndrome, the Secretary of State should perhaps consider the Welsh language to be a single-parent language, and that duties of paternity have fallen upon him—which, in a way, he asked for by accepting promotion to the Cabinet. He has taken responsibility tonight for the state of the legislation, but he has not carried out his paternal duties and has left Welsh as a single-parent language, without the support that it should have had. The Bill should have done the job properly on the privatised public utilities, on jury trials in Welsh and, above all, on the question of official status.
      That is why we feel that the Secretary of State has shown that he intends to use Wales simply as a political platform for his own long-term ambitions on the right wing of the Tory party. He has not repaid to Wales the debt he owes it by the fact that it has provided him with his first promotion to Cabinet status. That is why he has not done his job in the way that he could have done. He has not taken the opportunities that were available to him. So we have not received the equality of treatment that we might have expected had there been give and take on the part of the Government.
      The right hon. Gentleman said that there had been some Government amendments. In the main, they have filled obvious omissions in the companies and charities legislation, not matters brought to his attention by the Opposition as concessions to be made. They were simply matters about which he had erred by not listening to the advice of specialist bodies. He has made some minor concessions to the Opposition, but one requires a microscope manufactured in a Welsh Development Agency Japanese factory in the valleys to see them. That is why we feel badly let down.
      We on the Labour Front Bench are not recommending a vote against the Bill. We shall be abstaining tonight because we hope to have the opportunity before long to do the job properly. That will be done when we revisit the question of a Welsh language measure, when we are in government.
      9.57 pm
      The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): What pathetic heroic indecision on the part of the Labour party. Here was an opportunity for them to vote for a measure that will further the interests of Welsh language speakers and will be good news for the Welsh language. Yet there they sit on the Labour Benches—all four or so of them—not knowing what to do, gripped by indecision and quite unable to reach a conclusion.
      I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. He has worked tirelessly and well in the interests of the Welsh language and has brought good measures to the House—[Interruption.] I assure the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) that my right hon. Friend and I are entirely at one on this issue. We believe that it is the right Bill for the right circumstances and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman intends to vote against it. How extraordinary for him to be voting against a positive and practical measure for the Welsh language. He will be voting against the interests of the people of Wales.
      The hon. Member for Caernarfon said that there were no rights and opportunities in the measure. It contains numerous opportunities. It gives people the opportunity and right to enjoy the benefits of the schemes that will come forward under the legislation. Is the hon. Gentleman

      1211
      really saying that he and his party wish to undermine the consensus that was being built patiently by many men and women of good will to further the interests of the Welsh language and the Welsh culture?
      The hon. Member for Caernarfon must tonight answer the difficult questions. Why is he rupturing the consensus, turning down the olive branches offered by my right hon. Friend and throwing back into my right hon. Friend's face the hard work he has done and the good wishes he has put forward in the Bill for the Welsh language? That is what the Welsh people will want to know and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise what a mistake he is making tonight.
      The hon. and earned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) suggested that the board will be a paper tiger. It will not and the board will resent his comment. It will do its job well and with distinction and it will get every encouragement from us.
      I hope that when tempers have cooled a little after tonight's debate, the Opposition parties will think again and realise that there is something to be said for the Bill and that rebuilding the consensus is the way forward for the Welsh language.
      It is important for Opposition Members to understand the feelings of the many people in Wales who do not speak Welsh, just as surely as it is important for them to understand the feelings of those who speak Welsh, and it is understandable that they should wish to look after their interests.
      The Bill represents good progress. The Government have listened and have made 21 amendments. We have made a number of improvements to the Bill as a result of the work of the Committee and my right hon. Friend spelt those out in great detail. He also answered patiently all the points made, so I have no hesitation in recommending the Bill to the House.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 19.

      Division No. 337]

      [9.59 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Alexander, Richard

      Bowis, John

      Amess, David

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Arbuthnot, James

      Brazier, Julian

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Atkins, Robert

      Burns, Simon

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Clappison, James

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Baldry, Tony

      Congdon, David

      Bates, Michael

      Conway, Derek

      Bellingham, Henry

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyro For'st)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      1212

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Day, Stephen

      Merchant, Piers

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Milligan, Stephen

      Dover, Den

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Duncan, Alan

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Dykes, Hugh

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Elletson, Harold

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Page, Richard

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Paice, James

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Faber, David

      Pickles, Eric

      Fabricant, Michael

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Richards, Rod

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      French, Douglas

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Gale, Roger

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Gallie, Phil

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Hague, William

      Sproat, Iain

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Harris, David

      Steen, Anthony

      Hawksley, Warren

      Stephen, Michael

      Heald, Oliver

      Streeter, Gary

      Hendry, Charles

      Sweeney, Walter

      Horam, John

      Sykes, John

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Thomason, Roy

      Hunter, Andrew

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Jack, Michael

      Tredinnick, David

      Jessel, Toby

      Trend, Michael

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Viggers, Peter

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Waller, Gary

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Legg, Barry

      Whittingdale, John

      Lidington, David

      Willetts, David

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Lord, Michael

      Wood, Timothy

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      MacKay, Andrew

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      NOES

      Barnes, Harry

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Betts, Clive

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Rendel, David

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Skinner, Dennis

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Wallace, James

      Cox, Tom

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Dafis, Cynog

      Harvey, Nick

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones and Mr. Paul Flynn.

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Kirkwood, Archy

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

Appropriation (Northern Ireland)
10.11 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.
The draft order, which covers the main estimates for Northern Ireland departments, authorises expenditure of £3,116 million for the current financial year. Taken together with the sum voted on account in February, that brings total estimates provision for Northern Ireland departments to £5,492 million, an increase of 9·6 per cent. on 1992–93 provisional outturn.
It is customary on such occasions to highlight the main items in the estimates, but I shall be very brief, and shall not comment on each vote. I draw the attention of the House to the Department of Economic Development's vote 1, in which £148 million is for the Industrial Development Board. That will enable the board to carry out its role of strengthening Northern Ireland's industrial base and to meet its existing commitments, primarily in the area of selective assistance to industry.
In vote 2, £37 million is for the Local Enterprise Development Unit, Northern Ireland's small business agency. That will allow the agency to maintain and build on the success that it achieved during 1992–93, which was one of its most successful years.
In vote 3, £193 million is for the Training and Employment Agency. That includes £47 million for the youth training programme, to support some 12,500 training places, and £52 million for the action for community employment programme, to provide 9,500 places for long-term unemployed adults in projects of community benefit. A further £21 million is for the job training programme, which offers training and work experience to unemployed adults, and £12 million is for the company development programme, which will increase to 300 the number of companies assisted to improve their competitiveness in external markets.
Token provision of £1,000 has been included in vote 4 to cover expenses to be incurred in the privatisation of the Northern Ireland electricity supply industry. A supplementary estimate covering the actual expenses and proceeds from the sale will be presented to the House later in the year.
I now turn to the Department of the Environment. In vote 1, £176 million is for roads, transport and ports. This includes some £144 million for the roads service. Department of the Environment vote 2 covers the important area of housing. Some £193 million will provide assistance mainly to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and to the voluntary housing movement. When net borrowing and the Housing Executive's rents and capital receipts are taken into account, the resources available for housing will be some £552 million. This is an increase of some £2 million over 1992–93. This substantial sum will support the continued improvement of housing conditions.
Department of the Environment vote 3 covers expenditure on the water and sewerage schemes. Gross expenditure in 1993–94 is estimated at £174 million, an increase of some £27 million over 1992–93 outturn. Also, £77 million is for capital expenditure and £97 million for
1214
operational and maintenance purposes. I will not comment further on the Department of the Environment votes.
The estimates for the Department of Education seek a total of £1,253 million, an increase of 2·5 per cent. over last year. Vote 1 includes £772 million for recurrent expenditure by education and library boards, an increase of £23 million over 1992–93. This includes £407 million for school teachers' salaries, which is sufficient to maintain the pupil-teacher ratio at present levels. Also included is £250 million for other expenditure on schools and on further education services and £115 million for libraries, youth, transport and administration.
Vote I also includes £39 million for boards' capital projects, including provision for new laboratories and technology workshops to enable further progress to be made on education reforms. In addition, £8 million is for integrated schools, and £129 million for voluntary schools.
The next set of votes relates to the Department of Health and Social Services. Total net provision of £1,209 million in votes 1 and 3 will maintain and improve the standard of the Province's health and personal social services. This is an increase of £74 million over estimated outturn for 1992–93.
Also, £1,127 million in vote 4 is for a large range of social security benefits administered by the Social Security Agency. This represents an increase of more than 6 per cent. on last year.
Finally, I turn to the Department of Finance and Personnel. In vote 3, over £4 million is for the community relations programme, reflecting the importance that the Government continue to attach to community relations.
In my opening remarks, I have briefly drawn attention to some of the main provisions of the estimates. In replying to the debate, the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), will respond to points raised by right hon. and hon. Members. I commend the order to the House.
10.18 pm
Mr. Roger Stott: I welcome the Minister of State, Northern ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), to the Dispatch Box. When Members of Parliament are appointed as Ministers to the Northern Ireland Office and when hon. Members are appointed as shadow Northern Ireland Ministers, some of our friends tend to think that we are between a rock and a hard place. In some cases, that is probably true. However, the more that the right hon. Gentleman settles into his brief, the more he will find that the majority of people in Northern Ireland are honest, decent, law-abiding citizens who want nothing more than to live in peace with each other. I wish the Minister well in his difficult brief.
We again refer to the Government's allocation of resources among spending Departments within Northern Ireland. As on former occasions, this debate should have been a welcome opportunity for hon. Members to express their concerns about a wide range of problems affecting Northern Ireland. Because of the hour—I do not blame our Welsh colleagues for their deliberations—we are limited once again to a very short debate. However, I am given to understand that the usual channels have agreed that we can return to the subject for a much longer period

1215
when the House reconvenes in the autumn. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members from Northern Ireland will forgive me for delivering my prepared speech.
In spite of what the Minister has told us about the amount of money that the Government are allocating to Northern Ireland, unlike what happened on former occasions, tonight's proceedings take place with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury waiting in the wings before taking centre stage and delivering a series of swingeing cuts. It seems that the Government expect the most vulnerable people in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom to foot the bill for their financial ineptitude. Sadly, the Government's incompetence is starkly evidenced by the overall rate of unemployment in Northern Ireland, which is still the highest of any region in our islands—13·7 per cent. of the work force, compared with 10·3 per cent. in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I take this opportunity to welcome the recent decrease in unemployment in Northern Ireland. I also welcome today's announcement of the recent decrease in unemployment in the rest of Britain. However, I remind the Minister that the Northern Ireland figure remains shamefully high. Unfortunately, the overall figure of 13·7 per cent. unemployment in Northern Ireland is dwarfed by some of the most appalling statistics revealed in travel-to-work areas. Cookstown and Derry, from which I returned yesterday, continue to suffer more than 18 per cent. unemployment. In Strabane, 23 per cent. of the work force is unemployed.
I hope that the Minister appreciates that a seasonally adjusted fall in unemployment of 1,500 is certainly welcome, but it allows no room for complacency. However, this month's announcement by the Department does not include the unacceptable number of long-term unemployed concealed within the monthly figure. For the Minister's benefit, I remind him that 53·9 per cent.—more than half the unemployed in Northern Ireland—have been out of work for a year. What hope can the Minister give them? Perhaps he will tell the House how far the order will go towards getting the long-term unemployed in Derry or Strabane back to work. They represent 59·5 per cent. and 64·5 per cent. respectively of their area totals.
What is more worrying about the Government's plans to find spending savings by attacking the poorest in Northern Ireland is the effect upon the already high number of people in the region who are living in or near poverty. In the 1930s, Joseph Rowntree discovered widespread hardship, squalor and suffering in areas such as York and Liverpool. Like Northern Ireland, parts of Merseyside hope to receive objective 1 status. As we approach the end of the century, research carried out by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on household budgets and living standards in Northern Ireland has shown that for a couple with two children current income support meets only 74 per cent. of their basic minimum budget. In addition, income support and children's allowances were found to meet only 43 per cent. of the amount needed to provide adequate living standards. Frankly, in the latter part of the 20th century, those statistics are a scandalous indictment of the Government's failing.
The hardship that many Northern Ireland families are currently experiencing is mirrored by the difficulties that the region's young face. The annual report of the Northern Ireland Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux states:
1216
"High levels of unemployment mean that young people can no longer confidently look forward to securing a job or apprenticeship. The best opportunity secured by upwards of 15,000 young people every year is a place on a Youth Training Programme."
What a waste of young talent and potential.
If the Government continue merely to dump young people in poorly paid schemes and refuse to utilise the greatest resource available to them—and the people of Northern Ireland—we will begin to see more than 50 young people present themselves every week to the Housing Executive as homeless. We will begin to see lengthening queues of unemployed young people joining the 8,000 who are already unable to find a place on youth training programmes and who consequently must live on £23·90 a week.
Dr. Joe Hendron: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the young people to whom he is referring—those in virtually every part of Northern Ireland and especially those in the cities and towns—are the same young people who, when training schemes come to an end, are cynically exploited by paramilitary organisations? They find themselves sandwiched between the paramilitaries and the inevitable confrontations between security forces. In many ways, they are lost and find their way into prison or at the end of a gun, taking someone's life or being killed themselves.
Mr. Stott: There is a great deal of truth in what the hon. Gentleman says, as someone who has a great deal of experience in such matters. If we could give those young people a proper job, and if there was hope for them in terms of employment provision, that would help them immeasurably not to fall into the arms of the paramilitaries. Unemployment and the lack of hope are probably the greatest recruiting sergeants for the paramilitaries.
In short, we will see further increases in the level of debt, homelessness and poverty among all sections of society in Northern Ireland, all of which will be a direct result of the policies promulgated by the Conservative party. As has been made clear by further leaks and speculation, the Secretary of State for Social Security is impatiently sharpening his axe before taking it to the benefits that are paid to those who have no other form of income.
The Minister will know that, of all the regions in the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland has the highest rate of people with disabilities—a total of 17·4 per cent. Seventy five per cent. of them rely on the social security system for part or all of their income. If the Government take their intended sideswipe at those who claim invalidity benefit, the Minister and his colleagues will consign three quarters of the disabled adult population in Northern Ireland to further hardship and anxiety. Therefore, the Minister is faced with a large number of potential victims of any Government spending cuts in Northern Ireland. How can he possibly justify an action that will result in 201,000 adults with disabilities in Northern Ireland being forced to pay through their meagre benefits to restore the Government's political fortunes?
I welcome the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) to his new post in the Northern Ireland team, although he is not in his place. I am sure that he is aware that his predecessor set in motion a review of education administration in Northern Ireland. I hope that he will

1217
give such a wide-ranging review equally extensive consideration and that he will not reach any hasty conclusions.
As I said earlier, I returned from Northern Ireland yesterday. I had spent some time visiting Meanscoil in Belfast. The school does not have state funding and is consequently seeking a commitment from the Minister. As its name suggests, Meanscoil teaches the curriculum in the Irish language and has been doing so since 1991. It is funded by parents and the community. It is the only school in the whole of Northern Ireland to provide Irish-medium education to those pupils who have already received their primary education in the Irish language. It seems to me that the school satisfies the necessary requirements. Will the Minister consider its case sympathetically? I shall write to him about it tomorrow morning.
Dr. Hendron: The subject of Meanscoil Feinte is dear to my heart, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The only Irish-medium secondary school is in my constituency. The Government have already accepted their responsibility for the Irish language in primary school education, so I hope that they will look positively at this secondary school in west Belfast.
Mr. Stott: I know that my hon. Friend recently visited the school and that he is as concerned as I am to ensure that the Irish language is fostered and maintained. I understand that four primary schools teach in the Irish language. From the age of 11 no school other than this one teaches the curriculum in Irish for children up to the age of 16. We have just had a big debate on the Welsh language. It is important that cultural links and the language are preserved and protected. I hope for a sympathetic response from the Minister.
The education service as a whole ultimately depends on the quality of its teachers and lecturers for the achievement of the required standards and the implementation of the changes that the Government have introduced. Although most face the added pressure of education reform positively, the changes are demanding so much energy and commitment that the quality of the provision for pupils and students in schools and colleges is in danger of being lowered. As someone who is married to a teacher in this country, I can confidently tell the Minister that education changes have caused great difficulty to the teaching profession.
If that possibility is to be avoided it will be necessary to employ not only the most effective forms of in-service training and advisory and support services to assist teachers in implementing the changes, but to win the vital endorsement and support of parents, teachers and employers for the service that the teaching profession in Northern Ireland provides.
The Government have decided in their wisdom that Belfast international airport is to be privatised. The people who work there are concerned about their futures, their job prospects and pension provision. On Tuesday morning I spoke to a number of trade unionists who represent the work force there. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) and I have been extremely concerned about the police force at that airport. They are not members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary; they wear
1218
a different uniform. Nevertheless, they are sworn constables under a magistrate. If they are to be transferred to the private sector, their concern is about their operational impartiality and duties.
I wrote to the Minister of State on 17 June asking him whether a representative of the police force at the airport, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) and I could meet him to discuss the police force's concerns. The Minister has not responded to my letter but I hope that he will respond positively so that that important organisation—the police force at Belfast airport—can put its genuine and serious concerns to him.
If the perceived advantages of the European single market are to be realised, it is crucial, because of the island of Ireland's peripheral geography to the rest of mainland Europe, that industry, commerce, tourism, transport and energy policy are harmonised on an island basis
In its crudest terms, Northern Ireland has benefited from additional EC funding as a result of objective 1 status. But welcome as such investment is, compared with the funds granted to the Republic, Northern Ireland still receives a disproportionate part of the cake. As has been said, a comparison with the Republic on the basis of a head count shows that Northern Ireland is granted only one third of the sum to which it might otherwise be entitled. That illustrates an unfortunate consequence of the European Community viewing Northern Ireland's economy in simple regional terms rather than addressing the needs of the island of Ireland economy as a whole.
Two weeks ago, during the recent debate on the renewal of direct rule order, we heard how difficult it will be to get an agreed constitutional settlement for Northern Ireland. I do not doubt for an instant that it will be difficult but it will not be impossible. By contrast, however, making the island of Ireland economy work is an opportunity, not a problem. I am sure that all Members representing Northern Ireland will work together to ensure that full advantage is taken of any potential increase in cross-border aid.
In his speech in Dublin last year, Dr. George Quigley, chairman of the Ulster bank, reinforced the concept of "Ireland, an island economy". I recommend all hon. Members who have not read Dr Quigley's paper to do so because he describes how businesses in the north and south are working closely together. He said:
"As Chairman of Ulster Bank, which is in the fairly unique situation of doing 50 per cent. of its business in the South and 50 per cent. in the North, I find no difficulty with the proposition that Ireland is—or should be—an island economy. Both North and South would have signally failed to give substance to the 1992 concept if, occupying a small island on the periphery of the EC, they neglected or were unable to function as a single market. The Bank's fortunes are intertwined with the prosperity of both parts of the island".
Hon. Members will be aware that the Secretary of State for Transport recently granted the American airline, TransAir, a licence to fly directly from Belfast international airport to New York. I warmly welcome that move and am pleased that my representations in support of the licence did not fall on deaf ears and that I finally have my baggage back from Riga. The new link between Northern Ireland and the United States will attract extra valuable inward investment and begin to counter the isolation to which Dr. Quigley referred in his speech.
Now that business has set the agenda, the specialist Government agencies in the north and south have an important role to play in consultation with the business

1219
community. A seminar in Northern Ireland formally confirmed the agreement of the International Development bank and the Irish Trade Board to work closely together to increase the number and range of products supplied within the island of Ireland. A series of jointly organised sourcing exhibitions will encourage companies to supply goods currently imported from outside Ireland. Equally important are the planned initiatives in conjunction with the Confederation of Irish Industry and the Confederation of British Industry to open up areas of public procurement in the island in a way that strengthens companies so that they can bid successfully for public sector procurement contracts in the rest of the European Community.
I agree with Sir George Quigley's analysis that for far too long the economic orientation of both parts of the island has been along a horizontal rather than a vertical axis. In a global economy, it is essential that we continue to look outwards towards the rest of Europe and beyond. It is crucial that both Governments do not neglect the potential that exists within the vertical axis, the strengthening of which will create a more solid springboard for growth within the island of Ireland and for conquering markets within the European Community. Making the island economy work is essential. It is an opportunity; it is not a problem.
10.40 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall make a brief comment about the speech by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott). Before I do so, I wish well the new Minister, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), and also his new colleague, the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). I trust that in the right hon. Gentleman's arduous duties, especially in regard to the prisons of Northern Ireland, he will have the benefit of bringing his experience to bear on problems that are vital to the best in the community.
The prisoners, who come from both sections of the community, run right into the community. There is a great need today for there to be an understanding of how the families feel and an understanding of what is happening in the prisons of Northern Ireland. I am sure that the House wishes the Minister well as he tackles a difficult and continuing problem in Northern Ireland.
It comes as no surprise to hear the hon. Member for Wigan talking about an island economy. I have the document that has been much talked about and that programme is set forth in it. Level 1 is:
"Co-operation between Departments and institutions on both sides of the border."
Level 2 is "Harmonisation of policies". "Integration of administrations" is level 3. That is what we heard from the hon. Member for Wigan tonight.
I have experience in Europe. I have been an elected Member of the European Parliament continuously since I was first elected. I have topped the poll at every election to the European Parliament. I have been there. I have never once seen the deputies, as they call themselves, from the south of Ireland voting for anything that was of benefit to Northern Ireland. Not once. I have challenged them about that. I have voted in the European Parliament for things that were of benefit to the south of Ireland, as long as they were not detrimental to the north of Ireland. Those deputies have never done the same. I am sick of the talk about them being all for this island economy.
1220
I was in Strasbourg this week. I heard the deputies demanding £8 billion. Never once did they mention Northern Ireland. There was not a cheep about it. They never even said once that of course Northern Ireland deserves the treatment that we demand. In fact, they told the European Parliament that they were good Europeans. As the predecessor of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) said in the House of Lords this week, "Yes, they are good Europeans as long as you pay them well." Six million pounds a day and they will be good Europeans. It ill becomes the hon. Member for Wigan, the spokesman for the Labour party, to read to us tonight a lesson about the glorious co-operation that we shall have from the south of Ireland.
As for Dr. Quigley, I happened to meet representatives of the business community in Northern Ireland at a meeting known as the meeting of the seven. I am sure that other Northern Ireland Members have been to such meetings, too. I took up Mr. Quigley there on something that he had said. Faced with his own business men around the table, he backed off. I told him that it was all very well singing the praises of his own bank—with 50 per cent. of its business in the south, it profits the bank to go in for co-operation with the south—but such co-operation certainly does not profit Northern Ireland, since businesses in all sectors of the economy in the south are trying to undercut the competition from Northern Ireland.
It is a pity that the Minister had no time to tell us about the structural fund and what additional money will result from it. The House should realise that something strange has happened to it—
Mr. Peter Robinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, it is disgraceful that the Northern Ireland Office sends out the documentation on the structural fund to every Tom, Dick and Harry in Northern Ireland, and to every community organisation and tenants association there, but has not, to date, sent it to Members of Parliament?
Rev. Ian Paisley: It is indeed. I happen to have a copy because I am a member of the European Parliament, but I do not see why colleagues here should not have been sent a copy.
To return to the structural fund: the cake has not been enlarged, but the number of those wanting a share of it has increased. Germany will get the largest slice, because it has achieved objective I status for east Germany. Belgium and France are to receive money, and Italy will too—even though it was not able to spend the money that it has already been given. Presumably Italy will proceed to hoard the money, or perhaps it has been stolen by the Mafia, or perhaps the Italian Prime Minister stole it.
All these Governments are demanding a slice of the cake, so our slice will be smaller. Merseyside and the highlands and islands are also to get a share, and rightly so, but I should like the Minister to tell us how much we are likely to get. Demands for £8 billion from the south have been cut to perhaps £7·5 billion, but those who are to get that much are not satisfied. I wonder how much will be cut from our money. Will we get £1 billion, or less?
This week I talked, with my European colleagues the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and Mr. Nicholson, to Commissioner Millan. He said that, when the figures are announced, there will be some surprises: they are all to be reduced.

1221
So, far from getting anything out of the cohesion fund, we will be paying into it—
Mr. Stott: Maastricht.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Everyone knows my attitude to Maastricht, and the official attitude of the Labour party, so the pot should not call the kettle black.
The four poor countries—Portugal, Greece, Spain and Ireland—have all put their hands in the cohesion fund kitty, which is a quarter as big again as the structural fund. So the taxpayers of the United Kingdom—of Merseyside, of the highlands and islands, and of Northern Ireland—who are crying out for money as objective 1 areas will find that they are putting their pounds into the pockets of the countries I have mentioned. Dublin is shouting loud and already has £3 million a day, and will soon be getting £6 million. That fact will shortly come out in the wash.
We need to hear what the Government think they will get. The last time that we had structural pay-outs, what did Northern Ireland get as an objective 1 area? It got an increase of 8 per cent., which hardly covered inflation. The south of Ireland got an increase of between 80 and 90 per cent. Spain, Portugal and Greece got an increase of over 100 per cent. When Ministers were negotiating, why did they not ask for double the money because we lost out before? The Commissioner has told me that Ministers asked for no increase, just for their crunch of the money. The Northern Ireland Office must come clean and tell us exactly what it feels it will get from the structural fund, and where the money will be spent.
I read the debate in another place, and I would like the Minister to hear something that was said there. Lord Cooke of Islandreagh raised the matter of the structural fund, and the Minister answering said:
"the Government will fully accept the additionality requirement."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 July 1993; Vol. 547, c. 1656]
Will the money we get, whether it is a little or a lot, be additional, and where in the appropriations will it be spent? The Minister must address that question in his reply, although we know that we shall not have much time for a reply.
There are other matters of great interest that I would have liked to have dealt with tonight, but, as we know, we have only a limited time. I thought that the hon. Member for Wigan would have curbed the length of his speech, as we are curbing ours, but he did not, because he was so interested in the school that teaches Gaelic. I rather laughed at that, because the census figures tell us that only about 5 per cent. of the people in Northern Ireland speak Gaelic, and even fewer read and write it. It is not like Wales. I spent part of my life in Wales, and every church I preached in had both a Welsh and an English service in the morning. That does not happen in Northern Ireland.
Furthermore, only a small percentage of the Roman Catholic population speak Gaelic. The situation is not on a par with that in Wales—I understand the deep feelings of Welsh speakers, which were expressed so well earlier tonight. To argue about that is to get into minutiae that we should not be getting into.
Mr. Stott: I appreciate that we have a time constraint on the debate. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that, in the four years that I have had this responsibility for the
1222
Opposition, I have cut my speeches short on every appropriation order debate. This evening, I thought that it was important to flag up what I and my party consider to be important issues. I do not need any lessons from him about the length of the speeches that I make from the Dispatch Box.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: Oh, shut up and sit down!
Mr. Stott: And I need no lessons from that hon. Gentleman either.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am very sorry that I gave way to the hon. Member for Wigan. It is ridiculous; we are limited for time, and he is trying to justify himself. I welcome the fact that we are going to be able to discuss this matter at a later date. We need to do that. I regret that the hon. Gentleman took all the time he could, because there is not only the SDLP; there are also the Popular Unionists, and their voice should be heard too.
10.56 pm
Mr. Ken Maginnis: First, I welcome the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir. J. Wheeler) to the Government Front Bench as a member of the Northern Ireland team. It is no insult to him, or indeed to me, that my colleagues who are in the building tonight have deserted this Bench as a protest at the intolerable way in which the business that relates to Northern Ireland has been handled, not for the first time, but for the second time that we have tried to have this debate.
There are so many areas of administration that must be dealt with in the scope of this ridiculously short debate that it is impossible to do any of them justice. Those of us who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland are obliged to try to summarise our year's work in a very few minutes, to draw on that experience and to seek to expound reasonable alternatives where we feel that there is inadequacy, right across the scope of the Northern Ireland Office administration.
Our English, Welsh and Scottish colleagues have the benefit of both a meaningful stratum of local government, which helps to relieve the burden of parochial responsibilities that Northern Ireland Members have to deal with, and of being able to address various departmental issues within debates dedicated exclusively to the function of those Departments. We, on the other hand, are obliged to paint our picture with a great broad brush that can do little to capture the nuances and attitudes pertaining to the area in which we live.
Nor do we have the benefit of inside knowledge, which can be ascertained only where there is either direct involvement or an adequate system of checks and balances a—system that would be enhanced by having a Select Committee on Northern Ireland to examine and monitor Northern Ireland matters. The first is unobtainable because we are a small Opposition party; the second because there has been a stubborn unwillingness to concede even a degree of openness about the way in which Northern Ireland is governed.
Yet, when anything goes wrong in Northern Ireland, there are those who invariably contrive to create an impression that Ulster Unionists are to blame. Whatever is wrong, the responsibility lies with a succession of

1223
Governments who have had sole and unbridled power in the Province for the past 21 years, and that certainly is not the party to which I belong.
My colleagues and I have some ideas about how progress can be made, and I believe that that is amply demonstrated in terms of the work that is done by our district councillors, where they have managed to claw back responsibilities to themselves despite the resistance of some departmental musclemen and quango placemen.
At a time when the community in Northern Ireland is more ill at ease with itself than it has ever been during my 10 years in the House, it is becoming increasingly important to create at least an atmosphere of social and economic continuity and stability. I am not suggesting that there is anything in this life that cannot be improved upon, but I am tired of the Government going out of their way to mend things that are not actually broken. We are assailed, year in, year out, with far too many fanciful ideas that are far too costly and disruptive, and that in practice do not work the way that they were intended to. Paper exercises are too regularly failing in practice.
In this respect, I want to turn to the Department of Health and Social Services and question whether the present piecemeal policy of rationalisation of acute hospital services is in the best interests of the consumer. I have had to endure the trauma of trying to defend maternity and paediatric services in the two hospitals in my constituency. These two hospitals—the Erne and Enniskillen and the South Tyrone in Dungannon—are administered under separate health boards, and each board, one assumes encouraged by the Department, embarked on its own programme of rationalisation in isolation. No one appeared to think that, if amalgamations proved necessary, it might be sensible to consider the overall delivery of maternity and paediatric services throughout Northern Ireland.
The case of the Erne has been won, but South Tyrone's case—after nearly two years—is to be held in limbo for possibly another year. It appears that, if administrators have a cock-eyed idea that cannot be sustained, they merely give themselves time to move the goalposts and hope that the constructive opposition will go away.
I hope that the Minister will understand that, in the case of the South Tyrone, we are not going away. We know that the motivation for the proposed changes in the delivery of maternity and paediatric services has to do with the arbitrary figure of 2,500 births per unit per year. That may or may not be justified in hospitals that serve large mainland conurbations, where consumers live in a small geographical area. However, it has little relevance in a rural area of Northern Ireland, where average income is lower and distances greater, but where that is offset by a high degree of family support. In such cases, accessibility means a great deal.
My hospitals are as financially efficient as larger units, and the units dealing with between 900 and 1,000 babies per year have a low perinatal death rate that many larger units would envy. The system simply is not broken, either in financial or in safety terms; I beg the Minister not to allow the boards to mend it.
It is much more urgent, however, for the Minister to ensure that community care services are put in place in time to meet the demands resulting from shorter post-operative hospitalisation and the increased number
1224
of day-surgery treatments. I ask him to consider carefully how such services can be delivered with the community as distinct from to the community.
He may protest that it is perhaps too early for me to try to argue conclusively that the new health boards—devoid of any elected representatives—are ineffective; but I believe that the breadth of professional talent that was hoped for is missing. There are clearly a few excellent people, but they are a minority, and the non-executive members are largely and understandably dominated by those with an executive role.
The latter—also a mediocre bunch—seem preoccupied with finance and organisation, to the detriment of the health service itself. They are preoccupied with glossy brochures and business consultants' reports. Surely it is better to put finite resources into shortening waiting lists and waiting times, and maintaining a hospital and community care infrastructure that is accessible to the consumer.
Before leaving the subject of health and social services, I must ask whether the Minister intends to do anything about the inequity in medical and other services that we in Northern Ireland appear to provide on demand for citizens of the Irish Republic. That country neither reciprocates nor provides those services for its own people.
We have already been presented with examples of the high cost of providing third-level education scholarships for students from the Irish Republic; it has often been cited in the House. Now the Minister has informed me, in answers to parliamentary questions, that 15 per cent. of private nursing home places in Fermanagh are occupied by residents who came directly from the Irish Republic.
I was disappointed to learn that the Northern Ireland Office cannot tell me what that means to the Western health and social services board and the Department of Health and Social Services in terms of social security and general practitioner costs. However, it can be deduced from the cost of in-hospital treatment—over £32,000 last year—that a good deal of money is involved. That money should be spent on providing better home help and other services for my constituents. Is it not scandalous that Cavan general hospital in the Irish Republic discharged 21 patients directly to our private nursing homes, one with such horrific bed sores that special equipment had to be bought by the Erne hospital?
About 12 per cent. of my constituents are over 65 years old, and I want the finite resources available to my health boards going to improve their quality of life. Why should we be subsidising the parasitic Government in Dublin, who would presume to lecture us on political proprieties?
Nor does the extortion end there. There is clear evidence that it is easier for someone from the Irish Republic to get a public authority house in Northern Ireland than it is for someone born in the Province who has perhaps lived his working life in England and wants to return home to retire. In matters relating to education, the social services and housing, can we afford to finance Eire's spongers to the extent that we do?
The Minister has already told me that he will not increase the funding available to the Western health and social services board to compensate for the demands of the Republic's elderly who come into my area. Will he tell me when he intends to put a stop to that abuse?
Let us consider some activities of the Department of Economic Development—in particular, the way in which

1225
its industrial development board operates. I do not fail to recognise the difficulties enshrined in job creation, and I pay tribute to the good work being done in the Department and the IDB. But it would pay dividends if the efforts to attract inward investment and business opportunities in places such as the United States were more equally divided between officials, who work directly for the IDB, and contracted agents, who would have the advantage of working on home ground.
It is not possible, however bright and able the Department's nominees may be, for them to cover enough ground in the time available and to maintain the follow-up on promising leads. The indigenous agent who knows the territory can be of immense value if he or she is properly tasked, targeted and rewarded. On the other hand, if not productive, he or she is more easily expendable than a civil servant who has been encouraged to uproot family and home to undertake the task.
Local councils have a role to play in promoting businesses from within their own areas, targeting clearly defined regions of, say, the United States from an exporting, joint venturing and inward investment perspective. Four councils representing County Tyrone have come together to do just that in the mid-west of America and hope to be able, with IDB co-operation, to make use of, and task, an agent in that area so that he may identify opportunities. I hope that the Minister will see that as a practical, tangible opportunity for cross-party, intra-community co-operation, in contrast to some of the more ethereal schemes that exist, and I hope that he will give the initiative his support.
At home, I will only urge him to ensure that there is unity of purpose between the Departments of Economic Development and of Agriculture in sorting out the urgent need to develop our agrifood industry before it is too late. I leave him with the challenge that we must protect and develop realistically our milk-based industry.
I draw attention to the way in which the modicum of democracy which at present exists in the education and library boards is threatened in the Department's paper on reorganisation, although it is noticeably lacking in any reference to the need to rationalise the Department's headquarters. I hope that the Minister will set my mind at rest about that.
Education must never be taken out of the hands of parents and teachers. Sadly, since I left the classroom just
1226
over 10 years ago, I find a profession which had maintained the highest standards, not least in the primary sector, very demoralised, with teachers falling over themselves to retire early.
I am glad that the Minister with responsibility at the Department of Education for Northern Ireland has recognised that, and has decided to slow down the pace of proposed change and look anew at the whole question of curriculum content. I congratulate him on that decision. It is time that teachers were restored to their proper role, and that someone got a grip on the inspectorate, which represents executive authority gone mad.
I must express disappointment at the limited funding available for new capital projects. While I welcome two major projects in my constituency in the voluntary sector, and I am pleased to have been involved in pressing for one of them, I am horrified to discover no major provision listed in the controlled sector. The Minister would be offended if I whispered, "Discrimination," but I would simply be reflecting how that has been interpreted in some quarters.
Some rural primary schools in my constituency are more than 60 years old, and there is pressure to rationalise because of falling rolls, but no one appears to have considered it a good idea to group those schools within a new rural school to sustain my rural community, or to take cognisance of the excellent study of the future of primary education commissioned by the Rural Development Council, which was broadly in favour of clustering.
While the Department has been mending things that are not broken, it has left the urgent matter of adequate infrastructure on the proverbial long finger. Will the Minister make it his priority to find extra cash to make an impact on that area? In a region of high unemployment, our children's education must have precedence.
I shall refer briefly to the Rural Development Council. There should be urgency to develop a coherent rural policy, but it will not happen unless the council is given greater authority and influence. It currently lacks teeth and plays second fiddle to every other Government Department and agency. Planners continue to be systematically destructive towards the rural community, and take little notice of its needs or rights.
I am running out of time, so I shall conclude by telling the Minister that Northern Ireland should be governed with continuity and stability; by consent rather than by diktat; by sustaining what is good and improving on what is imperfect, but never by trying to mend things that are not broken.
11.12 pm
Sir James Kilfedder: I join in welcoming my right hon. Friend the Minister on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. He will find that the Ulster people are kindly, hospitable and friendly. No matter how their representatives in the House may sound, there is a big heart in the majority of the people of Northern Ireland.
It is impossible to deal with the order in the short time that is available, so I shall mention just three points. This is the European year of older people and it is appropriate to draw attention to their problems and their needs. They are seeking not sympathy or pity, but fair play, justice and proper consideration of their plight. Most of them are living on relatively small incomes which, in many cases, have been reduced as a result of the lowering of interest rates on, for instance, their building society accounts. Unfortunately, the majority of them are just above the threshold of eligibility for state benefits.
The cost of living in Northern Ireland is greater than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Some of our senior citizens are endeavouring to eke out their pensions by eating less or buying cheaper items. Some even try to save on the cost of heating by restricting it to one room or one bar of an electric fire. Therefore, imagine my surprise and alarm when the Government announced in the Budget the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel and power. Everyone in the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, will have to pay that tax—those who are earning enough to be obliged to pay income tax and those who are not.
In that sense, it is an unfair tax which will hurt, in particular, the retired people who do not receive state benefit, which I understand would then entitle them to some compensation, although I am not sure what will be available. It is well established that during winter there is a substantial increase in the number of deaths among pensioners. I fear that this harsh tax will cause more suffering to our senior citizens and expose them to greater danger of death through hypothermia. There is still time for the Government to abandon the tax on domestic electricity, oil, gas and coal.
I am deeply concerned about the welfare of elderly people in residential care homes, whose numbers have mushroomed. Some homes are excellent, some are not, according to the complaints that I have received from the relatives of the elderly residents. It is all very well for the Government to state that registration may be refused if the health board considers that the applicant is not a fit person to operate a residential care home, but frequent visits should be made every year and without notice. Relatives should be given leaflets inviting complaints and stating where they should be made. Telephone numbers should be provided so that someone with a grievance can immediately contact an official, who can then immediately go and check that home.
I understand that some residents who are supported at public expense in residential care homes are not being given by the owners the statutory allowance of f12·65 a week—or, at least, not being given the full amount. I am deeply concerned about that. Often, those residents are vulnerable and cannot look after some aspects of their affairs. I hope that there will be an investigation into that throughout Northern Ireland, as we must ensure that they are receiving the money to which they are entitled.
I deplore the moves by the Department of Health to close state residential care and nursing homes, which
1228
provide the standards by which private homes can be judged. I urge the Government to preserve, in particular, the Banks residential home in Bangor, which was purpose built and provides an excellent and homely atmosphere.
In speaking of the elderly, I think of the loving care shown by the nurses who look after them, either in residential homes or in hospitals. I pay tribute to those nurses, male and female, who, by their dedication and hard work, make life more comfortable for patients of all ages in hospital. Young people in Northern Ireland who have the vocation should be encouraged to train as nurses. It is annoying and perplexing that, in an area of high unemployment, young people who are eager to become nurses are discouraged. It is ridiculous that some nurses are made redundant when it is clear that the nursing staff in hospitals are overworked. We need nurses as well as doctors to ensure the highest possible standard of patient care.
For years, I have been fighting the various plans to reduce the number of beds in the Ulster hospital in Dundonald and in the Bangor hospital and the transfer of essential services to other hospitals in Belfast.
Here in London, the movement is the other way round. The Secretary of State for Health maintains that money and facilities should go to densely populated areas outside the capital. That makes sense. But the Eastern health board, which covers North Down and Belfast, moves the beds from my constituency into Belfast, thus depriving the dense and growing population of North Down of its rights. That is a form of discrimination, and I resent it. In the name of the people of North Down, I challenge the Eastern health board to play fair. The people in my constituency deserve the best hospitals. The doctors and nurses demand them, and certainly the patients deserve them.
I should like to mention many other matters, but, in fairness to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), who wishes to speak next, I shall stop here, adding only that it is unfortunate that the people of Northern Ireland, through their representatives, do not have an adequate opportunity to examine the issues set out in the draft appropriation order. I look forward to the day when we shall have a truly democratic forum.
11.21 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity, albeit brief, to participate in the appropriation debate. First, on behalf of my party, I welcome the new Minister of State, who introduced the debate, and his ministerial colleague the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, whom I have already welcomed on a previous occasion. I hope that their endeavours in Northern Ireland will be for the benefit and welfare of all the people there and, on that basis, we promise our co-operation.
It is appropriate to put on the record the fact that the shortness of the time allowed to us tonight will allegedly be compensated for by extra time in the autumn, when the debate will be reconvened, as it were. On the understanding that that is a firm undertaking, I feel that it would be inappropriate to deal at this late hour with many of the broader issues that the appropriation debate would normally involve. I shall therefore restrict my remarks to the matters that cannot wait until the autumn to be debated and acted upon.

1229
The first such issue concerns the Department of Agriculture. I welcome the potato feedstuffs scheme, which was introduced to alleviate the financial plight of potato farmers in Northern Ireland. The Department succumbed only after five months' pressure but, although it is late, the scheme is still welcome. The danger is not yet over. Many of the potato farmers, who form the bedrock of the agricultural scene in Northern Ireland, have been so financially devastated in the past year that despite the scheme they still require assistance in the new planting season, so I hope that some effort will be made to provide that, by means of either the structural fund or the special potato board funding.
One peculiar circumstance now affecting the farming community may cause some mirth, because it is the fact that cattle have no passports. Nevertheless, that circumstance is causing some distress along the southern border. Cattle that have been imported from the Republic of Ireland do not get any identification, so they are ineligible for cow and beef premiums in Northern Ireland. I ask the Department of Agriculture and the Minister to make representations to the appropriate department in the Republic of Ireland so that there can be co-operation over the certification and identification of animals that travel across the border.
It will not surprise the Minister if I touch briefly on the crisis in the fishing industry, because two of the three ports in Northern Ireland are in my constituency.
The fishing industry, like the potato farmers, has been devastated. It has been devastated not by the weather, but by Government policy and legislation. In that regard, I refer particularly to the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act and the follow-on from that, the Sea Fish Licensing (Time at Sea) (Principles) Order 1993. They represent the most devastating revision of the common fisheries policy since 1983 which is having a tremendous effect on the environment and the economic environment of the hinterland of those two ports and of Portavogie.
There is no doubt that the so-called Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992 has nothing to do with fish conservation and that it will not achieve the objectives that it set out to achieve. It is incapable of performing that function. That point was debated at the time and there is no point re-examining the issue tonight. The more important, immediate and urgent point relates to sea fish licensing.
As a result of pressure, the implementation of that proposal has been postponed until 1 January 1994. That is an indication of the difficulties that it is causing. The fishermen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland seem to be the fall-guys for fish conservation policies in Europe. It is evident that other countries fishing around our waters do not abide by conservation and licensing matters.
It is particularly galling when one can stand, as I can in South Down, and see the fishermen from the Republic of Ireland putting out just a mile across the water virtually without restrictions and with a policy of an enhanced fishing fleet, when the fishermen of Kilkeel, Ardglass and Portavogie cannot do that. I urge that the licensing time at sea provisions be re-examined to assist those fishermen.
The real way to achieve conservation is through decommissioning. However, the Government have turned their face away from a meaningful decommissioning
1230
scheme. The efficient and modern vessels will go out of action and that will leave an inefficient and non-modern fleet to carry on fishing. The decommissioning scheme should encourage those with the largest quota drives to set aside, if they so wish, like the farmers, part of their endeavours to provide for conservation.
I must briefly refer to the Department of Health and Social Services, as I am sure all hon. Members would, because of our dramatic experiences in Northern Ireland as a result of the changes imposed by the Department. There seems to be an attempt to centralise even the most modest acute services in the conurbations.
As the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said, we are a rural community and we must have reasonable access to acute facilities. We are not looking for anything other than that. One of the most galling aspects of all this is that we had a so-called consultation period. However, when representatives of the community or of the duly elected councillors of Down and Mourne went to the Eastern health board, they found that there was no consultation.
When those representatives asked the board what was meant by acute services, by midwifery-led maternity services and by emergency and casualty services, the board bluntly refused to define what it meant. How can we have consultation in respect of a paper when the authors cannot explain what they mean? That is happening right across Northern Ireland. We have not had the required consultation.
One of the most interesting events in health and social services in Northern Ireland in recent times has been the intervention by the Department in the contractual goings-on of the Eastern health board vis-à-vis the Royal Victoria hospital. For the first time, the Department has admitted that ultimate responsibility is with itself. Until now the Department has said, "No, you cannot consult us at this stage; that is all to do with the administration on the ground at board level." We always knew that ultimate responsibility was with the Department itself.
I ask the Department to intervene to ensure that acute facilities are left in the area which is broadly covered by Down and Mourne health authority. There were three hospitals in the area. One has already been closed, one hospital in Banbridge is threatened, and Kilkeel hospital will be closed. Only the Down group of hospitals will be left.
I take the point about the so-called maternity services throughput of 2,500. The last I heard, it was 2,000. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has clearly said that that is not the case and that it is a departmental figment. It would be quite happy with a proper liaison group. Throughput could be as low as 500 and there could still be an effective maternity service. That is what the rural populations of Northern Ireland require.
I must finish, to be fair to the Minister, but I should refer to the closure of statutory residential homes. The Department says, "Cut 12 per cent." It does not matter whether 12 per cent. of beds is a realistic figure for the demographics of an area. It is a balance sheet exercise of cutting 12 per cent. If the Minister would listen for a moment, we are talking not about closing beds but about closing homes. The rooms are people's homes. They are not beds, they are the homes and environment of old people. We must take great care. Already, two homes in

1231
Newcastle have been closed and people have been shuffled off to three other homes which are about to be threatened with closure. I ask the Minister to review that matter.
I see you looking at me, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I take the hint very clearly. However, we have only scratched the surface of the topic. Will the Secretary of State tell the people of Northern Ireland what will happen to the European fund to which the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred in great detail? The Northern Irish people are disgusted by what is happening. We would like to know what new instructions, if any, are being issued to the Minister and the negotiating team in the Council of Ministers to ensure that Northern Ireland deprived region No. 1 gets a reasonable funding allocation to enable it to sustain a measure of economic growth.
11.32 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Robert Atkins): I have but seven minutes to try to respond to the debate. I therefore agree with comments about the shortage of time to examine several important and urgent issues for hon. Members who represent the various strands of opinion within the Province.
I thank the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) and others for their kind words about my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) and my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who recently joined the team. They appreciated those comments and they look forward to working, as I and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend the Earl of Arran have done for some months, with such a friendly bunch.
Several issues have been raised. I will write to hon. Members on matters that I cannot address in my brief reply—or encourage my ministerial colleagues with certain responsibilities to do so. Perhaps I shall touch on matters that are my responsibility within the Department of Economic Development and the Department of the Environment, and conclude, if I have the time, on matters relating to structural funds, about which there is concern and a need for clarification.
The hon. Member for Wigan made several comments and referred to the problems of unemployment. I agree that there are still a great number of concerns. Much of the unemployment is endemic for reasons that the hon. Gentleman and all other hon. Members understand. It is my task and that of the Industrial Development Board and other organisations to do what we can to create new jobs and encourage new companies to come to the Province and provide opportunities for new employment. We had a successful year in 1992–93. Nearly 2,000 jobs were created in new major companies around the Province. That task continues with the tacit and often overt support of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies who do a great deal to assist in that respect.
I pick out the point raised by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) about his activities and those of the organisation in his constituency with the delightful name of TEDI. Other hon. Members and organisations are also encouraging links between various parts of the United States and, indeed, other parts of the world. The work done by those organisations, properly constituted, is valuable and is appreciated by IDB and others.
1232
There is always some concern when there is a potential conflict between the activities of local councils and the IDB when they are not properly controlled. If they are not properly controlled, we get conflicts and difficulties. Essentially, if the organisations are properly set up, they do a great deal of work.
The hon. Member for Wigan raised a point about the airport. I will be delighted to see him and anyone whom he wishes to bring. That matter is important. I am sorry that he has not yet had a reply, but he should get one—I make a pledge now.
I agree with the points raised by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. They were sensible and thoughtful and I will try to implement them as soon as possible. He made some points about planning in rural areas. Hon. Members know my view on planning in rural areas, but let me put it on the record now. I am entirely in favour of industry in rural areas—I am not against it. However, it must be recognised that there are pressures on rural areas when that happens.
Let me repeat that I am entirely in favour of housing in rural areas. It is essential that those who work in agriculture and other small industries have the right to be housed, especially if they have a family connection that involves them wanting to stay in the area in which they live. I have no argument with that. The only discussion—I suspect that hon. Members share this concern—is perhaps about the quality of the properties.
I spent a delightful day with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) in his constituency. We looked at a number of planning concerns. We found—perhaps to his astonishment, if not to mine—an identity of purpose and understanding about what is happening there. Hon. Members will understand that there is an interest there.
I shall conclude my brief remarks—I want to return to a number of issues, perhaps through correspondence—by referring to the points raised about the structural funds, which are exercising all hon. Members, not least the hon. Member for Antrim, North. To answer his question, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and others have fought hard for not simply a significant increase for Northern Ireland. We have asked for a significant increase on what was requested last year plus inflation, so that pressure is firm.
The hon. Gentleman and others will have heard on the wireless this morning comments from Commissioner Millan who made it clear that the British Government, through my right hon. Friend, have been fighting extremely hard for the cause of Northern Ireland and, indeed, the United Kingdom. This morning, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State spoke directly to Commissioner Millan on the telephone. He made clear to Commissioner Millan, who was receptive in this regard, the importance of Northern Ireland maintaining its objective I status, but having no more than its fair share.
We must recognise that there is pressure on EC funds at present. I think that everyone understands that. We recognise that the specific pressures are coming from the former eastern part of Germany, parts of Portugal, Greece, and so on. I make the point—this shows how hard we have fought for Northern Ireland—that Northern Ireland's gross domestic product per capita is about 76 per cent. of the EC average, which is well above objective 1 status figures in other parts of the EC. We have fought hard against the odds to ensure that Northern Ireland gets

1233
a fair crack of the whip. If hon. Gentlemen are fair, and I know them to be so, they will understand that. We must continue that fight as Northern Ireland is entitled to a fair share of these moneys. My right hon. and hon. Friends in my Department and in the Government pledge that we will do so.
We have had an all-too-brief debate. All the points raised by hon. Gentlemen will be considered. We will respond as urgently as we can on the details of health services and residential homes—a subject which my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) raised. He speaks with great care for the elderly in his constituency. I hope that we can talk about these matters again after the recess and at some length so that hon. Members on both sides of the House and the official Opposition have the opportunity to raise matters and I, as a Minister, and my colleagues have the opportunity to respond.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.

Appropriation (Northern Ireland)

  PROCEDURE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Paul Channon be discharged from the Select Committee on Procedure and Mr. Andrew MacKay be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

PETITIONS

  Post Office Services
  11.40 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I rise to present a petition which is signed by my constituents who are concerned about Government plans to privatise the Post Office and to transfer VAT payments from post offices to banks. This has been an extremely contentious issue and the House may be astonished to know that in a little over six weeks I have secured no fewer than 11,490 signatures from my constituents in suburban and rural areas. My hon. Friends have similar petitions to present. I shall read the material allegations.
  The Humble Petition of the undersigned presidents of Gordon sheweth that we express deep concern that the Government proposes to privatise post office services and compulsorily transfer social security payments from post offices to banks, and we oppose these measures jointly and severally as they threaten the very survival of rural post offices and deny the efficiency and convenience of the present system, especially in rural areas.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will do everything possible to impress upon the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and Social Security the need for an autonomous post office service in the public sector and to abandon plans for the compulsory transfer of social security payments to banks.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.
  11.41 pm
  Mrs. Ray Michie: I have the honour to present to the House a petition from the residents of Argyll and Bute regarding their concern that the Government might remove their right to receive pensions and benefit payments at local sub-post offices. If that happens, it will undoubtedy threaten the survival of sub-post offices and rural village shops, with which they are so often connected. That would cut deep at the heart of these communities. The signatures were collected throughout the length and breadth of Argyll and Bute and I pay special tribute to the sub-postmasters and mistresses and all involved, both young and old, who helped collect them. The petition is signed by more than 9,500 of my constituents and I support it. It concludes with the following words:
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will do everything possible to impress upon the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and Social Security the need for an autonomous post office service in the public sector and to abandon plans for the compulsory transfer of social security payments to banks.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.
  11.43 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: The petition that I present is signed by my constituents in Orkney and Shetland, by others in other parts and by constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). It is in similar terms to those presented by my hon. Friends the Members for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie).

  1235
  The signatures have been collected in a relatively short period of time. I echo the thanks to sub-postmasters and mistresses who have helped to collect them.
  The Government have said that they will not go down the road of a compulsory transfer to banks, but they still encourage payment of benefit into bank accounts. That could lead to the destruction of the network of sub-post offices throughout the country, which is a valued rural service.
  The total number of signatures on the petition, including those of my hon. Friends and myself, amounts to 42,000, which makes the message loud and clear.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray
  That your honourable House will do everything possible to impress upon the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and Social Security the need for an autonomous post office service in the public sector and to abandon plans for the compulsory transfer of social security payments to banks.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

Defence Industries (Chelmsford)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
11.44 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: My constituents and I are grateful that I have an opportunity to raise an important issue in Chelmsford and in the constituencies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale).
The background to this short debate is somewhat contradictory, because, in the past two months, Chelmsford has benefited from a fall in unemployment, in both the local authority area and the parliamentary constituency, of 551 and 384 people respectively. Unfortunately, however, the good news created by those substantial and consistent falls in unemployment has been lost because of last week's announcement by Marconi Radar that, sadly, it had to make a further 300 people in Chelmsford redundant.
We have paid a heavy price for the peace dividend and a more peaceful world. It is ironic that those who are most critical of defence-related redundancies advocate even more defence cuts. The Labour party has consistently voted for a 27 per cent.—£6 billion—cut in the defence budget. The Liberal Democrats would like to see defence spending cut by 50 per cent.—half the defence budget—over the next seven years. Both policies would have an even more traumatic effect on defence industries in my constituency.
To understand the impact of the redundancies in defence-related industries in Chelmsford in the past 12 to 18 months, it would be sensible to put into context the history of the manufacturing base in the town. Chelmsford has always been associated with the Marconi companies, and many people in Chelmsford consider them to be synonymous. Twenty years ago, the Marconi companies and English Electric Valve were the town's major employers, providing jobs for 11,000 people with thousands of back-up jobs reliant on their success.
The 1989 census of employment shows that three quarters of Chelmsford's manufacturing jobs were in the standard industrial classification group 3, which includes engineering and vehicles. Employment in that group was dominated by the GEC companies: Marconi Communications; Marconi Radar; and English Electric Valve.
In the past 18 months, there has been an all too dismal repetition of job losses in those companies. In January 1992, 150 jobs were lost at Marconi Communications; in March 1992, 140 jobs were lost at Marconi Phone; in June 1992, 600 jobs were lost at Marconi Radar when it moved its manufacturing to Leicester; in June 1992, 225 jobs were lost at Marconi Communications; in September 1992, a further 300 jobs were lost at Marconi Communications; in February 1993, 95 jobs were lost at English Electric Valve; and now 300 jobs have been lost at Marconi Radar.
Almost 2,000 jobs have been lost in a relatively short time. I do not need to remind the House of the misery that that causes to the men and families directly involved, to the companies, which do not enjoy making people redundant, and to the town because of the knock-on effect those redundancies have on suppliers, back-up staff, shops and the area's commercial life.

1237
The men who have been made redundant are highly trained and desperate to be in work, contributing to our nation's manufacturing base and using their skills to the utmost degree.
There are two reasons for that dismal catalogue of redundancies. First, the ending of the cold war and the subsequent peace dividend, coming as they did so swiftly and unexpectedly with the crumbling of the Berlin wall and the iron curtain, have meant that we live in a relatively more peaceful world. Consequently, the Government have rightly had to reassess the defence requirement of this country.
Secondly, we as a nation have an excellent record in defence industry exports, but the peace dividend has coincided with a worldwide recession, which has meant that the market for defence equipment and communications worldwide has contracted, and that the competition has intensified. As part of the need to remain competitive or lose out even more, the Marconi companies have had to take drastic action.
What of the future? I have a number of suggestions, which I am pleased to make, to help to alleviate the short-term problems facing my constituents and to try to help to improve long-term prospects for defence-related industries. I welcome the fact the Government have signed up to KONVER, the European Community programme to provide financial assistance to areas suffering from redundancies in defence-related industries.
Chelmsford will compete for that money to help with reskilling and retraining. However, under the EC rules, two thirds of the money is designated on a criterion under which Chelmsford would not usually be able to compete. That is farcical. A recent university of York report for the European Commission on the economic and social impact of reductions in defence spending and military forces on the regions of the Community identifies Essex as the second worst-hit area in the EC.
First, it is imperative that the criterion is changed so that Essex can bid in all the categories of the KONVER funding. I know that work is being done at county level to come up with an excellent idea to use some of that money directly to help over the long term companies facing problems from a contracting defence market.
Secondly, the companies must continue to broaden their base by diversifying into non-military products. The companies have long recognised that, and for a number of years they have been doing all that they can to diversify as quickly as possible. Marconi Communications has had an ambitious programme of diversification for a number of years and has met success in supplying communications equipment to the BBC, to the Independent Broadcasting Authority and to clients worldwide.
Similarly, Marconi Radar and English Electric Valve are channelling their energies into diversifying while recognising that there will still be important defence contracts to be won. It should not be forgotten that the defence market has not disappeared, but has simply been reduced because of changing circumstances.
It is important for diversification that it is remembered that it is a slow process and means either moving into new markets against well-established competition or investing heavily and speculatively in trying to develop niche markets. Neither can be achieved overnight, and it is
1238
imperative that, during the period of uncertainty and realignment, the Ministry of Defence and the defence industries work closely together. At the end of the day, their needs are mutual. I am pleased that both the companies and the Ministry recognise that they need to co-operate because of mutual interests and mutual future benefits to both sides.
Thirdly, it is crucial that, whenever feasible, British contracts go to British companies to protect British jobs and British expertise. Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and his predecessor on ensuring that more than 90 per cent. of our defence contracts go to British companies. That is only right, because we must look after our own, as one can rest assured that no one else will.
In that respect, I make a plea for Marconi Radar with regard to the RAF tactical radar project. It would give a vital opportunity to put the Ministry of Defence seal of approval on an excellent new product with £300 million of export potential, which would protect jobs. It would also provide an opportunity to preserve unique skills and technology in this country. I fully appreciate that my hon. Friend the Minister is not in a position directly to comment on that, but in passing I wanted to make a constituency plea for the contract.
When the Ministry of Defence puts out tenders for contracts, it is important that they be dealt with swiftly—contracts for new products, for repair and maintenance, for spare parts or for updating and uprating equipment and services. I appreciate that this is a difficult area, because the Ministry has a duty to secure value for money for its paymasters, the taxpayers, but any speeding up of the process would help defence industry companies. If anything can be done to expedite the awarding of contracts, that would be warmly welcomed by the industry and by the country at large.
Lastly, it is important that everything possible be done to help redundant people to re-skill and get back into work as soon as humanly possible. All the companies in Chelmsford are continuing to do all they can to relocate workers within the GEC group, but that is difficult in today's economic climate. They are also doing all they can to help with counselling and setting up advice units to help these people over an extremely traumatic—in the short term—time in their lives.
It is extremely heartening to see how the Essex training and enterprise council has moved swiftly to respond by trying to help, and by contacting the companies concerned—in this instance, Marconi Radar in particular—to see what it can do to alleviate the problems in the town. I know that everyone is grateful to the TEC for that response, and to the company for considering proposals put to it by the TEC for joint initiatives to tackle the problem.
We must continue to ensure that all possible help is given to re-employ these people and to protect our manufacturing base, which has thrived for so long in Chelmsford. Above all, it is crucial that these men should not be forgotten. No one in Chelmsford can forget their plight because for too long we have had to live with the problems that they are facing. I certainly cannot forget the trauma through which they are going, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree and my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon cannot forget them either, because their constituents are similarly affected.

1239
It is important that these men appreciate that everyone is on their side, that we are not prepared to forget them, and that we are all prepared to work together for them. We must lobby the Ministry of Defence for contracts, and work with Essex TEC and the companies concerned to put together packages to help with re-skilling. I hope that the Government will do what they can to ensure that the recovery continues at a sustainable pace so as to create demand, especially in non-defence-related industries. When that demand picks up, companies will respond by taking on skilled workers to meet it.
All these factors amount to a package. We must work together to get workers back into manufacturing as quickly as possible, because there is nothing more debilitating or demoralising for people who desperately want to work than to be unable to use their skills owing to what is happening to defence industries and contracts, here and in the rest of the world, because fortunately we now live in a more peaceful environment.
11.58 pm
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) not only on his good fortune in winning the ballot and raising this important subject for debate but on the convincing and compassionate arguments that he marshalled on behalf of his constituency.
My hon. Friend's constituency has had a long association with the defence industry, and particularly with GEC-Marconi and its predecessors. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way that he has been so consistently energetic and assiduous in promoting the interests of his constituents, particularly in the defence industrial sector. He made a valuable contribution to the major debate that was held in the House in May on the defence industrial base, and he frequently tables parliamentary questions, writes to me and lobbies me and other Ministers in the Ministry of Defence on behalf of his constituents.
In this context, I should also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale), who is here tonight. Many of their constituents also work for GEC-Marconi, and they champion the interests of their constituents. The defence industry workers in that part of Essex are fortunate in having three such doughty fighters for their interests in the House.
The backdrop to, and the reason for, tonight's debate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford has acknowledged, is the profound recasting of the strategic environment caused by the collapse of the former Soviet Union, and the disappearance of the Warsaw pact. Our recently published defence White Paper, called "Defending the Future", shows in more detail than ever before the way that we have remodelled our forces to take account of those great changes. Immense though the benefits are to our security and economic well-being, those changes are bringing in their wake painful reductions in some parts of the defence industry.
The outcome of the 1992 public expenditure settlement means that, between 1990–91 and 1995–96, the defence budget will reduce by around 12 per cent. in real terms. Sadly, the equipment procurement programme is bound to
1240
diminish in absolute terms, even if not proportionately. However, those reductions start from a high base line, and we shall retain a substantial defence equipment programme. As my hon. Friend was good enough to say, it is certainly not disappearing.
It will still include highly sophisticated and technologically innovative equipment, which will sustain many thousands of jobs in the defence industries, as well as permitting our armed forces to receive the best and most up-to-date equipment. If one adds together our British domestic procurement budget, defence export annual sales, and the opportunities that exist for defence industries in market testing, one gets a total defence cake of well over £13 billion. That shows that there is still plenty for the defence companies to go for, despite the downturn.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford was most concerned about the recent job losses at GEC-Marconi. I pay tribute to the company for the way that it has made, and is continuing to make, a major contribution to Britain's defence effort, for which we in the Ministry of Defence have been most grateful. I recognise that in recent years, and for a number of reasons, the level of employment in the company in Chelmsford has fallen considerably. I was sorry to learn of the most recent announcement of job losses by GEC-Marconi Radar and Control Systems.
The company employs 1,400 people in Chelmsford on the design and development of radar equipment, primarily for defence applications. The business in Chelmsford is relocating, partly to new premises elsewhere in Chelmsford and partly to another site. The proposed reduction of 300 jobs is in part because a number of jobs needed to run the old site will no longer be required at the new premises, and partly because the company is also reviewing its structure to reduce operating costs and improve its competitive position.
It is of no comfort to those who have lost their jobs that such restructuring is necessary, and indeed vital, if companies are to survive in the new tighter competitive environment. I understand the deep personal distress that those changes cause to individuals and their families. I thought that my hon. Friend was most eloquent on that point, and I can only add my personal sympathy to what he said.
It is right to emphasise that, in the last five years, my Department has placed a large number of contracts with GEC companies in Chelmsford, 20 of which are each worth over £1 million. The total value of contracts placed with GEC companies in Chelmsford over that period is over £100 million.
Among the substantial contracts carried out for my Department in Chelmsford in recent years have been contracts with GEC-Marconi Communications for the supply of satellite communications equipment, and Triffid Army radio link communications equipment; with English Electric Valves for image intensifier tubes; and with GEC-Marconi Radars and Control Systems for tracker radars for the Sea Wolf missile system. These products make an important contribution to our nation's defence effort.
My hon. Friend referred to two projects in particular. The first of these is the programme for the conversion of type 911 tracker radars. We have surplus type 911 trackers as a result of a cancellation of a previous programme.

1241
There is an opportunity to use these to meet the requirement for vertical-launch Sea Wolf on type 23 frigates, but they require some conversion work.
Marconi Radar and Control Systems are already involved in supporting the radars used in several Sea Wolf point defence missile systems. Complex negotiations have now been taking place with Marconi for some time. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are pursuing these vigorously, and hope to be in a position to place the contract by October.
The second programme my hon. Friend asked about is the tactical radar replacement programme for the Royal Air Force. The competition for this requirement, for which GEC-Marconi is one of four contenders, is now in progress. Although the order is a comparatively small one by Ministry of Defence standards, we recognise the importance which both the United Kingdom firms bidding for the work attach to winning it.
I know that my hon. Friend will understand that, until the evaluation of the tenders has been completed, it would be inappropriate for me to discuss in detail the merits of any bid across the Floor of the House, but I can assure him that the eloquent points he made will be taken into account in the final decision, which we hope to be able to announce by the end of next month.
I hope that these indications of contract announcement dates will be helpful to my hon. Friend and to all who work at GEC-Marconi.
My hon. Friend referred to a study published by the European Commission which showed Essex as an area of the Community with the second highest dependency on employment in the defence industries. This study was based on work carried out by the centre for defence economics at the university of York. There is no doubt that a substantial proportion of industrial concerns in the county are defence-related, but I have to say that we are not entirely convinced that the comparisons in that study between regions in different member states have been done on a like-for-like basis.
This is not just an academic point, as the study's assessments of overall defence dependency have been used by the commission as the basis for allocating funds under the KONVER programme, to which my hon. Friend referred tonight, and also in his speech in the industrial base debate in May. The KONVER programme is a matter for which the Department of Trade and Industry is primarily responsible.
As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have some strong reservations about such schemes, because they represent a partial approach to industrial adjustment. We have also taken issue with the basis of allocation of funds between member states. But, having entered these caveats and reservations, the Government intend to take advantage of the scheme in order to help constituencies such as my hon. Friend's. I take on board his point that the criteria need to be changed, and will bring that argument to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry.
I was glad to hear my hon. Friend speak of the success of GEC-Marconi in diversification matters, and in particular its sales to the BBC and to other institutions and
1242
companies in the export field. We are delighted when defence companies diversify into new markets, and it makes good sense for many companies to do so.
But it is important to say yet again that it is not for the Government to direct companies to diversify. Our interest is in seeing a profitable and competitive defence industry. It is for companies to decide how best they can be profitable and competitive—and if that means diversifying, so be it. I am glad to hear that GEC-Marconi has done so well without any intervention or orders from Government.
I know that my hon. Friend shares my lack of enthusiasm for a defence conversion agency—a distaste which I feel on grounds of both principle and practice. I will not here rehearse the familiar arguments why this is really another socialist interventionist scheme dressed up in new clothing. I think that we all agree that the Government should give what useful advice and help they can, without in any way being an interventionist Government with taxpayers' money.
The Department of Trade and Industry's recent publication "Changing Tack" provides step-by-step advice for defence companies wishing to diversify, backed by the expertise of professional management consultants Touche Ross. In that way, we assist and encourage management flair, rather than stifling it with regulations, bureaucracy or ill-targeted subsidies paid for by the taxpayer.
I was grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that British defence contracts support British jobs and expertise in some 90 per cent. of cases in which we award contracts. We believe in fair and open competition, but the fact that more than 90 per cent. of our contracts go to British firms shows where our heart lies. We do not wish to neglect the importance of Britain's home-grown defence industries.
Let me say a little about our relations with industry generally. It is important that my Department and the defence industry work together closely. We do not believe that relations are in any way unhappy at present; indeed, I was pleased to note that the defence manufacturers gave a cautious welcome to the announcements in the recent White Paper.
I acknowledge that, two or three years ago, there was a feeling—born of the uncertainty of the time—that, during the period of deliberation on "Options for Change", the Department was not as open with industry as it might have been; but I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends who have held ministerial office experienced difficulties at that time. They had to formulate defence-policy parameters and set the priorities—duties which, possibly, are for Government alone.
Once decisions were made, however, we made strenuous efforts to provide industry with all the information necessary to enable it to make sound commercial judgments. Our aim was, and is, to enable companies to remain competitive and successful in both domestic and overseas defence markets. The GEC group as a whole, and GEC-Marconi in particular, have certainly done that.
We are trying to provide the defence industries with as much knowledge of our requirements as possible. There has always been a significant flow of information from the Ministry of Defence to companies right across the spectrum from top-level committees such as the National Defence Industries Council and the Chief of Defence

1243
Procurement's regular meetings with the trade associations, down to the informal contacts between individual companies and MOD officials. The work that hon. Members such as my hon. Friend can do in strengthening that bridge of information and understanding is considerable.
We are doing all that we can to provide defence companies with more and more information. We shall soon publish a comprehensive list of endorsed staff targets and staff requirements, which we shall update annually. Those documents are the driving force for procurement action on all projects in which we expect to spend at least £5 million on development or £10 million on production. We hope that the publication of that comprehensive list will be helpful to all actual and potential defence contractors, including GEC-Marconi.
The process of managing the defence budget is dynamic. Inevitably, we must make painful adjustments to certain programmes from time to time, because of the changing international strategic situation, to which my hon. Friend referred. We shall continue to fine-tune the
1244
programmes, but I think that industry understands the difficulties created by the changes in the world security environment. Although there are bound to be tensions and problems, I think that on the whole there is an amicable and constructive dialogue between my Department and industry.
I feel that, in general terms, we should welcome the more stable international situation that now exists. Of course there are still some trouble spots in the world, such as the former Yugoslavia; nevertheless, we have been able to shift some of our national resources away from defence. I recognise that that is only a modest comfort to those who work in the defence industry, and I sympathise greatly with the plight of the workers in Chelmsford described so eloquently by my hon. Friend. Sadly, it is a fact of life that there will be fewer MOD orders in the future than in the past; that is why companies such as GEC-Marconi are having to adapt accordingly.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Twelve midnight.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Category A Prisoners
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many category A prisoners there are currently in England and Wales.

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

  Letter from Mr. D. Lewis to Mr. Rod Richards, dated 15 July 1993:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many Category A prisoners there are currently in England and Wales.

  There were 578 such prisoners on 30 June 1993.

  Correspondence
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what change there has been in the amount of mail received by his office from hon. Members regarding law and order issues during 1993; and what steps he is taking to avoid excessive delays in replying.

  Mr. Maclean
  In the first six months of this year my office received 1,624 letters from hon. Members on law and order matters, compared with 414 in the same period in 1992—an increase of 392 per cent. A monthly comparison is set out in the table.

  I very much regret the time taken to reply to some hon. Members' letters. A number of measures have been put in hand to reduce delays. Most notably, additional staff have been allocated to the division principally responsible for assisting in the preparation of replies. Every effort will be made to see that all outstanding correspondence from Members is answered as expeditiously as possible.

  Number of letters received from hon. Members on law and order issues

  1992

  1993

  January

  61

  114

  February

  76

  194

  March

  92

  555

  April

  16

  287

  May

  74

  279

  June

  95

  195

  Total

  414

  1,624

  Immigration
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applicants from overseas have been(a) granted political asylum, (b) granted exceptional leave to remain and (c) refused permission to stay since April 1992.
  580
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There is no provision to grant asylum to a person not in the United Kingdom. Information on the outcome of entry clearance applications made abroad for the purpose of seeking asylum here is not separately identifiable in the statistics.

  In the period April to December 1992 a total of 490 grants of settlement-including dependants—were made to south—east Asian refugees, who form a distinct group dealt with under a specific programme. This information since December 1992 is not yet available.

  Information on all decisions made in the period 1 April 1992 to 30 June 1993 on applications for asylum in the United Kingdom is given in the following table.

  Decisions1 on applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, by type, 1 April 1992 to 30 June 1993

  Decisions

  Total decisions

  46,155

  Recognised as refugee and granted asylum2

  2,230

  Not recognised as refugee, but granted exceptional leave3

  23,900

  Refusals

  Total refused

  20,030

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave after determination

  3,755

  Refused on third country grounds

  770

  Refused under paragraph 101 of the Immigration Rules4

  15,500

  1 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same period.

  2 Excluding South East Asian refugees.

  3 Where it would have been unreasonable or impracticable to seek to enforce return to country of origin.

  4 For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period, including failure to respond to two invitations to interview to establish identity.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many remand prisoners have been held on remand in custody for more than 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest available provisional data are for 30 June 1993. On that date there were about 200 untried prisoners and 100 convicted unsentenced prisoners in Prison Service establishments who had first been remanded in custody over 12 months earlier. Not all of these defendants will have been in continuous prison custody since their first remand. This period excludes any time spent in non-Prison Service establishments—eg police cells—before reception on remand into a Prison Service establishment.

  Child Offenders
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders aged 15, 16 or 17 years have received a sentence of detention under section 53(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act since 1983; and if he will break down their offences into categories.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for 1983 to 1991 is given in the table. 1992 data will not be available until the autumn.
  581

  Number of offenders aged 15, 16 and 17 years sentenced at the crown court under Section 53(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 by offence group 1983 to 1991—England and Wales

  Age and Offence group

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Aged 15 Years

  Violence against the person

  3

  5

  2

  3

  9

  8

  8

  —

  9

  Sexual offences

  2

  6

  2

  6

  5

  6

  9

  10

  5

  Burglary

  —

  —

  10

  6

  5

  11

  3

  6

  4

  Robbery

  6

  9

  14

  15

  19

  21

  13

  15

  13

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Criminal damage1

  6

  4

  7

  3

  7

  9

  4

  8

  5

  Drug offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  All offences

  22

  24

  36

  34

  45

  55

  38

  39

  36

  Aged 16 years

  Violence against the person

  6

  21

  14

  23

  19

  12

  13

  10

  13

  Sexual offences

  6

  7

  8

  10

  5

  8

  5

  13

  6

  Burglary

  6

  9

  19

  16

  17

  21

  10

  7

  8

  Robbery

  16

  27

  38

  47

  42

  53

  29

  35

  23

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Criminal damage1

  6

  6

  16

  11

  8

  10

  5

  11

  1

  Drug offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Other

  —

  2

  5

  —

  4

  2

  —

  1

  —

  All offences

  40

  72

  100

  107

  96

  108

  62

  77

  51

  Aged 17 years

  Violence against the person

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sexual offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Burglary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Robbery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Criminal damage1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Drug offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  All offences

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1Including arson.

  Note: Comparisons with prison receptions suggest there may have been under recording during 1989 and 1990, although this is less likely in 1990.

  Fellowship Charitable Foundation
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now ask the Charity Commissioners to consider exercising their temporary protective powers under section 8 of the Charities Act 1992 in respect of the trustees of the Fellowship Charitable Foundation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that the Charity Commissioners are already considering which of their powers, if any, they should exercise in respect of the Fellowship Charitable Foundation.

  Manchester Prison
  Dame Angela Rumbold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce a decision on the future of Manchester prison (Strangeways).

  Mr. Howard
  The prisons board met yesterday to consider the report of the panel which evaluated the bids for the management of Her Majesty's prison Manchester. It decided to accept the majority recommendation of the evaluation panel that the preferred service provider should be the in-house team. In the face of fierce competition. the in-house hid offers the best value for money and will set new standards for the operation of established local prisons. Subject to the conclusion of a satisfactory service 582
  level agreement, the team now faces the challenge of delivering its promise of a safe, purposeful and open regime, with active prisoner and community involvement. Performance against these commitments will be closely controlled on a basis comparable to private sector contracts.

  Firearms
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will lay before Parliament the fourth annual report of the Firearms Consultative Committee.

  Mr. Howard
  I have placed a copy of the annual report of the Firearms Consultative Committee in the Library of both Houses today.

LORD CHANCELLORS DEPARTMENT

  Divorce
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will estimate the average cost to the public sector of divorce for a couple with two children where(a) the parties receive legal aid. (b) one or both parties are rehoused in public housing and (c) the party given custody of the children receives state benefit.
  583
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is not possible to estimate the average cost in such a case because eligibility for legal aid, public housing and state benefits depends on a number of factors but particularly the income of the husband and wife at the time of separation. However, the average cost of a legally aided divorce in the county courts in 1992–93 was £1,514.

  PTE support to BR over the past five years

  £ million

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Total

  Centro

  Revenue

  16

  17

  19

  22

  25

  99

  Capital

  2

  4

  5

  8

  9

  28

  Greater Manchester

  Revenue

  17

  22

  26

  28

  29

  122

  Capital

  8

  7

  3

  6

  6

  30

  Merseyside

  Revenue

  12

  18

  22

  18

  22

  92

  Capital

  3

  6

  8

  9

  14

  40

  South Yorkshire

  Revenue

  3

  4

  4

  5

  6

  22

  Capital

  1

  2

  —

  1

  7

  11

  Tyne and Wear

  Revenue

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  6

  Capital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Yorkshire

  Revenue

  8

  9

  12

  15

  15

  59

  Capital

  1

  3

  1

  3

  13

  21

  Strathclyde

  Revenue

  27

  26

  29

  31

  30

  143

  Capital

  7

  26

  15

  9

  6

  63

  Total

  Revenue

  84

  97

  113

  120

  129

  543

  Capital

  22

  48

  32

  36

  55

  193

  Notes

  1. Revenue contributions, are largely supported by central Government RSG and SSA cover and capital contributions by credit approval cover given by the Department.

  2. Revenue is the level of S20 claims after audit, except 1992–93 which as yet has not been audited.

  3. Capital refers to investment funded directly by PTEs, ie, it excludes investment funded by the PSO and recovered via debt charges.

  Radioactive Materials (Transport)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was Her Majesty's Government's policy position on the draft code of practice for the maritime transport of radioactive materials discussed at the International Maritime Organisation's marine environment protection committee meeting on 5 to 9 July.

  Mr. Norris
  Her Majesty's Government's policy is to support the decision of the International Maritime Organisation's maritime safety committee to approve the code of practice for adoption by the 18th assembly of the IMO.

  Unstaffed Rail Stations
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all the British Rail stations in each parliamentary constituency which are(a) wholly or (b) partially unstaffed, indicating those which became unstaffed within the past year.
  584

TRANSPORT

  Passenger Transport Authorities
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the contributions to(a) capital investment and (b) revenue of British Rail by each of the passenger transport authorities in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is as follows:

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is not readily available in the form required. However, as at 14 July, of the 2,551 stations on the British Rail network, 977 were wholly unstaffed. Because of the variation in the number of hours for which stations are open, it would be difficult to define partially staffed.

  Airline Passengers (Telecommunications)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to the safety and security implications of airline passengers using telecommunications technology while airborne; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The responsibility for the safety regulation of civil aviation rests with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).

  It has been found that transmissions from portable telephones may cause interference with an aircraft's own electronic sySterns. Earlier this month the CAA issued an updated aeronautical information circular giving guidance on this matter to air operators, pilots, flight crew and all

  585
  concerned with the operation of the aircraft. They were advised that the use of portable telephones in aircraft is not permitted, and that they should require passengers to switch them off.

  Driver's Licence History (Sentencing)
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average cost charged to a magistrate's court of a printout by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency of a driver's licence history needed to assist in sentencing.

  Mr. Key
  DVLA does not charge courts for driver licence printouts.

  Urban Public Transport
  Mr Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to meet the president of the Institution of Civil Engineers to discuss the reorganisation of urban public transport.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend has no current plans to meet the president of the Institution of Civil Engineers, but Ministers do have regular contact with the institution.

  Network SouthEast
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for providing funding for Network SouthEast to lease new trains.

  Mr. Freeman
  In last year's autumn statement an additional £150 million was made available to British Rail specifically to allow it to lease new rolling stock. New outer suburban trains for Network SouthEast are one of two options being considered by British Rail. It is expected to take a decision later in the summer. Whatever the outcome, I shall be looking to support further leasing deals, provided that they comply with Treasury guidelines.

ENVIRONMENT

  Special Waste
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list, by year for the last five years, and by county, the number of tonnes of special waste production in the waste category of(a) neutral metal bearing, (b) neutral-inorganic, (c) neutral-organic, (d) neutral-oily (1–15 per cent.), (e) mineral oil and <20 per cent. others, (f) mineral oil and >20 per cent. others, (g) oil + <20 per cent. water >85 per cent., (h) grease/fat/wax/vegetable oil, (i) tars/phenols, (j) solvents-non halogen, (k) solvents-halogenated,(l) solvents-mixed (including water) and (m) solvents-S non halogen;

  (2) if he will list, by year for the last five years. and by county, the number of tonnes of special waste production in the waste categories of (a) solid metal bearings, (b) solid inorganic, (c) solid CN, (d) solid organic, (e) solid asbestos, (f) filter material-inorganic, (g) acid metal bearing, (h) acid-inorganic, (i) acid-organic, (j) alkalis metal bearing, (k) alkalis-inorganic, (l) alkalis-organic and (m) aqueous cyanide;

  (3) if he will list, by year for the last five years, and by county, the numbers of tonnes of special waste production
  586
  in the waste categories of (a) hydrocarbons and their oxygen, nitrogen and/or sulphur compounds, (b)inorganic cyanides, (c) inorganic halogen containing compounds, (d) inorganic sulphur containing compounds, (e) laboratory chemicals, (f) lead compounds, (g) mercury compounds, (h) nickel and nickel compounds, (i) organic halogen compounds, excluding inert polymeric materials and (j) peroxides, chlorates and azides;

  (4) if he will list by year for the last five years, and by county, the number of tonnes of special waste production in the waste categories of (a) pharmaceutical waste, (b) mixed organics in drums, (c) metal compounds, (d) non-toxic metal compounds, (e) metals-elements, (f) metal oxides, (g) inorganic compounds, (h) other inorganic material, (i) organic compounds, (j) polymeric material and precursors, (k) fuels, oils and greases, (l) fine chemicals and biocides, (m) miscellaneous chemicals waste, (n) filter materials and sludges, (o) miscellaneous waste and (p) construction waste;

  (5) if he will list, by year for the last five years, and by county, the number of tonnes of special waste production in the waste categories of (a) acids and alkalis, (b) antimony and antimony compounds, (c) arsenic compounds, (d) asbestos (all chemical forms), (e) barium compounds, (f) beryllium and beryllium compounds, (g) biocides and phytopharmaceutical substances, (h) boron compounds, (i) cadmium and cadmium compounds, (j) copper compounds, (k) heterocyclic organic compounds containing oxygen, nitrogen and/or sulphur and (l) hexavalent chromium compounds;

  (6) if he will list, by year for the last five years, and by county, the number of tonnes of special waste production in the waste categories of (a) solvent-S halogen/mixed, (b) mineral oil sludges, (c) contaminated industrial waste, (d) empty contaminated drums, (e) pressurised cylinders/ aerosols, (f) contaminated soil, (g) mixed laboratory chemicals, (h) biocides-solid, (i) biocides-liquid, (j) biocides-aqueous diluted, (k) resins-organic and (l) filter material-organic;

  (7) if he will list, by year for the last five years, and by county, the number of tonnes of special waste production in the waste categories of (a) pharmaceutical and veterinary compounds, (b) phosphorus and its compounds, (c) selenium and selenium compounds, (d) silver compounds, (e) tarry materials from refining and tar residues from distilling, (f)tellurium and tellurium compounds, (g) thallium and thallium compounds, (h) vanadium compounds and (i) zinc compounds.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information is not currently available.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list those local authorities in England with over 60 per cent. of their properties in bands A and B combined, for council tax purposes; and if he will give the relevant percentage in each case;

  (2) if he will list those local authorities in England with 50 per cent. or more properties in band A for council tax purposes; and if he will give the relevant percentage in each case.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am arranging for the information to be placed in the Library of the House.
  587

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the reason for the United Kingdom request for an exception for 15 years to the prohibition on the sea disposal of low and intermediate-level radioactive substances, under the convention for the protection of the marine environment of the north-east Atlantic.

  Mr. Yeo
  The convention provides no such exception: it provides that, after a 15-year moratorium which starts this year, France and the United Kingdom will each have the option to resume sea disposal of low and intermediate-level radioactive waste. The reason for preserving this option is that sea disposal may be the best practicable environmental option for certain categories of radioactive waste. It would be wrong to close off that option.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make it his policy during the further consultation period on the discharge licences for Sellafield that developed countries should aim for self-sufficiency in dealing with radioactive wastes.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 14 July 1993]: It is for countries to decide their own policy in dealing with radioactive waste in the light of their international obligations.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will release to all consultees as part of the further consultation period announced for the thermal oxide reprocessing plant project on 28 June, the 20-year forward look review commissioned from the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Yeo
  No. The Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee's review of the radioactive waste disposal issues which are likely to arise over the next 20 years has not been completed.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to consult over the issue of substitution of nuclear waste in contracts between British Nuclear Fuels and other Governments utilities, with particular reference to the issues raised by Professor Knill of RAWMAC.

  Mr. Yeo
  We require further information from the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee before its advice on waste substitution can be considered properly.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which organisations in the United Kingdom would have the technical capacity to construct or run a dry store capable of taking spent advanced gas-cooled reactor fuel.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  This is a matter for the organisations concerned.

  Toxic Waste (Taiwan)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has received from the Government of Taiwan as to the proportion of the toxic 588
  waste exported in 1992 to Taiwan from the United Kingdom that has been (a) separated and recycled and (b) directly disposed of.

  Mr. Yeo
  None.

  Community Charge Arrears
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce amending legislation to amend regulation 16(1) of the Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989 to enable the collection of community charge arrears by way of attachment of earnings orders or deductions from income support in conjunction with postponed warrants of commitment to prison under regulation 41 of those same regulations.

  Mr. Baldry
  A court will normally postpone a warrant of commitment under regulation 41(3)(b) of the Community Charge (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989 on condition that a debtor repays a specified sum each week. The weekly payment will be decided by the court following an examination of the debtor's means. It would not therefore be appropriate for a further statutory deduction to be allowed from the debtor's income to recover that debt.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce amending legislation to enable community charge charging authorities to apply to the magistrates courts to vary the order of that court if both charging authority and the debtor are agreed on a payment arrangement.

  Mr. Baldry
  We do not think that is necessary. Under the law as it stands there is nothing to prevent a debtor from paying an authority more than the amount specified in the court order if he agrees to do so. It would not be appropriate for the debtor to pay less than the amount specified in the order as this is the amount that the court has decided he should pay, following an examination of his means.

  Housing Associations
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the Government's objectives in reducing housing association grant; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  The Government's objective in reducing average housing association grant rates is to maximise the proportion of private finance in new housing association schemes, and thereby maximise the number of new homes that housing associations are able to provide from the available public resources. This will ensure that more people now living in unacceptable conditions can be housed satisfactorily.

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals to set up a housing association ombudsman.

  Sir George Young
  The Housing Corporation circulated proposals in a consultation document earlier this year and have received a range of comments and suggestions. The Environment Select Committee has also recently reported
  589
  its views on this subject. These comments are currently being considered and I hope that a revised set of proposals will be issued shortly, dealing both with the establishment of an ombudsman service for housing association tenants and with improved arrangements for the handling of tenants' complaints by associations themselves.

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of housing association tenants were in receipt of housing benefit in each year since 1988.

  Sir George Young
  Reliable information is not available for all housing association tenants covering the period 1988–1992.

  The information set out in the table covers permanent lettings by housing associations in the years 1990–1992, and shows the proportion of households assessed by housing officers as qualifying for housing benefit in each year.

  Proportion of households qualifying for housing benefit: Housing Association lettings, England.

  Per cent.

  1990

  55

  1991

  62

  1992

  67

  Source National Federation of Housing Associations, CORE data base.

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the average income levels of housing association tenants in each year since 1988.

  Sir George Young
  Reliable information is not available for all housing association tenants covering the period 1988–1992.

  The information set out in the table covers permanent lettings by housing associations in the years 1990–1992, and shows the average net weekly household income of new tenants who took up a housing association tenancy and of existing tenants who moved within a housing association.

  Average net weekly household income1: Housing association lettings, England.

  £/week

  1990

  92·00

  1991

  94·00

  1992

  97·50

  1 Includes child benefit but not housing benefit or council tax benefit (or equivalent).

  Source National Federation of Housing Associations, CORE data base.

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to respond to the recommendations regarding housing association grant made by the Environment Select Committee in its second report of Session 1992–93 (HC466) on the Housing Corporation; and what account will be taken of those recommendations in relevant decisions taken by his Department before publication of his response to the Select Committee report.

  Sir George Young
  We are examining the recommendations of the Environment Select Committee report on the 590
  Housing Corporation and will make a formal response when the House reassembles after the summer recess. However, where operational decisions are needed sooner, we may provide an interim response on particular issues.

  In taking decisions about the level of housing association grant in 1994–95, Ministers will consider all available evidence, including the Select Committee's recommendations.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his current estimate of the amounts of capital receipts received by local authorities since November 1992 and which are available to authorities for capital spending under the terms of the autumn statement; and what was his original estimate.

  Mr. Gummer
  Estimates of local authorities' capital receipts are based on information provided by local authorities. At the time of the autumn statement, it was estimated that English local authorities would receive some £2·2 billion of capital receipts in 1992–93. On the basis of more recent information from local authorities, a revised estimate of £2·1 billion was made in April this year. No separate estimates of receipts have been made for the period between 13 November 1992 and the end of the financial year, during which virtually all of the receipts received will have been available for capital spending as a result of the temporary relaxation in the capital receipts rules announced in the autumn statement. Provisional outturn information for receipts which local authorities obtained between 13 November 1992 and 31 March 1993 will be published in due course, once returns from local authorities have been received and processed.

  Disabled Facilities Grants
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evaluation he has made of the effect of the alterations since 1 April in the disregard rules for calculation of entitlement to disabled facilities grants; what consultations he has had with the representatives of people with disabilities on the effects of the alterations; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  These changes were designed to provide more help to grant applicants on low incomes and less to the better-off. It is too soon to assess their precise effects. Disability organisations were consulted on the changes prior to their introduction. They will have an opportunity to provide views on this as part of the Department's current consultation exercise on the future of private housing renewal programmes.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the principal changes in the disregards for the purposes of calculating the entitlement to disabled facilities grants since 1 April.

  Sir George Young
  The information requested is contained in the Housing Renovation etc Grants (Reduction of Grant) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 (SI 1993 No. 551) and Department of the Environment circular 7/93, copies of which are available in the Library.
  591

  Council Rents
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conclusions he has reached as a result of the consultation carried out by his Department on recent rent increases for regulated tenancies.

  Sir George Young
  I have considered carefully the representations from both landlords and tenants on this issue. Although generally no new regulated tenancies have been created since 15 January 1989, the Government gave an assurance at the time of the passing of the Housing Act 1988 that existing regulated tenants would not be subject to the new regime which that Act brought in. Registered rents for regulated tenancies have risen substantially in certain areas since 1989, but still remain well below market rents.

  Having carefully considered the representations received as a result of the recent consultation, I am not convinced that the public interest would be best served by altering the legislative balance which currently exists. To provide further legislative controls over rents would hinder efforts to promote the revival of the private rented sector. Housing benefit is available to meet the cost of reasonable increases in regulated rents for those on low incomes. Our objective in all sectors is to move towards personal subsidies rather than subsidies to bricks and mortar. Accordingly, the Government have no plans for further legislation on this sector.

  I am concerned, however, that there should be general consistency of approach through the country. I have no powers to issue guidance to either rent officers or rent assessment committees, but I plan to encourage greater exchange of information and views between them to encourage consistency.

  Dioxin, Derbyshire
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further investigations have been made of dioxin contamination of soils and vegetation in Derbyshire.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of the results of soil and vegetation sampling at Stanton-by-Dale and Staveley in Derbyshire. The results are in i he same range as the levels found in earlier samples taken at Staveley, announced on 31 March,Official Report, column 292.

  Concentrations of dioxins in soil and vegetation are reflected in concentrations in milk from the same area. Milk is the principle source of human exposure to dioxins. The concentrations of dioxins in milk produced in the Staveley area are within the normal range for milk in the United Kingdom. Because the levels of dioxins in vegetation and soil in the Stanton-by-Dale area are comparable to or less than the levels found in the Staveley area, there is no concern about the milk produced in the Stanton-by-Dale area.

  Sampling of emissions to the air from the foundry at Staveley reveal a very low level of dioxins, equivalent to one seventh of the guideline limit set by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution for new chemical incinerators. These results suggest that the gas cleaning plant at the Staveley foundry is very effective.
  592

  Fruit and Vegetables
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government's planning policy for farm-based fruit and vegetable packing operations.

  Mr. Curry
  Farm-based fruit and vegetable packing operations, including those packing the produce of other farms, can help bring necessary diversification to the rural economy and assist our farmers in competing effectively at home and abroad. The Government attach great importance to encouraging new sources of jobs and services in rural areas, and maintaining a strong agricultural and horticultural industry. Planning policy guidance note 7 advises that development which is necessary to sustain the rural economy should be properly integrated with the protection of the rural environment. Unless material considerations indicate otherwise, applications for farm-based packing operations must be determined in accordance with the development plan.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment his Department made prior to its decision to require BBC Radio WM to relinquish its medium-wave frequencies of the impact this would have on the ethnic minority broadcasting in the west midlands.

  Mr. Brooke
  BBC Radio West Midlands simulcasts its services on both FM and AM, except for some 37 hours a week in the evenings, when it broadcasts its Asian programmes on AM. We appreciate that many Asian listeners would regret the loss of these programmes. That is why we have asked the BBC to look for ways of continuing to broadcast them after October 1994, when the Radio Authority will use the AM frequencies for a new local radio service in the west midlands.

  North West Council for Sport and Recreation
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the names and backgrounds of the chairman and members of the North West Council for Sport and Recreation.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 12 July 1993]: The chairman, and those members whom I appoint, are currently as follows:

  Chairman:

  Mr. J. R. Cochrane

  Vice-Chairman:

  Mr. J. R. H. Greenwood

  Ministerial nominees:

  Mrs. M. B. Birkenhead

  Mrs. J. Hammersley-Parker

  Mr. H. A. Cann

  There are two vacant ministerial appointments.

  It would not be appropriate for me to publish personal details in the Official Report. My hon. Friend may therefore wish to pursue this directly with the regional council.

EDUCATION

  Student Loans
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the number of students receiving a student loan in further education and higher education.
  593
  Mr. Boswell
  Loans under the student loans scheme are not available to students in further education. The number of students in higher education who are in receipt of loans under the scheme is a matter for the Student Loans Company. I will ask the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  University Students
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students were studying at each university in the United Kingdom at the latest date for which figures are available; and what were the figures in(a) 1960, (b) 1970 and (c)

  Numbers of full-time and part-time students in universities in Great Britain in 1960–61, and totals for each comparable institution for 1970–71, 1980–81 and 1991–92

  1960–611

  1970–712

  1980–813

  1991–923

  Institution

  full-time

  part-time

  full-time

  part-time

  full-time

  part-time

  full-time

  part-time

  Birmingham University

  4,457

  200

  6,782

  325

  8,884

  956

  11,437

  1,989

  Bristol University

  3,366

  152

  6,238

  521

  7,010

  528

  9,235

  671

  Cambridge University

  8,950

  —

  10,720

  473

  11,479

  1,055

  13,920

  1,217

  Durham University

  5,184

  202

  3,374

  84

  4,770

  193

  6,046

  1,163

  Exeter University

  1,410

  88

  3,387

  270

  5,064

  712

  6,466

  1,186

  Hull University

  1,660

  61

  3,943

  280

  5,498

  505

  6,669

  1,713

  Leeds University

  4,860

  199

  9,126

  415

  10,885

  930

  13,680

  1,281

  Leicester University

  1,374

  190

  3,364

  605

  4,789

  651

  6,920

  1,148

  Liverpool University

  4,113

  396

  6,613

  495

  7,859

  530

  10,040

  1,481

  University of London

  21,995

  8,644

  33,131

  7,921

  40,538

  8,704

  51,392

  13,352

  Manchester University

  4,944

  646

  8,271

  594

  11,327

  1,109

  13,359

  1,976

  Manchester College of Science and Technology

  1,956

  1,965

  3,340

  145

  4,137

  460

  5,262

  307

  North Staffordshire University College4

  769

  —

  1,863

  184

  2,801

  441

  4,440

  1,392

  Nottingham University

  2,506

  185

  5,194

  622

  7,053

  685

  9,581

  1,342

  Oxford University

  8,975

  —

  11,073

  756

  11,802

  1,717

  14,122

  768

  Reading University

  1,557

  27

  4,917

  484

  5,819

  360

  8,229

  1,525

  Sheffield University

  3,009

  438

  5,744

  162

  8,369

  428

  10,854

  1,020

  Southampton University

  1,654

  85

  4,381

  681

  6,168

  483

  7,897

  1,269

  Total England

  82,739

  13,478

  131,461

  15,017

  164,252

  20,447

  209,549

  34,800

  University of Wales

  6,431

  221

  6,655

  406

  20,402

  1,265

  26,810

  2,677

  Total Wales

  6,431

  221

  6,655

  406

  20,402

  1,265

  26,810

  2,677

  Aberdeen University

  2,016

  243

  5,660

  599

  5,590

  179

  7,180

  728

  Edinburgh University

  5,963

  1,328

  9,368

  539

  9,783

  884

  12,550

  1,115

  Glasgow University

  6,223

  230

  7,969

  972

  9,830

  1,299

  12,798

  1,485

  Glasgow Royal College of Science and Technology5

  1,695

  2,251

  5,356

  788

  6,707

  472

  9,588

  1,948

  St. Andrews University

  2,632

  80

  2,577

  85

  3,348

  98

  4,225

  80

  Total Scotland

  18,529

  4,132

  30,930

  2,983

  35,258

  2,932

  46,341

  5,356

  Total Great Britain

  107,699

  17,831

  169,046

  18,406

  219,912

  24,644

  282,700

  42,833

  1 Source—University Grants Committee "Returns from Universities and Colleges 1960–61".

  2Source—Department for Education "Statistics of Education Volume 6".

  3 Source—Universities Statistical Record "Volume 1 Students and Staff".

  4 North Staffordshire University College, now Keele University.

  5 Glasgow Royal College of Science and Technology, now Strathclyde University.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will update the table given in his answer of 28 June,Official Report, column 358, by listing by local education authority area and for each grant-maintained school the proposed final annual maintenance grant and the final AMG, where this has now been determined.
  594
  Mr. Boswell
  The numbers of students at universities in the academic year 1960–61, and corresponding data for these institutions in the academic years 1970–71, 1980–81 and 1991–92 are shown in the table. Figures for these institutions and those for universities established since 1960–61 are published in the Universities Statistical Record volume 1, and in Statistics of Education volume 6, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is given in the table.

  GM A MG—1993–94 School

  Proposed final AMG

  Final AMG

  Avon

  Beechen Cliff School

  1,952,184

  —

  Oldfield School

  1,628,128

  —

  Barnet

  Hendon School

  2,409,076

  2,440,651

  595

  GM AMG—1993–94 School

  Proposed final AMG

  Final AMG

  Queen Elizabeth's GM School for Boys

  2,685,434

  2,675,943

  Mill Hill County School

  2,881,500

  12,921,688

  Bedfordshire

  Queensbury School

  2,219,524

  2,497,566

  Thomas Whitehead CE School

  326,490

  318,337

  Manshead CE Upper School

  1,819,281

  1,804,759

  Sharnbrook Upper School

  3,082,414

  3,235,054

  Ashcroft High School

  1,699,750

  1,853,806

  Crawley Green GM Infant

  443,864

  453,773

  Icknield High School

  2,696,196

  2,803,589

  Lea Manor High School

  2,597,388

  2,743,544

  Lincroft Middle School

  675,363

  728,131

  Wootton Upper School

  2,386,232

  2,605,756

  Berkshire

  Southlands School

  1,388,715

  1,336,886

  Reading School

  1,625,933

  1,715,218

  St Bartholomew's School

  3,432,434

  3,584,862

  Desborough Comprehensive School

  2,374,578

  2,326,426

  Denefield School

  2,100,230

  2,202,280

  Langley Grammar School, Slough

  1,526,243

  1,561,050

  Herschel Grammar School

  1,328,282

  1,481,846

  The Downs School

  1,319,024

  1,359,609

  Cippenham Middle School

  671,467

  706,528

  Priory Combined School

  818,634

  871,735

  Upton Grammar School

  1,399,355

  1,409,494

  Holy Family Combined School

  461,129

  519,043

  Whitelocke Infant and Nursery School

  268,260

  267,466

  Bexley

  Barnehurst Infants School

  270,593

  276,889

  Barnehurst Junior School

  385,918

  390,904

  St Columba's RC Boys School

  1,728,391

  1,598,267

  St Mary and St Joseph's School

  1,604,686

  1,522,403

  Birmingham

  Baverstock GM School

  2,444,257

  —

  Small Heath School

  2,468,506

  —

  Handsworth Grammar School for Boys

  1,759,199

  —

  Great Barr School

  4,260,290

  —

  Hall Green School

  1,555,385

  —

  King Edward VI Aston School

  1,381,228

  —

  King Edward VI Camp Hill Boys School

  1,480,522

  —

  King Edward VI Camp Hill Girls School

  1,420,988

  —

  King Edward VI Five Ways School

  1,492,205

  —

  King Edward VI Handsworth School

  1,850,229

  —

  Bolton

  St. James' CE School, Bolton

  1,617,428

  1,794,487

  Crompton Fold Primary School

  639,332

  668,643

  Canon Slade School

  3,184,651

  3,344,288

  George Tomlinson School

  1,502,743

  1,340,663

  Bradford

  Bingley Grammar School

  2,107,250

  —

  Hanson GM School

  2,642,398

  —

  Laisterdyke GM Middle School

  678,103

  —

  Oakbank School

  2,463,211

  —

  Thornton School

  2,014,073

  —

  Brent

  Claremont High School

  2,883,678

  —

  Copland Community School

  2,930,432

  —

  Convent of Jesus and Mary

  2,205,616

  —

  Kingsbury High School

  4,931,819

  —

  Queens Park Community School

  2,178,054

  —

  Bromley

  Butlers Wood School for Girls

  2,498,965

  2,498,965

  Coopers School, Chislehurst

  2,879,623

  2,879,623

  Langley Park Boys School

  2,756,105

  2,756,105

  Hayes School, Bromley

  2,906,576

  2,906,576

  Ravens Wood School, Bromley

  2,229,200

  2,229,200

  Kelsey Park chool

  2,057,976

  2,057,976

  596

  GM AMG—1993–94 School

  Proposed final AMG

  Final AMG

  Beaverwood School for Girls

  2,300,643

  2,300,643

  Crofton Junior School

  1,048,129

  1,048,129

  Newstead Wood School

  1,855,892

  1,855,892

  Charles Darwin School

  2,411,849

  2,411,849

  Holy Innocents Primary School

  382,014

  '382,014

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

  1,619,235

  11,619,235

  St. John Rigby School

  2,117,319

  12,117,319

  Buckinghamshire

  Bridgewater Hall School

  3,204,466

  —

  Brindley Hall School

  2,431,157

  —

  Beaconsfield High School

  1,721,529

  —

  Brookmead County Combined Middle School

  339,118

  —

  The Chalfonts School

  2,152,263

  —

  Overstone Combined School

  443,334

  —

  Beechview Middle School

  392,261

  —

  Hamilton Combined School

  1,010,910

  —

  Lord Grey School

  2,367,618

  —

  The Radcliffe School

  3,660,581

  —

  Wycombe Royal Grammar School

  2,644,713

  —

  Calderdale

  Crossley Heath School

  1,501,989

  —

  North Halifax High School

  1,674,604

  —

  Salterlee Primary School

  131,837

  —

  Holy Trinity CE Senior School

  1,591,393

  —

  Rastrick High School

  1,937,528

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  St. Helen's Primary School, Bluntisham

  401,047

  428,396

  Bassingbourn Village College

  902,676

  858,366

  Gamlingay Village College

  415,101

  412,435

  The Queen's School, Wisbech

  3,067,674

  3,024,982

  Park Lane Primary School

  390,793

  401,207

  Sawtry Village College

  1,354,921

  1,291,906

  Wheatfields Junior School

  505,856

  498,875

  Crosshall Infant School

  445,731

  472,486

  Crosshall Junior School

  518,051

  537,874

  The King's School, Peterborough

  1,834,790

  1,782,920

  Jack Hunt School

  3,071,177

  3,011,650

  Ailwyn Community School

  1,462,188

  1,516,425

  Deacon's School

  1,900,822

  1,963,122

  Longsands Community College

  2,834,472

  2,813,248

  Orton Wistow Primary School

  372,322

  384,970

  Sawston Village College

  2,339,941

  2,315,722

  Stanground College

  2,779,761

  2,886,358

  Village College, Comberton

  1,543,918

  1,557,103

  Cheshire

  Bankfield High School

  1,279,547

  —

  Kettleshulme CE Primary School

  89,659

  —

  Fallibroome High School

  1,879,222

  —

  Henbury County High School

  1,774,896

  —

  Croydon

  Riddlesdown High School

  2,474,018

  —

  Edenham School

  2,549,918

  —

  Cumbria

  Kirkbie Kendal School

  2,212,594

  —

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School

  1,233,850

  —

  Hayton CE Primary School

  132,259

  —

  St. Aidan's School

  1,456,320

  —

  Trinity School

  3,787,687

  —

  Scotby CE Primary School

  268,313

  —

  The Queen Katherine School, Kendal

  2,618,932

  —

  Appleby Grammar School

  1,089,603

  —

  Dallam School

  1,457,983

  —

  Harraby School

  1,221,534

  —

  Kirkby Stephen Grammar School

  806,540

  —

  Derbyshire

  Netherthorpe School

  1,745,449

  1,900,896

  Ecclesbourne School

  2,794,799

  2,876,695

  Borrow Wood Junior School

  312,012

  326,448

  Belmont Primary School

  457,194

  472.904

  597

  GM A MG—1993–94 School

  Proposed final AMG

  Final AMG

  Chellaston School

  1,942,677

  1,996,409

  The Merrill Community School

  2,296,888

  2,142,353

  Belper Grant-Maintained School

  2,218,033

  2,371,000

  Heanor Gate School

  1,977,148

  2,168,605

  John Port School

  3,466,400

  3,455,267

  Murray Park Community School

  2,020,900

  1,961,579

  Noel Baker School

  2,772,186

  2,691,008

  Repton Primary School

  286,568

  272,386

  Devon

  Colyton Grammar School

  1,236,902

  —

  Torquay Boys Grammar School

  2,021,436

  —

  St. Boniface's College

  1,548,905

  —

  Teign School

  1,749,091

  —

  Dorset

  Bournemouth Grammar School

  2,099,218

  —

  Woodroffe School

  1,768,493

  —

  Budmouth School

  1,957,125

  —

  Avonbourne School

  1,896,285

  —

  Parkstone Grammar School, Poole

  1,582,203

  —

  Bournemouth Girls School

  1,899,453

  —

  Highcliffe Comprehensive School

  1,505,584

  —

  Poole Technical High School

  2,362,279

  —

  St. Walburga's RC Primary School

  519,550

  —

  Dudley

  Old Swinford Hospital

  1,353,932

  1,333,690

  Ellowes Hall School

  1,682,743

  1,748,389

  Kingswinford GM School

  1,496,201

  1,530,593

  Ealing

  Brentside High School

  2,527,864

  —

  Drayton Manor High School

  2,800,599

  —

  Ellen Wilkinson High School

  2,297,226

  —

  Greenford High School

  2,280,914

  —

  Northolt High School

  2,238,588

  —

  Wood End First School

  515,262

  —

  Wood End Middle School

  481,652

  —

  Essex

  Chalvedon School

  2,942,384

  3,097,544

  Westcliffe High School for Boys

  1,983,393

  2,023,768

  King John School, Benfleet

  2,543,937

  2,700,946

  Beauchamps School, Wickford

  1,632,598

  1,500,912

  Bromfords School, Wickford

  1,621,266

  1,715,516

  Elmwood Primary School

  640,727

  663,359

  Newlands Spring Primary School

  441,625

  479,367

  Saffron Walden High School

  2,893,757

  2,991,923

  The Philip Morant School

  2,306,316

  2,438,457

  The Plume School

  3,729,556

  3,796,954

  West Hatch High School

  2,119,945

  2,139,867

  The Boswells School

  2,789,752

  2,917,087

  Chelmsford County High School

  1,551,437

  1,555,402

  The Eastwood School

  1,772,834

  1,748,207

  Furtherwick Park School

  1,877,288

  1,880,719

  Katherine's Primary School

  385,503

  390,484

  King Edward VI G School, Chelmsford

  1,668,285

  1,645,444

  King Harold School

  1,654,751

  1,611,949

  North Crescent Primary School

  331,361

  309,353

  Rickstones School

  1,354,346

  1,304,412

  Thurstable School

  1,759,796

  1,769,834

  Torells Comprehensive School

  1,348,562

  1,323,256

  Northlands Junior School

  422,835

  437,656

  Great Totham County Primary School

  519,880

  559,603

  The Appleton School

  2,403,831

  2,351,509

  The Deanes School

  1,378,823

  1,534,698

  The Hedley Walter School

  2,039,499

  1,914,949

  Castle View School

  1,677,326

  1,696,896

  Cornelius Vermuyden School

  1,626,928

  1,677,509

  Westcliff High School for Girls

  1,979,784

  1,963,536

  The Fitzwimarc School

  2,338,709

  2,384,271

  Westborough Primary School

  797,187

  871,092

  King Edmund School

  2,388,014

  2,362,489

  Belfairs Community College

  2,688,155

  2,601,882

  598

  GM AMG—1993–94 School

  Proposed final AMG

  Final AMG

  Chelmer Valley High School

  1,850,564

  1,922,695

  Davenant Foundation School

  2,191,067

  2,250,799

  Gable Hill Grant-maintained Comprehensive

  2,082,046

  2,082,098

  Jotmans Hall Primary School

  391,615

  400,350

  Newport Free Grammar School

  1,373,664

  1,382,974

  Northwick Park County Infant School

  331,619

  329,561

  Northwick Park County Junior School

  447,237

  467,390

  Rainsford School

  1,908,746

  1,922,091

  Rolph CE Voluntary-assisted Primary School

  236,270

  271,858

  Southend Girls High School

  1,843,623

  1,882,642

  St. Andrew's CE Primary School

  213,082

  241,635

  St. Clere's School

  1,795,939

  1,844,734

  St. Martin's School

  2,261,602

  2,437,456

  Tendring High School

  2,737,470

  2,826,959

  The Grays School

  1,802,033

  1,856,598

  The Greensward School

  1,703,645

  1,808,695

  Thorpe Bay School

  1,514,686

  1,664,222

  William De Ferrers School

  2,893,884

  3,068,491

  William Edwards School

  1,722,225

  1,805,779

  Gloucesteshire

  Ribston Hall High School

  952,515

  —

  Marling School

  1,589,093

  —

  Pate's Grammar School

  1,979,013

  —

  Stroud High School

  1,506,846

  —

  Robinswood Primary School

  504,800

  —

  Tewkesbury School

  2,191,122

  —

  The Crypt School

  921,601

  —

  Balcarras School

  1,385,422

  —

  Chosen Hill School

  2,269,284

  —

  Katharine Lady Berkeley School

  2,106,532

  —

  Churchdown School

  2,146,453

  —

  The Cotswold School

  1,172,924

  —

  Newent Community School

  2,308,178

  —

  Rednock School

  2,238,057

  —

  Saintbridge School

  1,665,487

  —

  Chipping Camden School

  1,647,517

  —

  St. Gregory RC Primary School

  524,541

  —

  Blue Coat CE Grant-maintained School

  330,774

  —

  Picklenash County Junior School

  332,954

  —

  Wyedean School

  1,262,851

  —

  Hammersmith

  London Oratory School

  4,254,240

  —

  Hampshire

  Hardley Secondary School

  1,651,981

  1,802,699

  Burgate School

  1,288,576

  1,363,405

  Arnewood School

  2,421,755

  2,514,246

  Ringwood Comprehensive School

  1,666,419

  1,759,723

  Crofton School, Fareham

  2,142,854

  2,160,203

  The City of Portsmouth Boys' School

  1,864,855

  1,955,989

  The Priory Primary School

  166,754

  190,383

  Testwood School

  1,850,730

  1,913,697

  Abbotswood Middle School

  844,731

  826,691

  Front Lawn Middle School

  431,852

  447,565

  All Hallows RC School

  2,258,710

  2,424,544

  Bay House Grant-maintained School

  3,276,655

  3,203,364

  Blackfield Middle School

  586,385

  578,966

  Bohunt Community School

  2,167,405

  2,296,747

  Calmore Grant-maintained School

  535,464

  614,455

  St. Joseph's RC Primary School

  554,535

  685,197

  GM AMG—1993–94 School

  Proposed final AMG

  Final AMG

  Havering

  Abbs Cross School

  1,726,574

  —

  Coopers Company and Coborn

  2,706,265

  —

  Frances Bardsley School

  2,648,292

  —

  599

  GM AMG—1993–94 School

  Proposed final AMG

  Final AMG

  Hereford and Worcester

  St. Augustine's RC High School

  1,604,896

  1,640,491

  St. Bede's School

  872,397

  886,339

  Hertfordshire

  Rickmansworth School

  2,349,929

  2,363,251

  Watford Boys Grammar School

  2,521,834

  2,535,614

  Francis Bacon School

  1,179,739

  1,216,702

  Watford Girls' Grammar School

  2,482,995

  2,539,319

  Parmiters School

  2,333,813

  2,322,198

  St. Mary's R.C Primary School

  304,749

  305,310

  Christ Church CE JMI School, Chorley

  319,139

  311,975

  Parkside First School

  363,115

  391,288

  Hertingfordbury School

  244,250

  240,010

  Bishop Stortford's School

  2,310,664

  2,466,927

  Ashlyns Grant-Maintained School

  1,492,243

  1,559,997

  Bushey Hall School

  2,571,885

  2,397,349

  Bushey Meads GM School

  2,143,420

  2,228,601

  Dame Alice Owens School

  2,577,663

  2,624,084

  Mount Grace School

  1,214,475

  1,424,777

  Queens School

  2,738,038

  2,849,229

  Hillingdon

  Bishopshalt School

  2,403,584

  2,422,836

  Haydon School

  2,707,686

  2,720,645

  Queensmead School

  2,229,343

  2,299,623

  Vyners School

  2,161,804

  2,004,307

  Uxbridge High School

  1,714,649

  1,822,505

  North wood School

  2,278,887

  2,201,048

  Hayes Manor School

  1,747,694

  1,727,799

  Mellow Lane School

  2,372,797

  2,318,510

  Oak Farm Infant School

  503,191

  518,217

  Oak Farm Junior School

  578,099

  601,549

  The Douay Martyrs School

  2,359,500

  2,557,837

  Abbotsfield School

  1,789,388

  1,819,125

  Grange Park Infant School

  435,117

  468,892

  Grange Park Junior School

  474,170

  506,794

  Swakeleys School

  1,856,814

  1,833,869

  Hounslow

  Gumley House Convent School

  2,251,140

  2,220,884

  Gunnersbury Catholic School

  2,208,717

  2,219,875

  Humberside

  Wold Newton Primary School

  151,221

  151,221

  Kensington

  Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School

  2,212,931

  —

  Kent

  The GS for Girls Wilmington

  1,101,219

  1,150,731

  The Cornwallis School

  1,826,773

  2,024,564

  The Maplesden Noakes School

  1,555,626

  1,621,979

  Wilmington Grammar School for Boys

  830,956

  1974,896

  St. George's CE School, Gravesend

  2,330,199

  2,357,482

  Homewood School

  2,792,083

  2,913,572

  Thamesview School

  2,280,985

  2,254,247

  Dartford Grammar School

  1,707,230

  1,929,403

  Southlands Comprehensive School

  2,462,598

  —

  Dartford Grammar School for Girls

  1,707,230

  1,835,365

  Aylesford School

  2,085,430

  2,111,294

  Wrotham School

  1,024,272

  1,103,099

  Simon Langton Boys' Grammar School

  1,416,773

  11,461,523

  Snodland CE Primary School

  535,424

  548,533

  Oldborough Manor High

  1,537,167

  —

  Senacre High School

  2,067,367

  2,118,277

  Cranbrook School

  1,699,728

  1,760,629

  Angley School

  1,770,291

  1,776,358

  Fulston Manor School

  1,731,977

  1,805,342

  Oakwood Park Grammar School

  1,077,926

  1,005,749

  Rainham Mark Grammar School

  2,292,762

  2,332,940

  Robert Napier School, Gillingham

  1,754,076

  1,888,104

  The Minster School

  2,938,993

  3,010,954

  The Skinner's School

  1,501,127

  1,525,792

  The Canterbury School

  1,802.353

  1,915,215

  600

  GM AMG—1993–94 School

  Proposed final AMG

  Final AMG

  Borough Green Primary School

  424,435

  450,287

  Chatham Grammar School

  1,207,990

  1,297,125

  Sir Roger Manwood's School

  1,505,123

  1,451,715

  The Archbishop School

  1,382,493

  1,418,357

  The Mailing School

  1,293,312

  1,321,004

  Sandown Court School

  1,881,011

  1,909,388

  Meopham School

  986,030

  935,095

  Holy Trinity

  349,381

  372,716

  The Bradbourne School

  998,561

  1,081,782

  Hugh Christie School

  1,995,981

  12,089,046

  St. Simon Stock School

  1,906,283

  1,998,991

  Mascalls School

  2,868,192

  2,848,129

  Roseacre Junior School

  454,503

  462,317

  St. Gregory's Catholic Comp. School

  1,888,110

  2,030,483

  St. John Fisher, Chatham

  2,422,432

  2,503,687

  Sutton-at-Home CE Primary School

  443,276

  455,039

  The Charles Dickens School

  1,657,401

  1,727,919

  The Folkestone School for Girls

  1,759,327

  1,900,829

  The Wildernesse School

  1,456,554

  1,389,844

  Westlands High School

  2,883,852

  3,040,893

  Kingston

  Tiffin School

  2,369,820

  2,258,964

  Holy Cross Convent School

  1,512,082

  1,605,165

  Richard Challoner School

  1,569,710

  1,534,475

  Kirklees

  Heckmondwike Grammar School

  1,561,430

  1,658,905

  Castle Hall GM School

  957,073

  1,035,467

  Lambeth

  La Retraite School

  1,833,557

  —

  St. Bernadette Junior School

  458,829

  —

  Archbishop Tenison's School

  1,497,461

  —

  Bishop Thomas Grant School

  2,520,496

  —

  Dunraven GM School

  3,157,842

  —

  Lancashire

  Bacup and Rawtenstall Grammar School

  1,860,719

  2,008,763

  Lancaster Royal Grammar School

  2,003,296

  '2,052,518

  Lancaster Girls Grammar School

  1,634,088

  1,651,403

  Clitheroe Royal Grammar School

  2,267,523

  12,394,558

  Newton Blue Coat CE School

  394,244

  399,323

  Baines School

  1,562,692

  1,615,217

  Archbishop Temple School

  1,232,110

  1,306,839

  Leicestershire

  Long Field High School

  861,669

  —

  Abington High School

  1,254,560

  —

  Bushloe High School

  1,468,582

  —

  South Wigston High School

  1,469,802

  —

  Uppingham Community College

  1,388,617

  —

  Lewisham

  Turnham Primary School

  985,962

  —

  Lincolnshire

  Queen Elizabeth's GM Grammar School

  893,067

  —

  Skegness Grammar School

  1,505,727

  —

  The King's School Grantham

  1,916,942

  —

  Carre's Grammar School

  1,091,103

  —

  St. George's School

  2,232,973

  —

  King Edward VI Grammar School

  1,440,508

  —

  Caistor School

  1,045,148

  —

  Bourne Primary School

  689,316

  —

  Gartree School

  886,647

  —

  Magdalen CE/Methodist Primary School

  348,144

  Yarborough High School

  2,415,986

  —

  Lincoln Christ's Hospital School

  2,726,583

  —

  Castle Hills School, Gainsborough

  1,146,804

  —

  North Kesteven School

  2,648,988

  —

  North Rauceby Primary School

  132,038

  —

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School, Horn

  1,341,978

  —

  601

  GM AMG—1993–94 School

  Proposed final AMG

  Final AMG

  Robert Pattinson School

  2,444,092

  —

  William Alvey CE Junior School

  680,349

  —

  Ancaster High School

  1,267,502

  —

  William Farr CE School

  1,735,540

  —

  Ermine School

  430,157

  —

  Gleed Girls School

  1,208,925

  —

  Monks' Dyke High School

  1,504,824

  —

  Lacey Gardens Junior School

  592,816

  —

  Malcolm Sargent County Primary School

  738,364

  —

  Liverpool

  St. Francis Xavier's College

  2,650,426

  2,650,426

  Newham

  Stratford School

  1,669,153

  1,681,318

  Norfolk

  Wymondham College

  2,341,738

  2,303,400

  Gresham County Primary

  175,466

  —

  Heacham Middle School

  390,702

  —

  Redgate Middle School, Hunstanton

  309,338

  —

  Loddon Middle School

  386,143

  —

  Costessey High School, Norwich

  1,563,502

  1,713,332

  Cromer High School

  1,285,699

  1,244,563

  Dereham Church VA First School

  234,966

  —

  Downham Market High School

  3,162,712

  3,304,650

  Marshland High School

  1,445,781

  1,450,658

  Norwich Road School

  532,262

  554,195

  Robert Kett Middle School

  652,471

  653,204

  West Flegg Middle School

  678,538

  660,604

  Acle High School

  1,175,358

  1,144,641

  Sheringham High School

  1,273,388

  1,326,726

  South Wooton School

  200,679

  —

  Cliff Park High School

  1,537,831

  1,571,695

  Flegg High School

  1,204,462

  1,274,541

  Great Yarmouth High School

  1,616,159

  1,585,705

  Lynn Grove VC High School

  1,629,674

  1,675,848

  St. Clements High School

  1,196,556

  1,170,746

  Northamptonshire

  Southfield School for Girls

  1,457,522

  1,572,193

  Kingsley Park Middle School

  634,205

  679,974

  Kingswood School

  2,159,652

  2,178,146

  Moulton Primary School

  569,645

  607,087

  King John School

  489,239

  516,726

  Northampton School for Boys

  1,963,181

  2,196,983

  Lodge Park School

  1,876,194

  1,810,351

  Manor School

  1,524,610

  1,570,521

  Montagu School

  1,860,992

  1,980,827

  Weavers School

  2,558,015

  2,576,385

  Windmill Primary School

  617,400

  578,154

  Wrenn School

  2,252,542

  2,373,269

  Sir Christopher Hatton

  1,709,232

  1,757,218

  Danesholme Junior School

  515,961

  561,510

  Woodnewton Way Junior School

  548,394

  569,809

  Nottinghamshire

  Ravensdale Middle School

  663,989

  —

  Greenwood Dale School

  1,363,758

  —

  George Spencer School

  2,047,408

  —

  Oxfordshire

  Shenington CE Primary School

  125,756

  125,756

  Rochdale

  Crossgates Primary School

  336,367

  —

  Smithy Bridge Primary School

  550,873

  —

  St James CE Primary

  333,743

  —

  Wardle High School

  2,142,932

  —

  Sandwell

  Manor High School

  1,848,555

  1,789,513

  Sheffield

  Clifford First School

  144,612

  120,602

  602

  GM AMG—1993–94 School

  Proposed final AMG

  Final AMG

  Shropshire

  Adams' Grammar School

  1,164,848

  —

  Corbet GM School

  1,242,066

  —

  Solihull

  Hatchford Primary School

  861,670

  969,063

  Somerset

  Sexey's School

  1,300,720

  1,300,720

  Bruton Primary School

  347,348

  347,348

  Southwark

  London Nautical School

  1,495,297

  1,491,358

  St. Francesca Cabrini RC Primary

  845,723

  —

  Staffordshire

  St. Thomas More School

  1,916,166

  —

  Cannock Chase High School

  2,087,964

  —

  Surrey

  Guildford County Secondary School

  1,828,343

  1,935,201

  Collingwood School, Camberley

  3,452,755

  3,642,975

  St. John the Baptist School, Woking

  1,586,183

  1,646,877

  Glyn School

  1,978,289

  2,106,650

  Gordon's School

  787,666

  756,557

  Beacon School

  1,757,428

  1,894,525

  Epsom and Ewell High School

  1,979,606

  2,009,386

  Hawkedale First School

  182,746

  161,194

  Heathside Secondary School

  1,225,671

  1,465,192

  Manor First School, Byfleet

  259,389

  240,411

  Roseberry School, Epsom

  1,894,516

  2,039,296

  Stoneleigh First School

  308,014

  333,102

  de Stafford School

  1,193,336

  1,238,774

  Send CE First School

  243,980

  232,999

  Thamesmead School

  1,100,720

  11,393,999

  St. Paul's School

  1,480,782

  1,625,955

  Sutton

  Wilsons School

  1,741,804

  —

  Nonsuch High School for Girls

  2,049,840

  —

  John Fisher School

  1,714,027

  —

  Cheam High School

  2,204,728

  —

  Sutton Grammar School for Boys

  1,461,957

  —

  St. Philomena's School

  1,907,056

  —

  Wallington High School for Boys

  1,454,128

  —

  Wallington High School for Girls

  1,703,895

  —

  Tameside

  Audenshaw High School

  1,637,607

  1,637,607

  West Hill School

  1,508,812

  1,508,812

  Tower Hamlets

  Raines Foundation School

  2,535,384

  2,752,152

  Trafford

  Ashton on Mersey School

  1,867,657

  1,944,771

  New Wellington High School

  1,883,460

  1,899,279

  Sale Moor School

  1,291,642

  1,337,832

  Walsall

  The Streetly School

  2,385,678

  2,321,781

  St. Thomas More RC School

  2,719,395

  2,812,356

  Shire Oak Community School

  1,459,790

  1,400,817

  Waltham Forest

  Highams Park School

  2,526,942

  —

  Wandsworth

  Graveney School

  4,595,017

  —

  Burntwood School

  3,593,918

  —

  Elliot School

  3,569,454

  —

  Salesian College

  1,513,423

  —

  Ethelburga Primary School

  443,315

  —

  Hillbrook Primary School

  764,600

  —

  John Paul II RC School

  1,524,504

  —

  Southfields School

  3,571,491

  —

  603

  GM A MG—1993–94 School

  Proposed final AMG

  Final AMG

  Warwickshire

  Avon Valley School

  730,195

  727,515

  Ash Green School (Exhall)

  1,111,820

  1,103,673

  Hartshill School

  1,350,262

  1,346,854

  Queen Elizabeth School Atherstone

  1,554,124

  1,552,689

  Myton School

  2,235,952

  2,226,965

  Alcester Grammar School

  1,262,526

  1,262,526

  Rugby High School For Girls

  1,230,469

  1,226,666

  Wirral

  Calday Grange Grammar School

  2,300,326

  —

  Wiltshire

  St. Augustine's School

  1,215,926

  —

  Aloeric School

  516,885

  —

  Highbury School

  1,158,555

  —

  Lavington School

  1,107,939

  —

  Wolverhampton

  Moseley Park

  2,601,795

  2,926,515

  Wolverhampton GS

  1,412,918

  1,450,571

  Numbers and percentages of day-pupils taking paid and free school meals in maintained schools in England 1989–1992

  Position at January each year

  School type

  Other Primary1

  Junior

  Secondary

  Paid

  Free

  Paid

  Free

  Paid

  Free

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  1992

  960,350

  27

  571,106

  16

  170,700

  29

  110,061

  19

  865,313

  30

  294,297

  10

  1991

  1,047,810

  30

  469,286

  13

  196,820

  32

  93,707

  15

  875,576

  31

  235,107

  8

  1990

  1,110,229

  32

  429,834

  13

  215,936

  35

  89,394

  14

  864,733

  30

  222,929

  8

  1989

  1,103,542

  33

  425,555

  13

  216,579

  35

  89,840

  15

  869,605

  30

  235,270

  8

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a further statement about school teachers' pay in 1993.

  Mr. Patten
  I am today publishing the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document 1993, which will put in place the new pay spine for classroom teachers which I announced in February. 1 intend to lay an order before the House tomorrow which will bring the document into force with effect from 1 September 1993.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans the United Kingdom Government have to join other European countries in contributing to the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis at Laxenburg, near Vienna.

  Mr. David Davis
  None at the present time.

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 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 to quasi-autonomous
  604
  Note: Only schools operating as grant maintained on 1 April 1993.

  1Updated form previous answer to exclude adjustments in respect of 1992–93

  School Meals
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many and what proportion of children received(a) paid and (b) free meals in (i) primary, (ii) junior and (iii) secondary schools in England as a whole in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on school meal arrangements in England since 1989 is shown in the table. Information prior to 1989 is not available on a comparable basis although the results of early school meals censuses were published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy up to 1988 in "School Meal Statistics at October", copies of which are available in the Library.

  non-governmental organisations giving, in each case, the title of the post, any salary payable, and the duration of the appointment.

  Mr. David Davis
  [pursuant to the reply, 9 July 1993, c. 285]: I regret that the information I gave regarding my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) is incorrect. Although they are members of the Medical Research Council and the Agricultural and Food Research Council respectively, they do not receive any honoraria.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  British Military Hospital, Nepal
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial, medical and administrative support Her Majesty's Government have given the former British military hospital, Dharan, Nepal, to enable it to continue as the major medical and surgical facilitity in east Nepal; and if he will make a statement on the future of the hospital and its staff.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In 1989, when the British Brigade of Ghurkas withdrew from the British military hospital, we agreed an aid package worth £3 million to assist with the transition to Nepali management. This package included assignments by a surgeon, an anaesthetist, a physician and a general manager. It also funded the construction of new wards, the provision of equipment and the training of local staff.

  Long-term viability has been assured through the establishment at the hospital by the Government of Nepal

  605
  of the BP Koirala Institute for Health Sciences with the assistance of the Indian Government. The final commissioning of wards and transfer of equipment are expected to be complete by the end of this month.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his United States and European Community counterparts about their contributions to United Nations aid for the peoples of the former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Humanitarian aid for the peoples of the former Yugoslavia, including assistance through the United Nations, is the subject of frequent discussion with our partners in the European Community and the United States. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development announced an additional package of humanitarian aid for the former Yugoslavia of £18·5 million on 12 July, thus bringing our total bilateral commitment to £63 million. Details of this new package will be set out on 16 July at the meeting of donors which has been called by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and we urge other donors to follow our example.

  International Finance Corporation
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make available the voting decisions of the United Kingdom executive director in the International Finance Corporation since 1 January 1991.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 13 July 1993]The proceedings of the board of executive directors of the International Finance Corporation are confidential so as not to inhibit full and frank discussion.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  CSCE
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the second meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe in Helsinki on 6 to 9 July.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Parliamentary Assembly meeting in Helsinki provided a valuable opportunity for parliamentarians from 45 CSCE participating states and representatives of international organisations to meet and debate issues relating to co-operation and security in the CSCE area. The declaration adopted by the Assembly is an important statement of concern regarding conflicts in the CSCE area and also reflects the view of the Assembly that the CSCE has a key role in seeking to prevent and resolve such conflicts.

  Chittagong Hill Tract Refugees
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to a the Indian and (b) the Bangladeshi Governments on the proposed
  606
  repatriation to Bangladesh of the Chittagong hill tract refugees currently in refugee camps in the state of Tripura, India.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have not made formal representations to either Government about the proposed repatriations. But the Indian and Bangladesh authorities are aware of our concern about the tribal refugees from the Chittagong hill tracts in camps in Tripura. For example, the acting British high commissioner in Dhaka discussed the issue with the Bangladesh Foreign Minister on 26 June.

  English Language Teaching
  Mr. Whitney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent the work of the British Council in direct English language teaching is self-financing, taking account of start-up costs of the ELT operation since the mid-1970s and all relevant overheads.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The work of the British Council in direct English language teaching is entirely self-financing. Students' fees cover all relevant costs, including overheads, and the surplus is used partly to reinvest in the business, partly to cover the business risk and partly to support the council's cultural and educational programmes as a return on earlier investment in start-up costs.

  South American Nationals (Graduate Training)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he is doing to promote graduate training in Europe of south American nationals; and what assessment he has of the number of such graduates in Europe in 1983 and the most recent available date.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Human resource development is a priority for our bilateral technical co-operation programmes and, wherever appropriate, United Kingdom training is an integral part of aid-funded projects.

  It has not been possible to obtain statistics relating to south American nationals studying in European countries other than in the United Kingdom. Obtaining the statistics from all European countries could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  In 1984–85, the total number of students from south America studying in the United Kingdom funded by Her Majesty's Government sources totalled 292 at an approximate cost of £1·6 million; statistics for overseas students funded by Her Majesty's Government prior to this are not available. In 1992–93, the number of students from south America was 641 at a cost of about £4·38 million. A breakdown of these totals by country of origin has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Our aid programme has supported the bulk of Her Majesty's Government-funded students from south America. Aid funds are provided under our bilateral technical co-operation training arrangements—287 students at a cost of approximately £2·22 million in 1992–93—and under the Foreign and Commonwealth Office scholarship award scheme—274 students at a cost of approximately £1·76 million in 1992–93.
  607

EMPLOYMENT

  Wages
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of full-time workers on adult rates currently earn less than(a) £100, (b) £150, (c) £200 and (d) £250 per week, including and excluding overtime, in (i) Yorkshire and Humberside, (ii) north Yorkshire, (iii) the north of England and (iv) the United Kingdom, distinguishing between male and female and manual and non-manual.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information available form the new earnings survey can be found in the following tables:

  Full-time employees on adult rates—pay unaffected by absence Proportion with gross weekly earnings EXCLUDING overtime below the following amounts: April 1992

  Yorkshire/ Humberside

  North Yorkshire

  North

  Great Britain

  Manual men

  £100

  0·9

  1·5

  1·0

  0·8

  £150

  13·6

  19·4

  12·1

  11·9

  £200

  42·2

  54·2

  37·9

  39·3

  £250

  69·5

  77·1

  66·2

  66·9

  Non-manual men

  £100

  0·8

  1·2

  0·5

  0·5

  £150

  6·6

  8·3

  5·5

  4·6

  £200

  18·8

  22·6

  15·6

  14·4

  £250

  32·0

  36·3

  28·2

  26·1

  Manual women

  £100

  9·1

  10·0

  7·2

  7·4

  £150

  58·3

  53·3

  53·3

  49·9

  £200

  87·6

  87·8

  82·8

  81·9

  £250

  97·3

  94·4

  95·3

  93·6

  Non-manual women

  £100

  1·5

  2·4

  1·8

  1·2

  £150

  20·4

  24·4

  19·9

  14·8

  £200

  49·9

  54·2

  51·3

  40·6

  £250

  67·6

  71·8

  67·9

  59·6

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  Full time employees on adult rates—pay unaffected by absence Proportion with gross weekly earnings including overtime below the following amounts: April 1992

  Yorkshire/ Humberside

  North Yorkshire

  North

  Great Britain

  Manual men

  £100

  0·8

  1·5

  0·8

  0·6

  £150

  8·1

  10·8

  8·3

  7·8

  £200

  27·0

  34·8

  25·9

  26·1

  £250

  50·5

  59·8

  50·6

  49·6

  Non-manual men

  £100

  0·8

  1·2

  0·5

  0·4

  £150

  5·5

  7·8

  4·5

  3·9

  £200

  16·1

  20·0

  13·6

  12·4

  £250

  28·9

  33·3

  25·2

  23·2

  Manual women

  £100

  8·3

  7·8

  5·3

  6·7

  £150

  52·9

  48·9

  47·7

  44·7

  £200

  80·1

  81·1

  76·7

  75·4

  £250

  92·6

  88·9

  92·6

  89·3

  Non-manual women

  £100

  1·4

  2·1

  1·7

  1·1

  £150

  19·3

  23·1

  18·7

  13·7

  £200

  47·7

  52·3

  48·6

  38·6

  £250

  65·8

  70·0

  65·6

  57·8

  Source: New Earnings Survey
  608

  Wages
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for what are the current average earnings of part-time workers on adult rates, distinguishing between manual and non-manual in(a) Yorkshire and Humberside, (b) west Yorkshire, (c) South Yorkshire, (d) north Yorkshire, (e) Humberside, (f) the north of England and (g) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is contained in the following table:

  Average gross weekly earnings of part-time em on adult rates of pay unaffected by absent April 1992

  Manual

  Non-manual

  £

  £

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  70·8

  97·2

  West Yorkshire

  67·7

  96·1

  South Yorkshire

  73·1

  100·4

  North Yorkshire

  74·9

  —

  Humberside

  72·0

  —

  North

  69·1

  93·0

  United Kingdom

  72·7

  103·7

  Source: New Earnings Survey, Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

  Note: "—" denotes sample number too small or standard error too large for reliable estimate.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for what percentage of workers on adult rates currently earn less than(a) £2·50, (b) £3·00, (c) £3·50, (d) £4·00, (e) £4·50, (f) £5·00, (g) £5·50 and (h) £6·50 per hour including and excluding overtime, in (i) Yorkshire and Humberside, (ii) north Yorkshire, (iii) the north and (iv) the United Kingdom, distinguishing between manual and non-manual, male and female and full and part-time workers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information available from the new earnings survey can be found in the following tables:

  Full-time employees on adult rates—pay unaffected by absence Proportion with gross hourly earnings including overtime below the following amounts: April 1992

  Yorkshire/ Humberside

  North Yorkshire

  North

  Great Britain

  £

  Manual men

  2·50

  ·6

  ·9

  ·8

  ·5

  3·00

  2·3

  3·7

  2·6

  2·1

  3·50

  6·1

  7·6

  6·5

  5·8

  4·00

  13·8

  19·7

  13·0

  12·7

  4·50

  24·1

  31·9

  21·6

  22·2

  5·00

  36·0

  45·4

  31·5

  33·3

  5·50

  48·2

  59·4

  43·9

  45·2

  6·50

  67·6

  77·3

  64·1

  64·8

  Non-manual men

  2·50

  ·5

  ·6

  ·4

  ·3

  3·00

  1·0

  1·6

  1·1

  ·8

  3·50

  3·6

  6·2

  3·1

  2·4

  4·00

  6·9

  9·9

  6·9

  4·8

  4·50

  10·6

  14·3

  9·5

  7·9

  5·00

  16·0

  21·1

  13·6

  11·9

  5·50

  21·3

  27·0

  17·8

  16·4

  6·50

  31·2

  37·9

  26·7

  24·9

  Manual women

  2·50

  3·0

  1·3

  4·2

  3·4

  3·00

  16·6

  12·8

  17·5

  13·8

  3·50

  39·5

  33·3

  37·2

  31·7

  4·00

  57·5

  52·6

  55·2

  49·9

  609

  Yorkshire/ Humberside

  North Yorkshire

  North

  Great Britain

  £

  4·50

  69·6

  62·8

  68·2

  64·6

  5·00

  80·9

  79·5

  78·8

  76·7

  5·50

  89·3

  88·5

  85·2

  84·7

  6·50

  96·2

  93·6

  95·6

  93·3

  Non-manual women

  2·50

  ·8

  ·9

  1·2

  ·5

  3·00

  2·9

  4·4

  3·4

  1·9

  3·50

  10·3

  14·2

  10·0

  6·7

  4·00

  19·1

  25·9

  19·4

  13·2

  4·50

  30·0

  38·5

  30·3

  21·7

  5·00

  40·3

  48·3

  42·0

  31·4

  5·50

  50·6

  59·3

  53·6

  41·1

  6·50

  65·3

  76·0

  68·6

  55·8

  Part-time employees on adult rates—pay unaffected by absence Proportion with gross hourly earnings including overtime below the following amounts: April 1992

  £

  Yorkshire/ Humberside

  North Yorkshire

  North

  Great Britain

  Manual women

  2·50

  5·5

  4·9

  5·6

  6·5

  3·00

  23·2

  20·6

  26·9

  22·0

  3·50

  49·6

  39·2

  64·9

  51·8

  4·00

  74·5

  65·7

  81·2

  71·3

  4·50

  84·6

  78·4

  87·5

  82·9

  5·00

  92·2

  92·2

  92·4

  90·2

  5·50

  95·5

  95·1

  94·2

  93·8

  6·50

  97·7

  96·1

  96·4

  96·9

  Non-manual women

  2·50

  2·5

  3·0

  2·2

  2·0

  3·00

  7·3

  6·0

  7·5

  6·0

  3·50

  28·5

  36·3

  31·0

  24·7

  4·00

  44·5

  51·8

  44·4

  38·2

  4·50

  58·2

  61·9

  54·9

  51·5

  5·00

  68·4

  68·5

  66·1

  62·2

  5·50

  76·2

  78·6

  75·6

  70·1

  6·50

  84·7

  86·9

  85·2

  79·9

  Full-time employees on adult rates—pay unaffected by absence Proportion with gross hourly earnings excluding overtime below the following amounts: April 1992

  £

  Yorkshire/ Humberside

  North Yorkshire

  North

  Great Britain

  Manual men

  2·50

  0·8

  0·9

  0·9

  0·6

  3·00

  2·6

  3·9

  2·8

  2·4

  3·50

  7·3

  9·6

  7·7

  6·8

  4·00

  17·2

  25·0

  14·9

  15·5

  4·50

  27·9

  37·8

  23·6

  25·4

  5·00

  39·6

  50·5

  34·0

  36·6

  5·50

  52·4

  63·8

  46·1

  48·4

  6·50

  70·7

  79·1

  66·3

  67·4

  Non-manual men

  2·50

  0·5

  0·6

  0·4

  0·3

  3·00

  1·2

  1·9

  1·1

  0·8

  3·50

  4·0

  6·2

  3·5

  2·5

  4·00

  7·5

  11·2

  7·0

  5·2

  4·50

  11·3

  14·9

  10·0

  8·4

  5·00

  16·8

  21·4

  14·1

  12·5

  5·50

  22·0

  27·6

  19·0

  17·0

  6·50

  32·1

  38·2

  27·7

  25·8

  Manual women

  2·50

  3·2

  2·6

  4·4

  3·6

  3·00

  17·5

  12·8

  17·5

  14·4

  3·50

  41·0

  37·2

  37·7

  33·2

  4·00

  59·3

  55·1

  56·7

  51·8

  4·50

  72·1

  65·4

  69·5

  66·2

  610

  £

  Yorkshire/ Humberside

  North Yorkshire

  North

  Great Britain

  5·00

  82·5

  79·5

  79·3

  77·8

  5·50

  90·2

  92·3

  86·2

  85·6

  6·50

  97·1

  94·9

  95·6

  93·8

  Non-manual women

  2·50

  0·8

  1·3

  1·2

  0·5

  3·00

  3·0

  4·7

  3·5

  1·9

  3·50

  10·7

  14·8

  10·2

  6·9

  4·00

  19·3

  25·9

  19·9

  13·5

  4·50

  30·3

  39·4

  30·9

  22·1

  5·00

  40·8

  48·9

  43·2

  31·9

  5·50

  51·1

  59·9

  55·1

  41·7

  6·50

  65·9

  76·0

  69·1

  56·3

  Part-time employees on adult rates—pay unaffected by absence Proportion with gross hourly earnings excluding overtime below the following amounts: April 1992

  £

  Yorkshire/ Humberside

  North Yorkshire

  North

  Great Britain

  Manual women

  2·50

  5·5

  4·9

  5·6

  6·5

  3·00

  23·9

  20·6

  27·1

  22·3

  3·50

  49·8

  39·2

  65·1

  52·1

  4·00

  74·7

  63·7

  81·4

  72·0

  4·50

  84·6

  76·5

  87·3

  82·9

  5·00

  91·7

  89·2

  92·8

  90·2

  5·50

  95·0

  93·1

  94·6

  93·8

  6·50

  97·5

  95·1

  96·2

  96·8

  Non-manual women

  2·50

  2·5

  3·0

  2·2

  2·1

  3·00

  7·6

  6·5

  1·1

  6·1

  3·50

  28·7

  35·1

  32·1

  25·2

  4·00

  45·1

  52·4

  44·7

  38·5

  4·50

  58·4

  62·5

  54·6

  51·6

  5·00

  68·7

  68·5

  66·1

  62·3

  5·50

  76·2

  78·6

  75·4

  70·0

  6·50

  84·7

  86·9

  85·3

  79·9

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  Note: Information for part-time men is not available.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for what were the median, highest and lowest decile earnings of full-time workers on adult rates, distinguishing between male and female, manual and non-manual in(a) Yorkshire and Humberside, (b) the north of England and (c) the United Kingdom in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information for Great Britain and the regions of Britain can be found in table 116 of part E of the new earnings survey for each of the years requested.

  Corresponding information for Northern Ireland is available only from 1984 and can be found in table 1 of the Northern Ireland report. Information for the United Kingdom is not available.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for what steps he is taking to assist areas with rising unemployment, in particular areas of high concentrations of defence-related industry; what special programmes are available for such areas; and what plans he has to increase such assistance.
  611
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 7 July 1993,Official Report, columns 201–2.

  Sickness Benefit
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for if he will make a statement on the issue by claimant advisers in the Service of standard letters asking doctors to advise whether a claimant is incapable for work; and if he will publish the guidance for the distribution of such letters.

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

  Letter from Mr. J. Turner to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 15 July 1993:

  As the Service is an Executive Agency, it is the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the Agency's Chief Executive to answer Parliamentary Questions about relevant operational matters. In his absence, I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State about the issue, by our Client Advisers, of letters asking doctors to advise clients on their capability for work.

  It may help if I explain that everyone claiming un benefit (UB), credits of National Insurance contributions and Income Support (IS) as an unemployed person must be capable of. available for and actively seeking work. ES receptionists and advisers have a key role in making sure clients understand and meet these conditions. Where evidence suggests clients are not meeting them, then our people investigate why and explain the alternatives which may exist. This may include helping clients who are not entitled to UB get an alternative benefit such as Sickness Benefit.

  Guidance to ES local office receptionists and advisers, when dealing with new claims for UB, therefore requires that they sensitively prove the issue of capability to find out if there is a current claim to Sickness Benefit; or if the client believes they have a health problem which stops them from working. Only where there is a doubt about whether a client is capable of work, and the client is willing to seek further advice from their GP will an adviser suggest they seek medical advice. If the client does not wish to seek further advice but our people have doubts about their capability for work, their claim will be taken and referred to an independent adjudicating authority for a decision on entitlement.

  Where a client is already claiming UB but states they are not capable of work, an ES adviser will assess whether there is a more appropriate benefit and seek to facilitate a smooth transition if appropriate. As part of this process an adviser may suggest the client seeks their GP's advice about their capacity to work. To explain the situation to the GP the adviser will send them a letter (Annex 1) explaining why the client is seeking their opinion. The client is also given a letter to make clear to them that they are seeking medical advice on their own behalf, not on behalf of the ES (Annex 2). The use of these letters also makes sure that a consistent approach is maintained across the network of our local offices. I have also attached (Annex 3) a copy of the guidance available to advisers on the issue of these letters.

  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.
  612
  Anenx 1

  ES Guide 39

  Appendix V4

  (para V17)

  Letter to GP Explaining Advice Given to Client by Client Adviser

  The Employment Service Employment Department

  Date

  I am the Client Adviser at………benefit office; part of the Service. I give advice to unemployed people to help them find suitable work and provide information about the benefits which they may receive. I also have to ensure that people satisfy the conditions of entitlement for receiving Un Benefit, Income Support and/or credits of NI. One of the main conditions laid down in the Social Security Act 1975 is that the client must be capable of taking up suitable work.

  When I interviewed your patient on………*he/she informed me that they had health problems that prevents them undertaking any. In these circumstances I have had to suggest that *he/she should seek your advice about their fitness for Employment.

  If in your opinion *he/she is incapable of all work then you will no doubt advise your patient in accordance with your own clinical judgement.

  Should you advise your patient that *he/she is capable of work then it will be necessary for them to see me again to reconsider their claim to un benefit, income support and/or credits of NI.

  Client Adviser

  *Cross out the one which does not apply.
  613
  Annex 2

  ES Guide 39

  Appendix V3

  (para V17)

  Letter to Client Suggesting they Seek GPs Advice

  The Employment Service Employment Department

  Date

  When I saw you on………about your claim for unemployment benefit, you told me that you had a health problem which prevented you doing any work. This means that you do not seem to be capable of and available for work, which is one of the main rules for payment of unemployment benefit (Social Security Act 1975).

  In these circumstances I had to suggest that you seek your doctor's advice about your fitness to work. Please take this letter with you if you decide to go to see your doctor.

  *I would like to see you again on………

  at………

  Client Adviser

  *Cross out if it does not apply.

  Annex 3

  V

  ES Guide 39

  Current claim—no medical evidence

  VI6 If the client has an established claim to benefit and states during an interview that they:

  a have recently been disallowed Sickness or Invalidity Benefit, and

  b wish to appeal against the DSS AO's disallowance, and

  c their doctor is not issuing sickness certificates, and

  d their medical condition has significantly deteriorated since they last visited their doctor or

  e are not capable of undertaking work; and.

  f have not seen their doctor;

  V17 If the client agrees to see their doctor, complete and give them a copy of the letter in Appendix V3. Write to the GP using the letter in Appendix V4 explaining the reason for the client's visit, enclosing a copy of the letter issued to the client to avoid confusion between the client and the doctor as to why medical advice is being sought about their capacity for work. Make sure the client knows they are seeking medical advice on their own behalf, not on behalf of your or the ES.
  614

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Fast Breeder Reactor
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the scope of the United Kingdom fast breeder reactor programme following the closure of the Dounreay reactor; if he will outline the differences from the programme for FBR construction contained in the Windscale inquiry report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I announced on 19 November 1992,Official Report, column 411, that funding of fast reactor research and development beyond March 1993 was not a priority and that the programme would therefore be wound down. No further Government-funded work is planned except for a limited programme of experiments associated with the closure of the prototype fast reactor at Dounreay. Any work beyond that is a matter for the industry.

  In his conclusions to the Windscale inquiry report, the then Mr. Justice Parker concluded that the construction of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant was desirable although it was then possible that it would be decided not to proceed further with fast reactors, at any rate for a period.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total amount spent on redundancy pay in the coal mining industry since 1979.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer to my reply to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on 13 July,Official Report, columns 437–38.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total amount spent on retraining redundant mine workers since 1979.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information available on expenditure on retraining redundant mineworkers relates to British Coal's job and career change scheme (JACCS).

  Total expenditure from the introduction of JACCS in June 1985 to the end of March 1993 was £42·98 million.

  This figure does not include expenditure on those who entered retraining directly via other agencies, training and enterprise colleges, job centres, restart programmes etc.

  Information about previous occupation and/or industry before entering a Government training scheme is not collected centrally.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many applications he has received for import licences for spent nuclear fuel shipments destined for THORP between the present time and 1 November.

  Mr. Eggar
  All shipments of spent fuel for reprocessing at THORP are made in accordance with the provisions of the Import of Goods (Control) Order 1954. Unless the spent fuel is consigned from the European Community a licence is required. The number of shipments to take place between the present time and 1 November is a matter for the company concerned.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, further to his statement on Monday 28 June,
  615
  Official Report, column 691, on what evidence he based the figure of £5 billion as the amount of compensation which might be payable in respect of failure to operate THORP.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 8 July 1993]Whether any money would need to be paid to customers if THORP did not operate, and if so how much, would depend on the circumstances. including those arising in the event of any breach of contract. British Nuclear Fuels plc has advised me that its legal advice is that the contracts in question are very robust.

  BNFL has also advised me that the figure of £5 billion in question is the sum of the company's assessment of the economic detriment to the United Kingdom of abandoning THORP about—£1 billion—plus a further £4 billion, being an approximate estimate of the total amount already invested by overseas customers in THORP reprocessing—taking account of transport costs, interest and exchange rate movements.

  If any customer were to make a claim against BNFL, it would be for the company to decide how to respond. In the absence of agreement, how much—if anything—would be payable would be determined in the courts in the light of the specific circumstances.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to assist areas with rising un, in particular areas of high concentrations of defence-related industry; what special programmes are available for such areas; and what plans he has to increase such assistance.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department provides advice on diversification through the "Changing Tack" regional seminar programme and associated help manual. In addition, areas which are adversely affected by defence changes may be able to benefit from the EC KONVER initiative, which will be worth some £15 million to the United Kingdom as a whole.

  It is for firms themselves to build on their skills and technologies to achieve success in new markets. The DTI offers a wide range of schemes to help companies improve product planning, innovation processes and marketing skills.

  Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 5 July,Official Report, column 35, on representations from lessees, how many of the complainants who wrote to his Department about the treatment of lessees by Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd. have been interviewed by officials of his Department.
  616
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  In response to a recent request, my officials are proposing to meet representatives of the National Association of Inntrepreneurs Lessees in the near future.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assurances he has received from Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd. concerning imposition of commercial full market rents on those of its tenants who remain subject to a beer tie.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The company has told my Department that its assessment of a market rent reflects the particular circumstances of individual public houses, including whether or not they are tied.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 12 July,Official Report, column 347–48, on Inntrepreneur's treatment of tenants, if he will list the assurances given to Ministers by Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd. in 1991 about the treatment of tenants, indicating to what extent they were confined to the introduction of procedures for long-term leases to be determined by independent arbitration where they could not be agreed with tenants.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The assurances were given to Ministers in 1991 by all major brewers. They related to the sympathetic treatment of tenants who might have real difficulties in taking on a long-term lease, such as those nearing retirement, as well as the introduction of independent arbitration procedures.

  Grand Metropolitan Estates Ltd.
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 12 July,Official Report, column 347–48, on discussions with Grand Metropolitan Estates Ltd., what were the undertakings given to the Director of Fair Trading by Grand Metropolitan Estates Ltd., following the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the Elders IXL Ltd./Grand Metropolitan plc merger; and whether he is satisfied that these have been met.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have placed copies of the undertakings in the Library of the House. The majority of the undertakings were to come into effect in three stages, on 31 October 1992, 31 March 1995 and 31 March 1998. The parties have supplied the Director General of Fair Trading (DGFT) with details of the measures they have taken to comply with the first of these stages. These have been considered carefully by the Office of Fair Trading and some points of detail are presently the subject of correspondence with the company. The DGFT's monitoring of compliance will be a continuous process.
  617

  Insolvency Service Executive Agency
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what targets he has set the Insolvency Service executive agency for 1993–94.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have set the Insolvency Service the target of sustaining as far as possible the level of productivity in case administration which it achieved in 1992–93. I shall continue to expect it to bring proceedings for the disqualification of directors of failed companies where these are in the public interest and the submission of prosecution reports where there is evidence of criminal behaviour.

  In addition, I have set the service the following quality of service targets for 1993–94:

  to report to creditors on assets and liabilities within nine weeks in at least 75 per cent. of all cases;

  to hold the initial meeting of creditors within 12 weeks in at least 80 per cent. of all cases;

  to check and action at least 95 per cent. of payment requisitions within 10 days or by the due date;

  to submit reports within 10 months in at least 80 per cent. of cases where there is evidence of criminality;

  to submit disqualification reports within 15 months in at least 80 per cent. of cases where there is evidence of unfit conduct by directors.

  These are based on an assumption of 40,000 new cases and the completion of 28,000 cases in 1993–94.

  In addition, I have set the chief executive of the service the targets of
  replying within 10 working days to letters from Members of Parliament delegated to him for reply, and
  producing commercial-style accounts for 1993–94, which will form the basis for the preparation of auditable accounts.

  Small Businesses
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what definition of a small or medium-sized enterprise is used by his Department.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The size of a business needs to be considered in relation to its sector, to its stage of development as well as in the context of any particular scheme or initiative.

  The DTI does not therefore use a single definition for all purposes. Instead DTI schemes targeted at small and medium-sized businesses adopt different definitions depending on their particular objectives.

  For example, the small firms merit award for research and technology (SMART) competition is for individuals or businesses with fewer than 50 employees; whereas the enterprise initiative consultancy scheme is open to firms employing up to 500 employees. The loan guarantee scheme, on the other hand, makes use of both employee number and turnover and these differ from sector to sector as appropriate.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the maximum size of company that can receive support under the EUREKA programme in the United Kingdom; and what is the maximum size in each of the other participating countries.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  With regard to the restrictions on the size of company that can receive support from my Department for EUREKA projects, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the 618
  Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) on 30 June 1993, Official Report, column 513. This outlines the changes that will occur after 1 September 1993.

  The restrictions on the provision of funding for EUREKA projects in other countries is a matter for their individual Governments and disclosure of information is limited. Recent information that is available is presented below:

  Country

  Restrictions

  Austria

  None

  Belgium

  Priorities for innovative projects with likely economic/employment benefits

  Denmark

  None

  Finland

  Priorities for industrial funding especially SMEs and market orientated projects

  France

  Priorities for SMEs

  Germany

  Certain technology areas restricted

  Greece

  Priorities for large national industry and SMEs

  Iceland

  Priorities for industry, market orientated projects for national advantage

  Ireland

  Priorities for manufacturing industry. State enterprises not eligible

  Italy

  Government bodies ineligible. Research institutes must be associated with industry

  Luxembourg

  Luxembourg-based industrial partner necessary

  Netherlands

  Research institutes and universities ineligible

  Norway

  Universities and research institutes must constitute with national companies

  Portugal

  No information available

  Spain

  Priorities according to Spanish R and D priorities

  Sweden

  SMEs given priority

  Switzerland

  Industry ineligible

  Turkey

  No information available

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future participation of the United Kingdom in the EUREKA programme.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  EUREKA is an industry-led, bottom-up initiative, but I expect the United Kingdom to continue to be a major participant with United Kingdom organisations both initiating and joining new EUREKA projects. As part of its commitment to EUREKA the United Kingdom will take over the EUREKA chair in 1996–97.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the maximum size of company that can benefit from(a) the small firms loan guarantee scheme, (b) LINK, (c) advanced technology programmes, (d) SMART and (e) Support for products under research.
  619
  Mr. McLoughlin
  The maximum size of company that can benefit from the small firms loan guarantee scheme, LINK, advanced technology programmes, SMART and SPUR is currently as follows:

  Small firms loan guarantee scheme—companies of 200 employees or less, with the exception of the construction, mining and quarrying industries where the limit is 25, that also meet the following sectoral criteria:

  Agriculture, horticulture and service industries—maximum turnover of £500,000;

  Wholesaling—maximum turnover £2,000,000;

  Manufacturing—maximum turnover £3,000,000;

  Catering—maximum of two outlets;

  Road transport—maximum of five vehicles.

  LINK and advanced technology programmes1—there is no size limit.

  SMART—49 employees or fewer.

  SPUR—500 employees or less.

  1 From 1 September 1993 advanced technology programmes will be closed to applications for new projects.

  MINIS Returns
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will publish his Department's management information syStern for Ministers returns.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The MINIS 93 returns were published today. A set has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Environmental Schemes
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the earliest possible date for the reopening of the environmental management options scheme, environmental technology innovation scheme and EUROENVIRON.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 13 July 1993]: The Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment are considering what future support might be appropriate to encourage innovation by industry in environmental technology. This support might include some elements of the three departmental schemes referred to by the hon. Member but no decision has yet been taken.

  Postal Charges
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultation his Department has had with the Post Office covering the increase in charges for recorded, registered and special deliveries; and if he sought the advice of the Mail Users Association or business leaders about the increases.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 13 July 1993:] The pricing and specifications of Royal Mail's services are operational matters for the Post Office in consultation with the Post Office Users National Council. My Department has, however, made clear to the Post Office its view that, in line with Government policy, the prices charged for recorded, registered and special deliveries should reflect the true costs of these services and should not be subsidised by users of ordinary mail services.

HEALTH

  Speech Therapy
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many speech therapists were employed in the NHS in each of the last five years.
  620
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information available is shown in the table.

  Whole-time equivalent speech therapists in England for September of each year

  Number

  1987

  2,630

  1988

  2,730

  1989

  2,810

  1990

  2,940

  1991

  3,020

  Source: Department of Health non-medical work force census.

  Notes:

  1. The figures represent speech therapists directly employed in the hospital and community health service.

  2. The figures for 1991 include staff in the national health service trusts.

  3. Figures for 1992 are not yet available.

  Women's Unit
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will publish(a) the programme of work for the women's unit and (b) the goals that have been achieved to date, following the establishment of Opportunity 2000;

  (2) whether she has any plans to continue the women's unit beyond 1994.

  Mr. Sackville
  In September 1991 the Department of Health was the first Government Department to sign up to Opportunity 2000. The national health service goal is to take full advantage of the potential of women in the NHS so that the best health care can be provided for all members of the population.

  To achieve its overall objectives, the national health service management executive has set eight goals for the NHS as the first milestone in the period to the year 2000. The NHSME wants to reach these goals by the end of 1994.

  Numerical goals have been set to increase the numbers of women in senior management, accountancy, medical consultants and non-executive positions. Other goals address women's needs for personal and management development; flexible working and child care; and equal access to selection and promotion.

  The programme of work for the NHS women's unit has been outlined in the NHS "Implementation Guide to Opportunity 2000", which will be placed in the Library, and 18 months into the campaign enocuraging progress has been made. The monitoring procedure, through local action plans, is ongoing and is constantly assessed by the unit. The future existence of the unit beyond 1994 will depend upon reviewing the progress made in achieving these goals.

  Nursery Places
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many day care nursery places there were in each of the last five years for children under three years and from three years to compulsory school age; and what corresponding information for the latest available year she has for other EC member states.

  Mr. Bowis
  Centrally collected information on places in day nurseries in the public and independent sectors includes all places for children under five; information for the last five years is shown in the table.
  621

  Day nursery places available for children under 5 England

  As at 31 March

  Number

  1987

  60,733

  1988

  66,237

  1989

  75,378

  1990

  87,451

  1991

  106,068

  Information about publicly funded child care services in European Community member states was included in a report from the European Parliament's Committee on Childcare and Equality of Opportunity, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Folic Acid
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (I) what assessment she has made of whether folic acid is generally available as a medical product on prescription in both 4 mg and 0·5 mg strengths;

  (2) what proposals she has to implement recommendation 8.3 of the expert advisory group on folic acid and neural tube defects that prescriptions of folic acid, when given for the prevention of NTD, should be free.

  Mr. Sackville
  Folic acid is not generally available as a licensed product on prescription in either 4 mg or 0·5 mg strengths. Prescriptions of folic acid 5 mg and of folic acid 0·4 mg with iron, are available free of charge to those who are entitled to prescription charge exemption, including pregnant women and those who qualify for charge remission under the national health service low-income scheme. There are no plans to extend these arrangements.

  Passive Smoking
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates have been made of the annual number of people dying from causes related to passive smoking; what plans there are to ban smoking in public places to which children have access; and if she will list the diseases in children which can be caused by passive smoking.

  Mr. Sackville
  In its fourth report, published in 1988, the Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health estimated the numbers of lung cancer deaths in non-smokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke over most of their lives as "several hundred deaths per year". A copy of the report is available in the Library.

  "The Health of the Nation" White Paper sets a target of 80 per cent. of public places being covered by effective smoking policies by 1994. The White Paper states that the Government would consider legislation on smoking in public places if voluntary progress is not maintained.

  International scientific studies suggest that exposure of children to environmental tobacco smoke from parental smoking is causally associated with:
  increased prevalence of respiratory symptoms of irritation, increased prevalence of middle ear effusion ("glue ear"), increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections (pneumonia, bronchitis and bronchiolitis) in infants and young children,additional episodes and increase of severity of asthma in children who already have the disease.622

  Doctors (Appeals)
  Mr. Boyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 12 May,Official Report, column 481, if she will take steps to ensure that the information on which she and the Medical Advisory Committee consider appeals by doctors against penalties imposed on them is complete and free from errors of fact; and if she will propose amendments to the National Health Service (Service Committees and Tribunal) Regulations to allow the involvement of the original complainant in the process.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We are satisfied that all the information provided by the complainant and the respondent in connection with the original investigation and any appeal, including sworn testimony in some cases, is available to the Medical Advisory Committee when it considers a penalty. We recently announced a full and independent review of all national health service complaints procedures under the chairmanship of Professor Allan Wilson and we look to his committee to advise us on whether any changes are needed.

  Parent-held Records
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost of parent-held records.

  Mr. Bowis
  We understand that the unit cost of the model record produced by the British Paediatric Association is between £1·05 and £1·08, depending upon the quantity ordered.

  GP Fund Holders
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the relative cost of general practitioner fund holding and joint commissioning by district health authorities and general practitioners.

  Mr. Sackville
  Both general practitioner fund holding and district health authority purchasing are improving value for money and services to patients.

  Home Helps
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many home helps are employed by each local authority responsible for community care; and what is the ratio of home helps to population in each authority.

  Mr. Bowis
  The centrally available data on whole-time equivalent directly employed home helps, excluding home help organisers and assistant organisers, as at September 1992, the latest date for which this information is available, are shown in the table:

  Home helps directly employed1 at 30 September 1992

  1992 Local Authority Social Services Department

  Home Helps (WTE)

  Per 1,000 Total population2

  Avon

  1272·9

  1·32

  Barking and Dagenham

  243·4

  1·68

  Barnet

  231·4

  0·77

  Barnsley

  421·0

  1·88

  Bedfordshire

  489·0

  0·91

  Berkshire

  590·2

  0·78

  Bexley

  268·5

  1·23

  Birmingham

  1,320·0

  1·33

  Bolton

  338

  1·28

  623

  1992 Local Authority Social Services Department

  Home Helps (WTE)

  Per 1,000 Total population2

  Bradford

  696·4

  1·48

  Brent

  108·4

  0·4A

  Bromley

  243·2

  0·82

  Buckinghamshire

  532·0

  0·82

  Bury

  208·3

  1·16

  Calderdale

  388·6

  2·00

  Cambridgeshire

  467·5

  0·69

  Camden

  273·3

  1·53

  Cheshire

  865·1

  0·89

  City of London

  13·9

  3·40

  Cleveland

  731·3

  1·31

  Cornwall and Scilly Isles

  478·9

  1·00

  Coventry

  361·0

  1·19

  Croydon

  246·1

  0·77

  Cumbria

  497·5

  1·01

  Derbyshire

  1406·0

  1·49

  Devon

  921·4

  0·88

  Doncaster

  466·6

  1·59

  Dorset

  535·6

  0·80

  Dudley

  309·4

  1·00

  Durham

  943·2

  1·56

  Ealing

  224·0

  0·80

  East Sussex

  631·0

  0·88

  Enfield

  308·0

  1·17

  Essex

  1404·1

  0·90

  Gateshead

  341·0

  1·68

  Gloucestershire

  493·0

  0·91

  Greenwich

  288·0

  1·35

  Hackney

  381·0

  2·08

  Hammersmith

  261·4

  1·72

  Hampshire

  955·9

  0·60

  Haringey

  255·5

  1·27

  Harrow

  239·1

  11·8

  Havering

  256·4

  1·12

  Hereford and Worcester

  654·6

  0·95

  Hertfordshire

  818·6

  0·82

  Hillingdon

  283·6

  1·20

  Hounslow

  226·1

  1·09

  Humberside

  1,199·6

  1·37

  Isle of Wight

  149·0

  1·18

  Islington

  248·0

  1·46

  Kensington and Chelsea

  142·9

  0·98

  Kent

  658·9

  0·43

  Kingston upon Thames

  95·9

  0·69

  Kirklees

  546·3

  1·44

  Knowsley

  92·0

  0·60

  Lambeth

  452·1

  1·82

  Lancashire

  1,637·0

  1·16

  Leeds

  1,600·0

  2·26

  Leicestershire

  691·7

  0·77

  Lewisham

  368·6

  1·57

  Lincolnshire

  525·0

  0·88

  Liverpool

  847·0

  1·81

  Manchester

  699·4

  1·63

  Merton

  216·1

  1·26

  Newcastle

  512·7

  1·89

  Newham

  385·9

  1·77

  Norfolk

  986·8

  1·29

  North Tyneside

  360·0

  1·85

  North Yorkshire

  797·4

  1·10

  Northamptonshire

  375·0

  0·63

  Northumberland

  484·0

  1·57

  Nottinghamshire

  1,201·5

  1·18

  Oldham

  356·0

  1·62

  Oxfordshire

  525·2

  0·90

  Redbridge

  226·5

  0·98

  Richmond upon Thames

  185·2

  1·12

  Rochdale

  438·5

  2·13

  Rotherham

  374·6

  1·47

  Salford

  374·0

  1·66

  Sandwell

  421·2

  1·43

  Sefton

  337·8

  1·14

  Sheffield

  1,503·1

  2·90

  Shropshire

  264·7

  0·64

  Solihull

  183·4

  0·91

  Somerset

  0·00

  0·00

  624

  1992 Local Authority Social Services Department

  Home Helps (WTE)

  Per 1,000 Total population2

  South Tyneside

  228·0

  1·45

  Southwark

  282·7

  1·26

  Staffordshire

  1,400·5

  1·33

  Stockport

  371·1

  1·28

  St. Helens

  340·9

  1·89

  Suffolk

  556·1

  0·83

  Sunderland

  478·8

  1·62

  Surrey

  457·4

  0·44

  Sutton

  208·0

  1·22

  Tameside

  388·4

  1·76

  Tower Hamlets

  165·5

  0·98

  Trafford

  307·2

  1·43

  Wakefield

  444·3

  1·40

  Walsall

  244·8

  0·93

  Waltham Forest

  442·9

  2·06

  Wandsworth

  439·6

  1·73

  Warwickshire

  464·5

  0·95

  West Sussex

  750·3

  1·04

  Westminster

  304·0

  1·67

  Wigan

  406·9

  1·31

  Wiltshire

  329·4

  0·57

  Wirral

  498·7

  1·48

  Wolverhampton

  391·2

  1·58

  1 Excludes staff employed in contracted out arrangements.

  2 Related to OPCS 1991-based population projection for 1992.

  Contraception
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of general practitioners(a) provide a family planning service, (b) put in claims for the fitting of intra-uterine contraceptive devices in the last year, ( c) provide condoms to patients, (d) hold the Joint Committee on Contraception certificate and (e) prescribed a diaphragm in the last year.

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

  As at 1 October 1992, 82 per cent. of general practitioners in England were contracted with family health services authorities to provide contraceptive services to patients on their own list. For the same date, 17 per cent. of GPs in England were contracted with FHSAs to provide contraceptive services to patients on any list.

  Data from a biannual survey indicates that about half of the GPs in England put in claims for the fitting of IUCDs for the six-month period ending 30 September 1992.

  Hospitals (Complaints)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the number of recorded complaints about hospital services in each of the health regions in England and Wales during the last 12 months.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The latest information available is shown in the table.

  Written complaints by or on behalf of patients England 1991–92

  Number

  Northern

  2,124

  Yorkshire

  2,074

  Trent

  3,328

  East Anglian

  1,699

  North West Thames

  3,426

  North East Thames

  4,091

  South East Thames

  4,375

  625

  Number

  South West Thames

  2,322

  Wessex

  2,435

  Oxford

  1,489

  South Western

  1,144

  West Midlands

  3,833

  Mersey

  986

  North Western

  3,391

  Special Health Authority

  799

  Total Trusts

  7,164

  England Total

  44,680

  Source: K040 return 1991–92.

  Under the patients charter, launched in October 1991, we made it clear that patients have the right to have any complaint about national health services investigated.

  Information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide increased resources to enable CHCs to fulfil their role in representing public opinion and monitoring the NHS.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is for regions, as establishing authorities for community health councils, to ensure that they are properly resourced. The national health service management executive wrote to regions last year reminding them of this obligation.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will introduce legislation to ensure that all regional health authorities make all parts of community health council premises used by either members of the public or council members accessible to people with disabilities, with additional funding to complete such works or increased rental for alternative premises being provided in addition to the annual budget of the community health council; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No. It is for individual regional health authorities to provide community health councils with suitable accommodation.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will introduce legislation for new statutory duties for community health councils giving them comprehensive monitoring rights over all services provided for NHS patients and rights of consultation and access to(a) district health authority units, (b) NHS trusts, (c) family health services authority services including general practitioner fund holders and (d) situations where health

  Midwives by nature of contract, England—September 1991 (whole-time equivalent)

  Total

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Bank

  ENGLAND

  19,640

  13,660

  5,980

  240

  Northern

  1,310

  910

  400

  0

  Yorkshire

  1,620

  1,210

  410

  0

  Trent

  1,880

  1,390

  490

  20

  East Anglian

  780

  610

  180

  20

  North West Thames

  1,130

  880

  250

  0

  North East Thames

  1,600

  1,280

  310

  10

  South East Thames

  1,310

  990

  320

  30

  South West Thames

  1,040

  780

  260

  10

  Wessex

  1,140

  790

  350

  30

  Oxford

  1,030

  730

  300

  50

  South Western

  1,180

  10

  1,180

  10

  626
  and nursing care are provided within the (i) voluntary, (ii) independent and (iii) private sectors; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) if she will introduce legislation to give powers to community health councils to inspect residential and nursing homes; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have no plans to introduce legislation to give community health councils new statutory duties or powers.

  Under current legislation, CHCs play a valuable role in helping to monitor services to national health service patients. Recent guidance in relation to monitoring of the patients charter has repeated the importance of this role.

  CHCs have statutory rights of access to NHS premises. They must also be consulted by health authorities about proposals for any substantial variations in service. Where services to NHS patients are provided by the independent sector, purchasers can make clear in the contracts concerned the CHC's role in monitoring services.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance her Department issues to regional health authorities regarding the time scale for setting budgets for community health councils; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Midwives
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many midwives practise in each zone in London.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Practising midwives by London pay zone as at 30 September 1991: whole-time equivalent

  1991

  Inner London

  1,030

  Outer London

  1,750

  Fringe

  970

  Extra territorial managed units

  60

  Note: All figures are rounded to the nearest ten whole-time equivalent.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many midwifery staff are employed in each region(a) full time and (b) part time (i) on agency basis and (ii) on bank contracts.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information available is shown in the table.
  627

  Total

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Bank

  West Midlands

  2,220

  1,650

  570

  10

  Mersey

  1,110

  770

  340

  10

  North Western

  2,190

  1,580

  620

  20

  Special health authorities

  90

  90

  0

  —

  Notes:

  1 All figures are rounded to the nearest 10 whole-time equivalent.

  2. Totals may not add due to rounding.

  3. Bank totals included in full/part time columns.

  Midwives
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many whole-time equivalent midwives there are at each incremental point of each pay scale.

  Midwives by pay scale and incremental point as at 30 September 1991, England: wte

  Payscale

  Incremental Points

  Total

  00

  01

  02

  03

  04

  05

  06

  Others

  NB61

  —

  0

  0

  —

  20

  —

  —

  0

  30

  NB91

  —

  0

  —

  —

  30

  0

  0

  0

  40

  NC11

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  NP21

  0

  10

  0

  0

  0

  30

  10

  0

  60

  NP26

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  0

  —

  —

  20

  NP31

  20

  30

  30

  0

  30

  0

  —

  20

  130

  NP36

  590

  620

  560

  550

  3,670

  200

  —

  400

  6,600

  NP41

  70

  110

  280

  450

  490

  1,530

  140

  60

  3,120

  NP46

  220

  350

  400

  430

  6,130

  480

  60

  90

  8,160

  NP51

  10

  20

  50

  70

  330

  30

  0

  10

  510

  NP56

  10

  20

  20

  20

  270

  20

  —

  10

  380

  NQ00

  70

  —

  —

  0

  0

  0

  —

  0

  70

  NR01

  10

  10

  0

  10

  20

  —

  —

  —

  40

  NR11

  20

  30

  40

  30

  210

  20

  —

  10

  370

  NR21

  —

  0

  0

  10

  40

  0

  —

  0

  60

  NR31

  0

  10

  0

  10

  30

  0

  —

  0

  50

  NR41

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  0

  —

  —

  20

  NR51

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Total

  19,640

  Note:—All figures are rounded to the nearest ten whole time equivalent.

  Totals may not add due to rounding.

  Figures include bank midwives.

  "—" = zero

  0 = less than 5

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the numbers of midwifery staff in 1992 given as whole-time equivalents.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not currently available. Data for September 1992 will be available later in the year.

  London Hospitals
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has in relation to trust funds of the London hospitals.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The trust funds of London hospitals are a matter for the trustees of the funds and the Charity Commissioners.
  628
  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table:

  Paediatric Services
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the number of(a) paediatric specialist/consultants and (b) paediatric beds per 1,000 population in each EC country.

  Mr. Bowis
  In England in 1991 there were, 0·15 paediatric consultants and 1·76 beds in children wards per 1,000 children under age 15. Equivalent information for other European Community countries is not available centrally.

  Splenectomy
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies she has commissioned into the desirability of vaccinating people who have undergone splenectomy against pneumonia and septicaemia.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. We have recommended to all doctors that people who have had a splenectomy should be vaccinated with the pneumococcal vaccine.
  629

  Inner London Services
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment her Department has made of(a) the current level of demand and (b) the current level of unmet demand in inner London for services provided by (i) community psychiatric nurses, (ii) health visitors, (iii) other community nursing staff and (iv) general practitioners; and what assessment has been made of the increased level of demand if the recommendations in the Tomlinson report are followed.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The assessment of local health needs is a matter for district health authorities and family health service authorities who will work together closely in inner London to tailor services to local demand. As we outlined in "Making London Better", the London initiative zone will be a focus for the development of primary and community services in London. LIZ is already enabling assessed needs to be met through a wide range of projects. We have provided an additional £43·5 million for investment on improving primary and community health services in this financial year.

  School Nurses
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued as to the requirement for schools to have school nurses; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Under section 5 of the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1977 district health authorities and other purchasers of health services for children are required to arrange for the medical examination of pupils in attendance at schools maintained by local education authorities and at grant maintained schools. The Department is preparing a good practice guide on community child health services including school health services. Later this year we plan to send a consultative draft to health and education authorities, professional bodies, and special interest groups inviting their comments.

  Broadgreen Accident and Emergency Unit
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations she has now received about the closure of Broadgreen accident and emergency unit; how many beds will be lost; what compensatory provision for accident and emergency patients will be made at the Liverpool Royal hospital; and what it will cost to provide these extra beds.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have received 36 representations from hon. Members, approximately 23,000 letters from members of the public and a number of petitions. Liverpool health authority's consultation document proposing the closure of Broadgreen accident and emergency unit suggests that increasing the efficiency of Liverpool's hospitals to the national average in 1990 will enable services to be delivered from 500 fewer beds across the whole Liverpool conurbation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently considering Liverpool health authority's proposals and will take all factors into account before making a final decision. Under those proposals, A and E services currently provided at Broadgreen will be covered by improved facilities at the 630
  Royal Liverpool, Aintree and Whiston hospitals. For more information, the hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. D. H. Tod, chairman of Liverpool health authority.

  Job Descriptions
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 614, in what instances the provision of a job description to job applicants is regarded as beneficial.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This is for each national health service employer to decide.

  St. Bartholomew's
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the City organisations that have written in opposing the closure of St. Bartholomew's hospital's accident and emergency department; on what dates Ministers in her Department have visited St. Bartholomew's hospital in the last year; and how much time was spent on each visit to the nearest hour.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have received a number of letters regarding the accident and emergency department at St. Bartholomew's hospital, some of which have been received from City organisations. I visited Bart's hospital on 9 September, 5 November, 21 and 27 January. Records were not kept of the time spent.

  Contact Lenses
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the charge made for contact lenses prescribed by the hospital eye service for each year since 1979.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The charges are shown in the table.

  £

  1 September 1979

  6·15

  1 April 1981

  8·30

  1 April 1982

  7·90

  1 April 1984

  9·40

  1 April 1985

  25·00

  1 September 1988

  26·50

  1 April 1990

  28·85

  1 April 1991

  32·15

  1 August 1991

  32·0

  1 April 1992

  35·90

  1 April 1993

  36·90

  Note—No changes were made in 1980, 1983, 1986, 1987 and 1989 from previous years.

  Psychiatric Patients
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on progress on the inquiry into homicides and suicides committed by discharged psychiatric patients announced on 23 October 1991.

  Mr. Bowis
  The confidential inquiry into homicides and suicides by mentally ill people being conducted by the Royal College of Psychiatrists has commenced and is identifying cases of homicide by mentally ill people under the care of or recently discharged by the specialist psychiatric services. Of the 68 cases reviewed to date, 20
  631
  fall within the inquiry's remit and a further 12 are being followed up for clarification. Clinical staff are being approached in confidence for detailed information.

  The inquiry is also looking at suicides by mentally ill people and has received a positive response. In some areas audit mechanisms have been set up to identify cases and give details of events surrounding the suicide. Collation of information began on 1 June this year when the inquiry has been notified of 55 cases for follow-up.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many internal inquiries have been conducted in the last five years by local authorities, health authorities, social services inspectorates and the courts into circumstances in which mentally ill people have been discharged into the community under the statutory after care provisions in section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983, subsequently to commit serious injury, assault, manslaughter or murder; and how many have been made public.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis her Department arrives at an appropriate prescription charge for NHS medicines; and to which votes the revenues raised are appropriated in aid.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The prescription charge is an amount which successive Governments have thought it right, for those who can afford to do so, to contribute towards the cost of family health services. The revenue raised by charges is appropriated in aid of class XII, vote 2 and class XII, vote 1 of the main supply estimates 1993–94.

  Medicines Commission
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to receive the annual report of the Medicines Commission for 1992.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have received the report and copies have today been laid before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the requirements of section 5(2) of the Medicines Act 1968.

  Bound volumes have been placed in the Library containing the 1992 reports of the Medicines Commission, the Committee on Safety of Medicines, the Committee on Dental and Surgical Materials, the British Pharmacopoeia Commission and the Veterinary Products Committee.

  We are glad to pay tribute to the valuable work done by the distinguished members of the Medicines Act advisory bodies and thank them warmly for the time and effort which they contribute to the public interest in this most important field.

  Food Safety
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she has taken to ensure that the codes of practice issued under section 40 of the Food Safety Act 1990 are consistently and sensibly enforced; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  On 6 May the Department wrote to all chief environmental health officers in England reminding them that food safety inspections should be conducted in 632
  accordance with code of practice No. 9 on food hygiene inspections and urging them to concentrate their efforts where significant risks are posed.

  The Department will shortly be consulting on a revision of this code and code of practice No. 5 on the issue of improvement notices to improve and clarify them. in addition, on 25 May, my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food met representatives of the local authority associations, the Local Authorities Coordinating Body on Food and Trading Standards and the Institution of Environmental Health Officers to emphasise the importance Ministers attach to a sensible, risk-related approach to the enforcement of food law. The Department investigates with the local authorities concerned all cases brought to its attention where there is a suggestion that the law has been applied in an over-zealous way.

  Nutritional Therapists
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recognition her Department has accorded to the Register of Nutritional Therapists Ltd.; what representations her Department has received about claims to official recognition made by this body; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have recently been made aware of the claim that the title "The Register of Nutritional Therapists" has been approved by the Department of Health. We are taking up this matter with the company concerned and I shall write to my hon. Friend when the outcome of our inquiries is known.

  Child Residential Care
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost to a local authority each year to keep a child in residential care.

  Mr. Bowis
  The centrally held national information is the direct revenue cost, net of related income, of keeping a child in a community home or registered voluntary home, excluding the cost of field social work support, central administration etc. This was £29,016 per year for the year ended 31 March 1991.

  Adoption
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost to a local authority of arranging for the adoption of a child.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Fellowship Charitable Foundation
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions her Department has held, and with whom, regarding the security and welfare of users of establishments currently run by the Fellowship Charitable Foundation.

  Mr. Bowis
  Our guidance, LAC(93)6, to local authorities stresses the value of having contingency plans to cover events such as unplanned home closures. The aim is to enable home closures to be handled with minimum disruption to individuals. Guidance on the practicalites of
  633
  such contingency planning was produced earlier this year by the community care support force and will be placed in the Library.

  If, despite these measures, a residential care home suddenly closes and alternative accommodation is not available, the local authority should make residential care arrangements for the residents under its duty under the National Assistance Act 1948 to provide residential care to people who are in need of care and attention which is not otherwise available.

  Dentistry
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by how much the minimum charge for dental treatment has risen in(a) cash and (b) real terms in each year since 1979.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There is no minimum charge for national health service dental treatment. All treatment for those under 18 years is free, and 21 per cent. of adult courses of treatment are provided with full or partial relief from charges.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the location in England of emergency national health service dental units which are open at weekends; what is the average waiting time for a patient at each of these units; what guidance is given as to the recommended weekend opening hours and staffing levels of such units; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The 43 family health services authorities providing emergency dental services at weekends are shown in the table. These arrangements provide cover for patients in 84 family health services authority localities. Information on the average waiting time is not available centrally. Opening hours and staffing levels are matters for local decision. In addition, emergency treatment can also be provided by hospital accident and emergency departments.

  Family health services authorities providing emergency dental services at weekends and hunk holidays

  Cleveland

  Humberside

  North Yorkshire

  Bradford

  Kirklees

  Leeds

  Wakefield

  Leicestershire

  Nottinghamshire

  Doncaster

  Sheffield

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  Camden and Islington

  City and East London

  Enfield and Haringey

  East Sussex

  Kent

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  Surrey

  West Sussex

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  Dorset

  Hampshire

  Wiltshire

  Buckinghamshire

  Devon

  Shropshire

  Staffordshire

  634

  Dudley

  Wolverhampton

  Cheshire

  Liverpool

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  Lancashire

  Bolton

  Bury

  Manchester

  Oldham

  Rochdale

  Salford

  Trafford

  Wigan

  Contraceptives
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration the Government have given to imposing prescription charges on contraceptives.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no present plans to do so.

  Prescription Charges
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by how much prescription charges have risen in(a) cash terms and (b) real terms between 1979 and 1993.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  On 1 April 1993, prescription charges had risen by £4·05 cash and £1·53 in real terms since 1979. The charge remains substantially less than the average total cost of a prescribed item to the national health service. Only one in five precribed items dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors now attracts a charge, compared with two in five in 1979.

  Drugs Projects
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all drugs residential and rehabilitation projects by borough in the Greater London area; how many places each project has; what was the cost of each project in 1991–92; and what was the budget for 1992–93.

  Mr. Bowis
  Comprehensive information about residential and rehabilitation projects for drug misusers is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse, the national umbrella organisation for drug misuse services, which publishes a directory of services available to drug misusers by county and by London borough.

  Steroids
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many successful prosecutions have been made relating to the sale and/or distribution of anabolic steroids in each of the last three years; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 12 July 1993]: There has been one successful Medicines Act prosecution since 1991.

DEFENCE

  Skyship 600
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role has been designed for the Skyship 600 airship ordered by his Department; and if he will make a statement.
  635
  Mr. Aitken
  A Skyship 600 airship has been supplied to the MOD by Westinghouse Surveillance System Ltd. for a series of trials to assess the suitability of airships for a variety of possible roles. Until these trials have been completed and the results assessed, no decisions can be made on any future operational roles that airships might undertake.

  Service Training
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what have been the budgeting implications of reduction in numbers of service personnel involved in training in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Hanley
  Following the introduction of the new management strategy, data is now collected by budgetary area—as shown in table 2.2 of Defence Statistics 1993—and not by programme. It is not possible to identify separately the budgetary implications of the reductions in numbers of service personnel involved in training without disproportionate cost.

  Redundant Trainers
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department is taking to ensure that skilled trainers declared redundant by the armed services are used to their best advantage in the civilian economy.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Ministry of Defence provides a comprehensive training and resettlement service for all service leavers, including redundees. This is designed primarily to assist in the move to a second career, and includes advice on the job market and the skills required. Many service leavers not only possess a wide range of skills but will also have several years experience as instructors, trainers and teachers. In addition to the wider marketing of their potential through the "Access to Excellence" campaign, a number of specific initiatives are being pursued in conjunction with the Departments of Employment and Education to promote their value as instructors and trainers for employment opportunities through the training and enterprise councils and within the new general national vocational qualification scheme.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Spanish battalion in UNPROFOR II will be withdrawn; what changes have been or will be made to the area of responsibility of the United Kingdom contingent as a result; if additional logistic support will be required; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  : The duration of individual nations' contributions to UNPROFOR is a matter for the UN and the nations concerned, which we would expect to make public any such decision. Currently there are no plans to change the areas of responsibility of the various national contingents to UNPROFOR Bosnia-Herzegovina command, and consequently no requirement for additional logistic support.

  Burma
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training facilities Her Majesty's Government currently offer to military personnel from Burma.
  636
  Mr. Hanley
  None: The inclusion of Burma in the list of countries that receive military training provided in the answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) gave the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on 27 May, at column 681, referred to a civilian who was due to attend a military medical course, but who in the event did not turn up.

  Red Arrows
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current annual cost of maintaining the Red Arrows RAF formation flying team.

  Mr. Hanley
  The full accounting which takes into account station overheads cost of maintaining and supporting the RAF Red Arrows aerobatic team for financial year 1992–93 was some £17,000,000. The cash cost, which comprises pay, aviation fuel and travel and subsistence, was some £2,000,000.

  Airborne Warning and Communication System
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what limitations AWACS has in tracking slow-moving propellor-driven light aircraft; if he will make a statement on the reasons for these limitations and on their effects on the ability of the international community to police unauthorised air traffic over Bosnia-Herzegovina; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  AWACS was designed and developed to detect fast-moving military aircraft, larger than those suspected of violating the no-fly zone, flying beyond and below the coverage of surface radars. AWACS' performance in detecting small, slow-moving targets is less effective than for its primary role. The ability to detect these slow-moving targets is further inhibited by the "radar shadow" afforded by the mountainous terrain. Details of suspected violations are reported to the United Nations in a number of ways and the limitations of AWACS does not have a material effect on monitoring the operation of the no-fly zone.

  Chemical and Biological Weapons
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many committees are run by the Chemical and Biological Defence Board of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council; what are the titles of each committee; how long each committee has existed; how many people sit on each committee; and how many of these people are from universities and institutions of higher education.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Chemical and Biological Defence Board of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council has three committees reporting to it. These are:

  (i) The Biomedical Sciences Committee which has been in existence since 1 January 1992 and has nine members of whom seven are from universities and institutions of higher education.

  (ii) The Microbiology and Biotechnology Committee which has been in existence since 1 January 1992 and has nine members of whom five are from universities and institutions of higher education.

  (iii) The Physical Sciences Committee which has been in existence since 1 January 1981 and has 10 members all of whom are from universities of higher education.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times the Government have reviewed
  637
  their policy concerning the production of (a) chemical weapons and (b) biological weapons since 1979; and how many times United Kingdom Defence Ministers have discussed this policy with the Defense Secretaries of the United States Government during that time.

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Kingdom abandoned its offensive biological capability after the second world war and its offensive chemical capability in the 1950s and that remains the Government's policy. Since then the United Kingdom's policy has concentrated on implementation of an effective defence against the use of such weapons and international agreements on their control, destruction and eventual abolition. The Government consider their policy on these latter issues on a regular basis, and have a long-standing and continuing dialogue with the United States authorities. The issues are discussed at ministerial level when necessary.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many contingency plans have been considered or drawn up by the Ministry of Defence for the supply of chemicals and biological weapons from its allies in the event of an emergency, since 1963.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Ministry of Defence has had no contingency plans to obtain chemical or biological weapons from its allies since the United Kingdom abandoned its offensive capabilities in chemical weapons in the 1950s and biological weapons after the second world war.

  Depleted Uranium Shells
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what communication he has received since 1 June from(a) the Traumatic After Care Trust and (b) Galloway United Against Radiation Danger in regard to the health risks posed by the testing and use of depleted uranium shells.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department has no record of receiving any communication from Galloway United Against Radiation Danger since 1 June. The directors of the Trauma After Care Trust wrote to me on 8 July, but their letter does not specifically mention such health risks.

  Defence Statistics
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many copies of his Department's United Kingdom Defence Statistics 1993 have been printed; at what cost; and to whom it has been distributed.

  Mr. Hanley
  A total of 9,300 copies of United Kingdom Defence Statistics 1993 were printed. The costs of printing and publication were borne by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, which aims to recover its costs from sales revenue.

  In addition to commercial sales, copies were distributed widely within the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces, to British embassies and high commissions, other Government Departments, the Libraries of both Houses, the House of Commons Vote Office, members of the press and academics.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of national income goes on military spending in(a) Britain, (b) Germany and (c) Japan; and what is the European average.
  638
  Mr. Hanley
  Defence expenditure for the United Kingdom and Germany in 1992 as a proportion of gross domestic product was 4·1 per cent. and 2·2 per cent. respectively. Japan is expected to devote around 1 per cent. of its GDP to defence in 1992–93. Total defence expenditure by European NATO countries in 1992 was some 2·7 per cent. of their aggregate gross domestic product.

  Guard service
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of his Department's new guard service and of its performance relative to previous arrangements.

  Mr. Hanley
  The MOD Guard Service (MGS) was implemented on 1 October 1992 to bring together a variety of guarding grades locally recruited at some 300 different sites under a wide variety of conditions of service. While the guards had given good service and provided security which was generally high, the new service is designed to produce a more professional body with commonality of uniform; professional standards; pay; conditions of service; staffing structure; and centralised training. The result is an improved performance over the previous arrangements. For the future, improvements to MGS training together with the introduction of recently formulated national vocational qualifications for guarding will further enhance the high standards already achieved.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if there have been any secondees from the British Army to military training establishments in Bangladesh in 1992 or 1993; and what plans there are for such secondments in future.

  Mr. Hanley
  There were no British Army secondees in the period, although there was a tri-service training team on loan service in Bangladesh until October 1992. There are no immediate plans for any secondments in future.

  Mr. Meacher To
  ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are for inviting Bangladeshi military personnel to attend development and technical training courses in British military establishments.

  Mr. Hanley
  Bangladesh bids for places on courses in British military establishments, in a similar way to other countries. Bangladeshi students attend military courses on a variety of subjects. Details of training provided are confidential.

PRIME MINISTER

  Referendums
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the dates since 1979 on which Government policy on the desirability of a referendum has been expressed by the Prime Minister in an official capacity; and whether the Prime Minister was in favour in the cases listed in his parliamentary answer,Official Report, 28 November 1991, column 608.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 28 November 1991 at columns
  639
  613–14. I supported the views expressed on behalf of the Government by my predecessor. Since then there have been four occasions, all of which referred to European integration, on which I have made the Government's views clear: 3 June 1992, Official Report, column 830; 18 June 1992, Official Report, column 1037; 16 March 1993, Official Report, column 167; and 30 March 1993, Official Report, column 156.

  Tokyo Communique
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what specific steps he intends to take to(a) encourage the multilateral development banks to focus more intensively on sustainable development and (b) incorporate environmental appraisals into project preparation and to make them publicly available, as stated at paragraph 8 of the G7 communique from Tokyo on 9 July.

  The Prime Minister
  Following the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in June 1992 the Government have supported a wide range of improvements in this area. For the International Development Association of the World bank, details are set out in the report on the 10th replenishment which the House approved on 12 July. Negotiations on the sixth replenishment of the African Development Fund and the capital resources of the Inter-American and Asian development banks are currently in progress. We are also actively working for agreement by the World bank board to proposals to make more information on its projects publicly available, including environmental assessments: a decision is expected soon.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister what consideration he has given to the appointment of a senior Minister as(a) a Minister with special responsibility for young people and (b) a Minister with special responsibility for older people; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to his similar question on 14 November 1991 at column 639 about designating a Minister with responsibility for young people. Similarly, issues facing older people are not specific to that age group. Appointing a Minister with special responsibility to look after such groups would diffuse responsibilities for particular aspects of policy which presently fall clearly on each departmental Minister.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made towards holding a further meeting of the London conference on former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The steering committee of the international conference on the former Yugoslavia met at senior official level in Geneva on 1 July. There are currently no plans to hold a further meeting, at either official or ministerial level, but the co-chairmen are keeping this under review.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made in placing monitors on the border between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Bosnia-Herzegovina; and if he will make a statement.
  640
  The Prime Minister
  Following the adoption of United Nations Security Council resolution 838, the Secretary-General submitted to the Security Council a report on the options for deployment of international border monitors on the border between Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia/ Montenegro. Following full discussion of the report in the Security Council, the President of the Council replied, asking the Secretary-General to investigate whether the states involved were willing to co-operate in the deployment of monitors and, if so, which member states of the United Nations would be prepared to contribute monitors. We await the outcome of these soundings.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) why publication of information about population with disabilities has been discontinued in the report, "Households Below Average Income";

  (2) if he will ensure that the next "Households Below Average Income" report makes specific reference to people with disabilities and includes statistical data covering disabled pensioners and recipients of disability benefits and invalidity benefits who are under pensionable age.

  Mr. Burt
  Information on people with disabilities was discontinued as part of the "Households Below Average Income" (HBAI) report following recommendation 4.34 of the HBAI stocktaking report published and placed in the Library in November 1991.

  The family expenditure survey, the data source for the HBAI report, does not record whether an individual is disabled and the stocktaking report, expressed concern about the reliability of the data for sick and disabled people.

  There are no plans to change the information provided in the next HBAI statistics.

  Incomes
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the increase in real incomes for the top decile of the income range between 1979 and the latest available year before and after housing costs.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on 8 July at columns 214–15.

  Pensioners Living Abroad
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he has any plans to change the basis on which United Kingdom retirement pensions and widows' benefits are paid to people living abroad; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to change the basis on which United Kingdom retirement pensions and widows' benefits are paid to people living abroad; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  In general, annual upratings of those benefits are not paid outside the United Kingdom, but some 13,500 pensioners and widows living abroad have
  641
  erroneously been awarded benefit in excess of their legal entitlement, most between 1988 and August 1991. All new awards since August 1991 have been made on the correct legal basis. But there are about 10,500 continuing overpayments; some are only a few pence a week and the average is about £10·80 a week. The total cost is estimated at £33 million between 1985–86 and 1992–93.

  We shall not be taking steps to reduce those pensions that are being overpaid since the past overpayments are not recoverable under section 71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and we are ensuring that United Kingdom pensioners who have received a certain level of benefit, albeit at too high a rate in existing law, should not now suffer a reduction for reasons which are no fault of their own. For that reason, we intend to introduce an amendment to the Social Security Benefit (Persons Abroad) Regulations which will provide a legal basis for maintaining these payments at their present rate.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing what expenditure on social security would be in real terms in each year since 1973–74 if the number of pensioners, sick, unemployed, widows and families, etcetera had remained unchanged at 1973–74 levels; and what proportion of the gross domestic product such spending accounted for in each year.

  Mr. Scott
  It is not possible to provide the information requested.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate what expenditure on(a) housing benefit, (b) council tax benefit and (c) the social fund is attributable to the rise in unemployment.

  Mr. Scott
  Information in the form requested is not available. However, in 1992–93 expenditure on housing benefit and community charge benefit for unemployed people in Great Britain was £2,032 million. Awards from the social fund to unemployed people in Great Britain amounted to £115 million excluding cold weather payments. Information about cold weather payments is not available.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing social security expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product in each year since 1963.

  Mr. Burt
  The percentage figures for each year from 1963–64 until 1977–78 are in the table. Those for subsequent years are shown in table 4 of the Department of Social Security publication "The Growth of Social Security".

  Years

  Benefit expenditure as a percentage of GDP

  1963–64

  6·3

  1964–65

  6·0

  1965–66

  6·6

  1966–67

  6·6

  1967–68

  8·1

  1968–69

  8·0

  1969–70

  7·4

  1970–71

  7·2

  642

  Years

  Benefit expenditure as a percentage of GDP

  1971–72

  7·5

  1972–73

  7·4

  1973–74

  7·4

  1974–75

  7·7

  1975–76

  8·1

  1976–77

  8·6

  1977–78

  8·9

  Source used to obtain figures "Annual Abstract of Statistics", various years.

  Legal Aid
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 28 June,Official Report, column 337, if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidance notes issued to assessment officers assessing financial eligibility in civil legal aid cases.

  Mr. Burt
  Copies of the relevant guidance have been placed in the Library.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what proposals he has for introducing legislation to disregard attendance on employment training courses by those entitled to adult dependency supplements to their invalidity benefit from before the introduction of the all-or-nothing earnings rule on 15 September 1985, for the purpose of protecting existing beneficiaries;

  (2) on what date extra-statutory payments were cancelled for those previously entitled to adult dependency increases on top of their invalidity benefit and who have lost that entitlement due to attendance on an employment training course; what plans he has to issue new instructions restoring the right to make extra-statutory payments to this category of benefit claimants; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what is his current estimate of the number of claimants of invalidity benefit supplemented by adult dependency allowance dating back to before 15 September 1985, who have lost their allowance due to attendance on employment training courses since 1988; and how many successful claims there have been for extra-statutory payments equalling the lost adult dependency allowance and to what total estimated value.

  Mr. Scott
  Information on the number of invalidity benefit recipients with an adult dependency increase where entitlement ended due to attendance on employment training courses since 1988 is unavailable. By April 1991, the latest date for which figures are available, there had been five successful claims for extra-statutory payments to a total value of £2,477·70. Instructions to staff to make extra-statutory payments in affected cases were cancelled in error in January 1993, but are being reinstated today. The Government intend to bring forward legislation to place these payments on a statutory footing when a suitable opportunity arises.
  643

  National Insurance
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost of changing the national insurance threshold into a tax allowance in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95.

  Mr. Hague
  If employees did not pay contributions on that part of their earnings which falls below the lower earnings limit the cost would be as follows:

  (£ billion)

  In year

  Full year

  1993–94

  0·9

  1·0

  1994–95

  0·9

  1·0

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much revenue would be raised by abolishing the national insurance ceiling in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95.

  Mr. Hague
  If the upper earnings limit for employees' contributions was abolished, the additional revenue yield in a full year would be about £2·7 billion for 1993–94 and £3·5 billion for 1994–95. If the upper profits limit for self-employed class 4 contributions was also abolished, the additional yield would be about £0·4 billion for 1993–94 and £0·5 billion for 1994–95.

  Over 3 million people would have to pay extra national insurance contributions as a result.

  Pensions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of raising the basic state retirement pension to a level at which income support and housing benefit would cease to be payable to pensioners; and by how much the standard rate of income tax would have to be raised to raise the same sum.

  Mr. Hague
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 June 1993, column 61]: The information was incorrect and incomplete due to a transcription error. The correct information is as follows:

  The additional cost of increasing the basic retirement pension to the higher pensioner rate of income support would be £3·4 billion. This represents a full year extra cost in 1993–94 net of savings made by the consequent reduction in spending on income-related benefits.

  The basic rate of income tax would have to be increased by 3 pence to raise this amount.

  It is not possible to estimate a level of retirement pension at which all pensioners cease to be eligible for housing benefit as entitlement depends on the level of rent paid, and rents vary widely. As an illustration of the cost involved we estimate that it would cost £11·2 billion net in 1993–94 to' increase retirement pensions to a level where income support and housing benefit entitlement would cease for pensioners paying the average local authority weekly rent paid by pensioners in receipt of housing benefit—£26·64 in May 1991, the latest available figures.

  The basic rate of income tax would have to be increased by 8p to raise this amount.

  Note: The estimated amounts of increases in the basic rate of income tax have been rounded to the next whole penny.
  644

SCOTLAND

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he gives to hospital trusts on the amount of money they should spend on the production of business plans.

  Mr. Stewart
  No specific guidance has been issued. It is for trusts to decide on such matters having regard to the overall principle of obtaining best value for money.

  Caledonian MacBrayne
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to set targets for Caledonian MacBrayne.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has decided to set the following targets for Caledonian MacBrayne for the year 1993–94. The company will be required to achieve as a financial target that fares income should cover at least 59 per cent. of operating costs, including depreciation on a replacement cost basis and provision for an 8 per cent. forgone rate of return on capital. As an efficiency target, the company will be asked not to exceed a maximum unit cost of £1·04 per passenger car unit capacity kilometre. As a quality of service target, the company will be asked to achieve a figure of 96·5 per cent. of sailings arriving on time, excluding sailings which are delayed or cancelled for safety reasons, for example, adverse weather conditions. My right hon. Friend considers that the setting of these targets will provide a clear framework for the operation of the company, consistent with the objectives of securing continued improvement in operational efficiency and standards of service.

  Fisheries Protection Agency
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the annual report and accounts for 1992–93 of the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency.

  Mr. Lang
  I have today published the report, copies of which have been laid in both Houses.

  House Condition Survey
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects Scottish Homes to publish the main report of the Scottish house condition survey.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I understand that Scottish Homes will publish the Report of the Scottish house condition survey on Tuesday 20 July and I have arranged for copies to be deposited in the House Libraries and sent to all Scottish Members.

  Police
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland; when he will issue his consultation document reviewing police conduct and performance procedures in the Scottish police service.

  Mr. Lang
  I am today issuing a paper which invites comments on proposals for new procedures to deal with
  645
  unsatisfactory performance and unacceptable conduct in the police service. I believe these arrangements would be in keeping with the changes which have been, and are being made, to personnel management in the police service. Some of my proposals are drawn from those contained in a similar consultation paper issued by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. My proposals which are designed to modernise and simplify existing procedures in line with best management practice, build on the excellent work already being done by the police themselves to improve the quality of their service to the public.

  I have invited comments on the paper by 31 August 1993 and shall welcome views from everyone with an interest in these issues.

  Copies of the paper are available in the Library and in the Vote Office.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to whom each of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Scottish Office is responsible; whether the public bodies or their members in each case are subject to(a) surcharge, (b) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (c) scrutiny by the Audit Commission or National Audit Office, (d) the statutory provisions for open government which apply to local authorities, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charters; and whether the chairpersons and members of the boards of each of these bodies are required to declare an interest.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 6 July 1993]: The day-to-day management responsibility of executive NDPBs depends on the statutory or other arrangements relevant to the individual NDPB. All are responsible through me to Parliament for the proper management of any Government funds made available to them. In respect of the other matters referred to in the question: (a) I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) on 24 June at column 273;(b) those bodies subject to the scrutiny of the Parliamentary Commissioner are listed in the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 as amended by the Parliamentary and Health Service Commissioners Act 1987; (c) the audit regime of NDPBs is listed in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies", which is available in the Library of the House and in certain cases the Comptroller and Auditor General is able to undertake other scrutiny of NDPBs; (d) the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 does not apply to NDPBs; (e) performance indicators are often published in the annual report of the body and will normally be contained in the management statement for the body concerned; a selection are included in my Department's departmental report; (f) the citizens charter applies to NDPBs. Scottish Office executive NDPBs are encouraged to fulfil the provisions of the citizens charter and many are already doing so. Management statements will contain commitments to citizens charter principles. In addition, NDPBs will in due course produce charter standard statements.

  I take into account the question of interests of chairmen and members of the boards of executive NDPBs when I am making appointments to a body. Arrangements for the
  646
  declaration of interest of members on specific items under consideration by the body are normal practice; detailed arrangements vary depending on the body.

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last consulted the leaders of the political parties in Scotland represented in Parliament regarding appointments made by him to the Parliamentary Boundary Commission of Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 9 July 1993]: In December 1988.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he appointed(a) Mr. A. R. Napier and (b) Professor U. A. Wannop to be members of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Scotland; and what is the duration of the appointment.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 9 July 19931: Professor U. A. Wannop was first appointed a member of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Scotland on 6 June 1983 and Mr. A. R. Napier on 2 May 1985. Both members were subsequently reappointed in December 1988 for a period of five years until 31 December 1993.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Taxation
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on the balance between direct and indirect taxation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Since 1979 the share of total tax revenue raised as direct tax has fallen by 4 per cent. The share of tax revenue raised as direct tax from individuals has fallen by over 7 per cent.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies have been undertaken into the relationship between the lowering of taxation levels and the amount of revenue generated by those taxes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Changes in the tax system over the last 14 years have lowered marginal tax rates and have encouraged the enterprise and initiative on which a strong growing economy and buoyant tax revenues depend.

  Redundant Workers (Counselling)
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on his proposal to introduce tax relief for companies offering counselling to redundant workers with two years or more service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The great majority of the representations we have received have welcomed the proposed relief for outplacement counselling.

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reduce the balance of payments deficit.
  647
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the balance of payments.

  Mr. Portillo
  The key to reducing the balance of payments deficit is improving our competitiveness. The Government have facilitated this by getting inflation down to its lowest for a generation. Unit wage costs in manufacturing are falling while they are rising in many of our main competitors. The Government have also taken specific action to assist exporters, such as extending Export Credits Guarantee Department cover.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what financial implications to the Treasury arise out of the delayed consultation on the commissioning of THORP.

  Mr. Portillo
  British Nuclear Fuels plc has assessed the impact on its profits of a delay to commissioning THORP to be £2 million per week. The level of profits is a consideration in determining the level of dividend 13NFL will pay to the Government as its shareholder.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect on public spending of Government policies on unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government plan to spend. £2.8 billion in 1993–94 on training, enterprise and vocational education programmes to help around If million unemployed people back into work. The Budget included £125 million—net cost—to provide an additional 100,000 opportunities.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about levels of VAT receipts.

  Sir John Cope
  VAT receipts in the last financial year, 1992–93 are estimated to have been £37·0 billion. They are forecast to total £39·9 billion in 1993–94.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revenue will be raised by the extension of VAT to fuel bills.

  Sir John Cope
  The estimated revenue yield is £950 million in 1994–95 and £2,300 million in 1995–96.

  Pools Betting Duty
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the future of the reduction in pools betting duty introduced to enable football clubs to continue to fund capital works in line with the Taylor report.

  Sir John Cope
  In the 1990 Budget pool betting duty was reduced from 42·5 per cent. to 40 per cent. for five years to help finance the implementation of the Taylor report and in particular the achievement of all-seating. The 648
  former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Lamont), made it clear that the Government will be prepared to extend the reduction to the year 2000 provided the football leagues and football clubs produce satisfactory plans to finance their own contribution to further necessary ground improvements. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage will shortly be discussing the position with us on the basis of information supplied by the Football Trust and the clubs themselves, in support of an extension of the reduction.

  Bank of England
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of an independent Bank of England.

  Sir John Cope
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that he intends to listen to the debate that is now going on, so we have not made a final assessment yet.

  Business Expansion Scheme
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Cancellor of the Exchequer how many companies set up under the business expansion scheme have achieved substantial growth in profitability, growth and productivity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is not available. BES has served its purpose well over the years. A wide range of companies have been helped and the scheme has contributed to a climate in which the role of entrepreneurship has been recognised. We are firmly committed to supporting small firms through a range of policies.

  Bank of England
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to encourage public debate about the future role of the Bank of England.

  Sir John Cope
  I am not sure any encouragement is needed from either my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor or me. We are particularly interested in the contribution my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) and other hon. members who serve on the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee are making in their inquiry into the future role of the Bank of England.

  Nationalised Industries
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what comparative studies have been undertaken of the systems for providing capital financing for nationalised industries among EC countries.

  Sir John Cope
  While we are generally aware of other countries' arrangements, the Government have not undertaken a comprehensive study.

  Other countries are following the United Kingdom's lead in privatising nationalised industries.
  649

  Income Tax
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received in the current financial year calling for an increase in income taxes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have received a number of representations concerning the rates of income tax; some of these favour an increase in the rates and some favour a decrease. It remains the Government's objective to move towards a basic rate of 20 per cent. when it is prudent to do so.

  Health Expenditure
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much public spending on health has changed in real terms since 1978–79; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  This year we plan to spend 61·4 per cent. more on the national health service, in real terms, than we did in 1978–79.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total revenue from stamp duty on the sale of houses and flats in the latest quarter for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A provisional figure for receipts of stamp duty on all transactions of land and other property except for shares in the first quarter of 1993 is £150·9 million.

  Public Spending
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the public spending planning total for 1994–95.

  Mr. Portillo
  The new control total for 1994–95 was set in the 1992 autumn statement at £253·6 billion.

  Manufacturing Productivity
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on trends in manufacturing productivity over the past year.

  Mr. Portillo
  Manufacturing productivity in the three months to May was 8·7 per cent. higher than a year earlier. This was the highest growth rate for over six years.

  Consumer Price Inflation
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the level of consumer price inflation is in Britain; and what are the OECD and EC averages.

  Sir John Cope
  Latest figures show that consumer price inflation in the United Kingdom is 1·2 per cent. This is below the average levels in OECD and EC countries of 2·9 and 3·3 per cent. respectively.

  Share Option Schemes
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many United Kingdom quoted companies run executive share option schemes; how many directors have taken out options at the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.
  650
  Mr. Dorrell
  In relation to executive share option schemes approved by the Inland Revenue, this information is not readily available. Information about schemes that are not approved by the Inland Revenue is not held centrally.

  Public Sector Pay
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the effect on the total amount spent on public sector pay in 1994–95 of public sector pay rises in 1994 of(a) 2 per cent., (b) 3 per cent., (c) 4 per cent. and (d) the latest rate of inflation which will be used for the upgrading of pensions and benefits.

  Mr. Portillo
  Estimates of expenditure on pay across the public sector as a whole are difficult to make due to the disparate nature of the pay bargaining arrangements applying to the groups involved. However, it is estimated that each one per cent. change in public sector pay in 1994–95 would cost/save about £¾ billion.

  Assumed public sector pay rise in 1994

  Estimated cost in 1994–95 £ billion

  (a) 2 per cent.

  1·5

  (b) 3 per cent.

  2·25

  (c) 4 per cent.

  3·00

  (d) Inflation rate used to upgrade pensions and benefits1

  1·5

  1 The March 1993 Financial Statement and Budget Report gave an assumption of 2 per cent, for the increase in the RPI over the year to September 1993.

  Duty Free Goods
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his best estimate on an annual basis of the loss in revenue to each EC country due to increased sales of duty free goods since changes in duty free laws were introduced on 1 January 1993.

  Sir John Cope
  The information is not available.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 2 June 1992,Official Report, column 399, what has been the total cost to the Exchequer of the Gulf war to date; and what are his latest figures for the cash contribution of other countries to the cost of the Gulf war.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Ministry of Defence currently estimates that the additional military cost of the Gulf conflict is £2,345 million, spread over several years. The Export Credits Guarantee Department has paid up to 31 March 1993, £499 million of claims arising from the situation in the Gulf in 1990–91 and which have yet to be recovered. A further £160 million of claims on Iraq have yet to be examined. Other Departments incurred minor costs in respect of the conflict.

  The bulk of these costs has been offset by the cash contributions from other Governments totalling £2,049 million.
  651

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he gives to complaints of excessive zeal on the part of Inland Revenue investigating officers from hon. Members; how many such complaints he has received with regard to the special office No. 2; what written guidance exists to guide him on how to deal with such complaints; and if he will place a copy of such guidance in the Library.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There are no special arrangements for dealing with this type of complaint, which would be referred to the Inland Revenue for full investigation and report in the normal way. A response would then be made to the hon. Member as appropriate by the Minister responsible or by the Inland Revenue direct.

  I am not aware that any such complaints have been received with regard to the special office No. 2.

  Government Staff
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of staff in post in central Government Departments at 1 April.

  Mr. Portillo
  On 1 April 1993 there were 554,212 staff in post in central Government, a decrease of about 13,600 since 1 October 1992. This is the largest six-monthly fall since July 1987.

  Of the total staff in post, 502,798 were non-industrials and 51,414 were classified as being in industrial work. A summary showing staff in post by Department has been placed in the Library.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  General Medical Practices
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at which health centres it is planned to proceed with capital expenditure projects in support of general medical practices in each of the next three years.

  Eastern

  Northern

  Southern

  Western

  Full time

  Part time

  Full time

  Part time

  Full time

  Part time

  Full time

  Part time

  1990

  362

  192

  115

  89

  48

  70

  159

  20

  1991

  284

  200

  94

  92

  69

  80

  161

  21

  1992

  292

  197

  91

  86

  62

  89

  154

  20

  1993

  270

  209

  88

  96

  68

  98

  156

  27

  Notes:

  1. Figures quoted are at March each year and include both hospital and community midwives.

  2. Information prior to March 1990 is not available in a compatible form.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many midwifery staff are employed in each health board area(a) full time and (b) part time (i) on an agency basis and (ii) on bank contracts.

  Mr. Ancram
  There are no agency midwives employed in the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland. As at March 1993 there were 35 part-time midwives employed on bank contracts by the Eastern board and two by the Southern board.
  652
  Mr. Ancram
  Health centres in Northern Ireland at which capital expenditure is planned in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 are as listed:

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Eastern Health and Social Services Board

  Lisburn HC

  Not known

  Not known

  Shankill HC

  Northern Health and Social Services Board

  Glengormley

  Ballyclare1

  Whiteabbey

  Antrim

  Larne1

  Ballyclare

  Ballymena1

  Whitehead1

  Larne

  Bellaghy1

  Ballymena

  Carrickfergus

  Cookstown

  Bellaghy

  Whitehead

  Cullybackey

  Greenisland

  Portglenone2

  Portglenone

  Randalstown

  Ballycastle

  Coleraine

  Garvagh

  Southern Health and Social Services Board

  Portadown

  HC

  Nil

  Nil

  Western Health and Social Services Board

  Dungiven1

  Dungiven

  Nil

  Shantallow1

  Shantallow

  Eglinton

  Omagh

  Omagh

  Carrickmore

  Lisnaskea

  Carrickmore1

  1 Indicates a project carried into the second year.

  2 Indicates a project split over two years.

  Midwives
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many midwives were employed(a) full time and (b) part time in each health board area in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many practising midwives there are in each grade in each health board area, including those in senior nurse/senior midwife grades, senior nurse grades and education and clinical grades, excluding agency midwives; how many are employed(a) full time and (b) part time; and how many student midwives there are in each area.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows at March 1993:
  653

  Eastern Board

  Northern Board

  Southern Board

  Western Board

  Full time

  Part time

  Full time

  Part time

  Full time

  Part time

  Full time

  Part time

  Clinical Grade D

  25

  9

  —

  2

  2

  90

  20

  4

  Clinical Grade E

  126

  185

  45

  81

  24

  4

  74

  20

  Clinical Grade F

  6

  4

  3

  3

  —

  3

  5

  3

  Clinical Grade G

  99

  8

  38

  10

  39

  1

  55

  —

  Clinical Grade H

  6

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Clinical Grade I

  6

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  Unit Senior Manager II

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Student Midwife D

  44

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Student Midwife E

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Note:—There are currently a further 21 practising midwives (19 full-time, 2 part-time) in educational grades who are employed by the National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Northern Ireland.

  Imported Animals
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which animals have been designated under the Destructive Imported Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1933 and in subsequent regulations made under that Act.

  Mr. Ancram
  Musk-rats, grey squirrels, non-indigenous rabbits, coypus, mink and arctic foxes.

  £ million

  1988–89 Outturn

  1989–90 Outturn

  1990–91 Outturn

  1991–92 Outturn

  1992–93 Outturn

  1993–94 Plans

  Financed by European Regional Development receipts

  47

  40

  49

  50

  120

  103

  Financed by European Social Fund receipts

  36

  46

  51

  53

  47

  55

  Financed by European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund1 (Guidance Section receipts)

  13

  9

  10

  29

  25

  19

  Total

  96

  95

  110

  132

  192

  177

  Per Capita Value (£)2

  61

  60

  69

  83

  119

  109

  1 The agricultural industry in Northern Ireland receives amounts under the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF (ie under the Common Agricultural Policy). Most of these payments are made centrally on a United Kingdom basis through the Intervention Board Executive Agency and no record of such payments is maintained on a territorial basis. Identifiable receipts for 1991–92 amount to some £60 million.

  2 Based on mid-year population estimates.

  From 1994 onwards, Structural Funds allocations to Northern Ireland will be governed by a new Community Support Framework. It will be some months before the expenditure under the various headings will be known.
  654

  EC Funds
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what EC contribution was made to public expenditure in Northern Ireland(a) in total and (b) per capita in each of the last five years and the current year; what are his projections for each of the next two years; and for each of those years what is his estimate of the sums received under each heading used by the EC.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The "Northern Ireland Expenditure Plans and Priorities—the Government's Expenditure Plans 1993–94 to 1995–96" (Cm 2216) published in February 1993 records EC Structural Funds contribution to public expenditure in Northern Ireland as follows:
  655

  Prisoners
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners there were in each prison in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years and the current year; how many were male and female; and what are his projections for the next two years.

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  11993–94

  Prison

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Belfast

  503

  —

  515

  —

  484

  —

  475

  —

  541

  —

  559

  —

  Maze

  678

  —

  538

  —

  488

  —

  484

  —

  473

  —

  494

  —

  Magilligan

  287

  —

  278

  —

  302

  —

  301

  —

  312

  —

  322

  —

  Maghaberry

  166

  26

  273

  23

  297

  30

  300

  38

  317

  43

  324

  40

  YOC Hydebank

  162

  —

  156

  —

  179

  —

  198

  —

  179

  —

  213

  —

  Totals

  1,796

  26

  1,760

  23

  1,750

  30

  1,758

  38

  1,822

  43

  1,912

  40

  1 April-June 1993 only.

  It is not possible to project the population by prison establishment.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for how many prisoners he has budgeted in his estimates for the current year and each of the next two years.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Financial plans are related to actual and anticipated accommodation needs and usage and not directly to prisoner numbers.

  Sheep
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total sheep quota for(a) less favoured areas and (b) non-less-favoured areas in Northern Ireland; and what is his estimate of the current total breeding ewe flock in each of those areas.

  In-patient and community treatment of mental illness in Northern Ireland

  In-patient

  Community12

  Year

  Patients admitted

  Long stay patients at year ended 31 March

  Outpatient referrals seen

  Day patients first attendances

  1988–89

  n/a

  21,628

  8,916

  2122

  1989–90

  5,749

  1,786

  9,704

  685

  1990–91

  5,479

  1,653

  8,925

  1,335

  1991–92

  5,376

  1,613

  9,743

  1,463

  1992–93

  5,752

  n/a

  11,149

  1,304

  1 Does not include patients who began their first episode of care in an earlier year.

  2 This information is incomplete.

  n/a Not Available.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total public expenditure in Northern Ireland in(a) total and (b) per capita in each of the last five years and the current year; and what are his projections for each of the next two years.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The total public expenditure for Northern Ireland within the Secretary of State's responsibility and public expenditure per capita for the years 1988–89 to 1993–94 and forecasts for 1994–95 and 1995–96 are in the following table:
  656
  Sir John Wheeler
  The average prison population for the last six financial years was as follows:

  Mr. Ancram
  The total sheep annual premium quota for Northern Ireland is 1,393,888, of which 1,140,519 in the less-favoured areas—LFA—and 253,369 in the non-LFA. The total breeding ewe flock is currently estimated to be 1,142,399, of which 911,635 in the LFA and 230,764 in the non-LFA.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many mentally ill patients were treated(a) in the community and (b) as in-patients, for each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  (2) what percentage of patients were treated (a) as day patients, (b) as in-patients and (c) in the community by the NHS in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is not available in the form requested. Figures on in-patients and community treatment of mental illness patients are presented in the table:

  Total public expenditure

  Public expenditure per capita

  Year

  £ million

  £

  1988–89

  5,436

  3,445

  1989–90

  5,725

  3,617

  1990–91

  5,872

  3,694

  1991–92

  6,428

  4,032

  1992–93

  7,092

  4,402

  1993–94

  7,476

  4,598

  1994–95

  7,703

  4,703

  1995–96

  7,980

  4,842

  657

  Rural Planning Review
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the rural planning review, giving details of the consultation which has taken place, and the factors which have delayed it; when he expects to have draft proposals ready; and when they will be expected.

  Mr. Atkins
  A major consultation exercise was held in August 1991 with the circulation of the leaflet "What Kind of Countryside Do We Want?". In addition during late 1991 representations of the Department's town and country planning service attended 20 public meetings or rural clinics organised by the Rural Development Council, the Rural Community Network and Community Technical Aid at which the issues raised in the leaflet were discussed. By spring 1992 over 100 responses, including a substantial report on the rural clinics, were received. The Department has carefully analysed these comments and in the light of the full response to the consultation exercise the Department has decided that there will be no publication of draft proposals. It is intended that the new strategy will be published in September.

WALES

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list, by year for the last five years, and by county, the number of tonnes of special waste production in the waste categories of(a) hydrocarbons and their oxygen, nitrogen and/or sulphur compounds, (b) inorganic cyanides, (c) inorganic halogen containing compounds, (d) inorganic sulphur containing compounds, (e) laboratory chemicals, (f) lead compounds, (g) mercury compounds, (h) nickel and nickel compounds, (i) organic halogen compounds excluding inert polymeric materials and (j) peroxides, chlorates and azides;

  (2) if he will list, by year for the last five years, and by county, the number of tonnes of special waste production in the waste categores of (a) solvents-S halogen/mixed, (b) mineral oil sludges, (c) contaminated industrial waste, (d) empty contaminated drums, (e) pressurised cylinders/ aerosols, (f) contaminated soil, (g) mixed laboratory chemicals, (h) biocides-solid, (i) biocides-liquid, (j) biocides-aqueous diluted, (k) resins-organic and (l) filter material-organic;

  (3) if he will list, by year for the last five years, and by county, the number of tonnes of special waste production in the waste categories of (a) solid metal bearing, (b) solid inorganic, (c) solid CN, (d) solid organic, (e) solid asbestos, (f) filter material-inorganic, (g) acid metal bearing, (h) acid-inorganic, (i) acid-organic, (j) alkalis metal bearing, (k) alkalis-inorganic, (l) alkalis-organic and (m) aqueous cyanide;

  (4) if he will list, by year for the last five years, and by county, the number of tonnes of special waste production in the waste categories of (a) acids and alkalis, (b) antimony and antimony compounds, (c) arsenic compounds, (d) asbestos all chemical forms, (e) barium compounds, (f) beryllium and beryllium compounds, (g) biocides and phytopharmaceutical substances, (h) boron compounds, (i) cadmium and cadmium
  658
  compounds, (j) copper compounds, (k) heterocyclic organic compounds containing oxygen nitrogen and/or sulphur and (l) hexavalent chromium compounds;

  (5) if he will list, by year for the last five years, and by county, the number of tonnes of special waste production in the waste categories of (a) neutral metal bearing, (b) neutral-inorganic, (c) neutral-organic, (d) neutral-oily (one to 15 per cent.), (e) mineral oil and < 20 per cent. others, (f) mineral oil and > 20 per cent. others, (g) oil + >20 per cent. water <85 per cent., (h) grease/fat/wax/ vegetable oil, (i) cars/phenols, (j) solvents-non halogen, (k) solvents-halogenated, (l) solvents-mixed (including water) and (m) solvents-S non-halogen;

  (6) if he will list by year for the last five years, and by county, the number of tonnes of special waste production in the waste categories of (a) pharmaceutical waste, (b) mixed organics in drums, (c) metal compounds, (d) non-toxic metal compounds, (e) metals-elements, (f) metal oxides, (g) inorganic compounds, (h) other inorganic material, (i) organic compounds, (j) polymeric material and precursors, (k) fuels, oils and greases, (l) fine chemicals and biocides, (m) miscellaneous chemicals waste, (n) filter materials and sludges, (o) miscellaneous waste and (p) construction waste;

  (7) if he will list, by year for the last five years, and by county, the number of tonnes of special waste production in the waste categories of (a) pharmaceutical and veterinary compounds, (b) phosphorus and its compounds, (c) selenium and selenium compounds, (d) silver compounds, (e) tarry materials from refining and tar residues from distilling, (f) tellurium and tellurium compounds, (g) thallium and thallium compounds, (h) vanadium compounds and (i) zinc compounds.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is not currently available.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, by year for the last five years, and by county, the number of tonnes of special waste arisings and deposits.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is given in the following table.

  Special waste arising and disposed of, by county

  Tonnes

  Waste arising

  Waste disposed of

  1987–88:

  Clwyd

  10,309

  621

  Dyfed

  7,430

  83

  Gwent

  15,616

  27,362

  Gwynedd

  4,446

  10

  Mid Glamorgan

  3,327

  350

  Powys

  120

  0

  South Glamorgan

  12,272

  19,268

  West Glamorgan

  17,515

  304

  1988–89:

  Clwyd

  8,430

  715

  Dyfed

  7,476

  315

  Gwent

  16,428

  34,340

  Gwynedd

  3,152

  23

  Mid Glamorgan

  5,691

  780

  Powys

  139

  0

  South Glamorgan

  7,150

  97

  West Glamorgan

  11,123

  579

  1989–90

  Clwyd

  12,380

  1,624

  659

  Waste arising

  Waste disposed of

  Dyfed

  16,240

  340

  Gwent

  23,866

  30,396

  Gwynedd

  3,938

  50

  Mid Glamorgan

  3,740

  1,306

  Powys

  314

  0

  South Glamorgan

  8,125

  189

  West Glamorgan

  10,413

  776

  1990–91:

  Clwyd

  11,999

  1,262

  Dyfed

  15,209

  36

  Gwent

  22,134

  15,050

  Gwynedd

  6,874

  819

  Mid Glamorgan

  6,795

  4,875

  Powys

  381

  0

  South Glamorgan

  10,718

  42

  West Glamorgan

  15,081

  613

  1991–92:

  Clwyd

  27,563

  644

  Dyfed

  21,137

  196

  Gwent

  20,711

  28,786

  Gwynedd

  9,214

  700

  Mid Glamorgan

  9,436

  6,973

  Powys

  373

  0

  South Glamorgan

  8,487

  112

  West Glamorgan

  7,414

  733

  Source: HMIP 1986–87 to 1989–90; DOE 1990 onwards

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, by year for the last five years, and by county, the number of tonnes of special waste arising(a) within the county and deposited within the county, (b) within the county and exported out of the county and (c) outside the county and deposited within the county.

  Mr. Redwood
  From the information available, it is not possible to differentiate the amount of special waste originating in and deposited in a county from that imported into the county for deposition. Nor is it possible to determine the amount of special wastes exported from a county which originated in the county. Special wastes may be imported and re-exported as part of the treatment and disposal process. The available information is given in the following table.

  Special waste arising and disposed of. by county

  Tonnes

  Waste arising

  Waste imported from other areas

  Waste exported to other areas

  Waste disposed of

  1987–88

  Clwyd

  10,309

  846

  9,991

  621

  Dyfed

  7,430

  0

  7,347

  83

  Gwent

  15,616

  30,573

  18,760

  27,362

  Gwynedd

  4,446

  0

  4,436

  10

  Mid Glamorgan

  3,327

  301

  3,279

  350

  Powys

  120

  0

  120

  0

  South Glamorgan

  12,272

  12,507

  5,511

  19,268

  West Glamorgan

  17,515

  36

  17,247

  304

  1988–89

  Clwyd

  8,430

  654

  8,369

  715

  Dyfed

  7,476

  92

  7,253

  315

  Gwent

  16,428

  33,096

  15,185

  34,340

  Gwynedd

  3,152

  0

  3,129

  23

  Mid Glamorgan

  5,691

  747

  5,658

  780

  Powys

  139

  0

  139

  0

  South Glamorgan

  7,150

  156

  7,209

  97

  West Glamorgan

  11,123

  52

  10,596

  579

  660

  Waste arising

  Waste imported from other areas

  Waste exported to other areas

  Waste disposed of

  1989–90

  Clwyd

  12,380

  1,605

  12,361

  1,624

  Dyfed

  16,240

  0

  15,900

  340

  Gwent

  23,866

  31,531

  25,002

  30,396

  Gwynedd

  3,938

  0

  3,888

  50

  Mid Glamorgan

  3,740

  1,249

  3,683

  1,306

  Powys

  314

  0

  314

  0

  South Glamorgan

  8,125

  45

  7,981

  189

  West Glamorgan

  10,413

  74

  9,711

  776

  1990–91

  Clwyd

  11,999

  1,215

  11,952

  1,262

  Dyfed

  15,209

  13

  15,186

  36

  Gwent

  22,134

  18,996

  26,080

  15,050

  Gwynedd

  6,874

  0

  6,054

  819

  Mid Glamorgan

  6,795

  4,800

  6,720

  4,875

  Powys

  381

  0

  381

  0

  South Glamorgan

  10,718

  490

  11,166

  42

  West Glamorgan

  15,081

  104

  14,572

  613

  1991–92

  Clwyd

  27,563

  752

  27,672

  644

  Dyfed

  21,137

  76

  20,971

  196

  Gwent

  20,711

  13,845

  38,388

  28,786

  Gwynedd

  9,214

  8,931

  1,391

  700

  Mid Glamorgan

  9,436

  6,276

  8,739

  6,973

  Powys

  373

  0

  373

  0

  South Glamorgan

  8,487

  26

  8,401

  112

  West Glamorgan

  7,414

  161

  6,842

  733

  Source: HMIP 1986–87 to 1989–90; DOE 1990 onwards

  Valuation Tribunals
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the numbers of community charge and non-domestic rate appeals disposed of per full-time equivalent employee in each valuation tribunal office in Wales during the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The figures for appeals cleared in 1992–93 by each valuation tribunal office are as follows:

  Tribunal Office

  Full time equivalent staff

  Appeals Cleared

  Per Staff Member

  Clwyd

  13·33

  2·274

  689·1

  Dyfed

  4·0

  2,617

  654·2

  Gwent

  3·5

  1,957

  559·1

  Gwynedd

  22·3

  1,950

  847·8

  Mid-South Glamorgan

  5·0

  4,462

  892·4

  Powys

  2·5

  948

  379·4

  West Glamorgan

  4·0

  2,390

  597·5

  1 Clwyd tribunal office reduced from four to three full-time equivalent staff 1 August 1992.

  2 Gwynedd tribunal office reduced from three to 1·6 full-time equivalent staff 1 October 1992.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many non-domestic rate appeals were outstanding in Gwynedd at 30 June; how many of that number were lodged prior to 30 November; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  At 30 June, the Gwynedd valuation tribunal had 1,273 outstanding non-domestic rate appeals. Information on the number of those lodged prior to 30 November 1992 is not available.
  661

  Midwives
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many whole-time equivalent midwives there are at each increment point of each pay scale.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Detailed breakdowns of nursing and midwifery staff employed by health authorities and NHS trusts into occupational groups such as that requested are not considered reliable. However, I refer the hon. Gentleman to a letter that I sent to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) dated 13 July, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, which gave a breakdown of nursing and midwifery staff in post as at 30 September 1992—excluding students and pupils and staff nursery staff—by grade and pay spine point.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what specialist provision is currently available in Wales for early onset of Alzheimer's disease.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally. It is for health authorities to determine and provide the specialist provision required to meet local needs.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the level of sickness absence among employees in Wales by broad industrial sector expressed as(a) the average number of days lost and (b) the percentage of employee sickness absence.

  Regular day attenders at NHS day care facilities

  Number of patients treated1

  Day cases

  In-patient cases

  In the community2

  1987–88

  12,241

  78,471

  456,420

  —

  1988–89

  —

  85,012

  456,858

  —

  1989–90

  11,927

  86,486

  475,515

  —

  1990–91

  12,152

  101,191

  482,473

  222,869

  1991–92

  13,275

  132,945

  500,336

  219,548

  1 This does not relate to the number of people treated as one person may have been discharged more than once during the year.

  2 Patients treated by district nurses, community psychiatric nurses, community mental handicap nurses and other community nurses (excluding health visitors and midwives). It should be noted that an individual may be included more than once if they had been treated by more than one category of staff. Comparable information is not available prior to 1990–91.

  Voluntary Work
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those voluntary projects, organisations and bodies he has funded in Wales since 1986 along with the amount allocated, other than those which he has financed under section 21 of the Education Act 1980, listing Welsh language projects, organisations and bodies separately.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Department provides direct funding to about 250 voluntary organisations each year. In 1991–92, the latest year for which figures are available more than £10 million was paid in direct grants to the voluntary sector, £2 million of which was paid in support of Welsh language activities. In addition, a further £172 million was provided as indirect grants—i.e. those paid via health or local authorities or NDPBs—the bulk of which—some £164 million—was paid to housing associations.
  662
  Mr. Redwood
  The information available on sickness absence, by sector of industry, is given in the following table. These estimates are derived from the labour force survey carried out between December 1992 and February 1993 and may be subject to sampling variability.

  Industrial sector

  Employees

  Percentage absent due to sickness or injury in the reference week1

  Agriculture

  2—

  2—

  Energy and water supply

  19,000

  2—

  Manufacturing

  236,000

  5

  Construction

  53,000

  2—

  Services

  664,000

  5

  All industries and services

  979,000

  5

  Source:—Labour Force Survey.

  1 Respondents are asked to indicate any absence in a particular week.

  2 Sample too small to provide a reliable estimate.

  Patients
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of patients were treated(a) as day patients, (b) as in-patients and (c) in the community by the NHS in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information in the exact form requested is not available centrally. However, the available information is given as follows. No percentages have been calculated as a patient may be treated in more than one of the categories or in other categories not given.

  Information on individual grants awarded prior to 1988–89 is not readily available. Since 1988–89 a list of all direct Government grants to the voluntary sector has been placed in the Library of the House. I have therefore arranged for a further copy of the Welsh Office entries for the financial years 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92 to be placed in the Library of the House amended to indicate grants awarded solely in respect of Welsh language activities and those awarded under section 21 of the Education Act 1980. However, many of the other grants paid will also have included an element of support for the Welsh language which is not separately identifiable.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total budget of the Welsh Development Agency in 1990–91, 1991–92; and 1992–93 and what proportion of this was allocated to the north Wales office.
  663
  Mr. Redwood
  The budget for the three financial years is shown in the Welsh Office departmental report, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  The agency's budget is allocated according to functions and programmes rather than geographic areas.

  Supply Teachers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many supply teachers are registered with each local education authority in Wales for casual cover; and to what incremental point on the main professional grade for teachers' salaries a suitably qualified and experienced supply teacher may progress.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on the number of supply teachers registered with each local education authority in Wales is not held centrally.

  The School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document lays down a minimum point on the scale to which teachers may be appointed, depending on their previous service. An experienced supply teacher could be appointed on the minimum point applicable or on any higher point up to the top of the scale. A new pay spine for teachers will be introduced with effect from 1 September 1993.

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Total value

  £9·3 million

  £8·8 million

  £7·0 million

  Of which percentage in Gwynedd and Clwyd

  21·6 per cent.

  17·0 per cent.

  13·6 per cent.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which primary schools in each local education authority in Wales(a) use the Welsh language as the main language of instruction, (b) use some Welsh as a medium of instruction and (c) undertake little or no instruction through the medium of Welsh.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I have made a list of the 1,704 primary schools in Wales available in the Library of the House. The schools are broken down into the following categories: those with classes which use Welsh as a sole or main medium of instruction, those with classes which use Welsh as a medium of teaching for part of the curriculum and those which teach Welsh as a second language or not at all. The breakdown is based on information for the 1991–92 academic year.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average number of hours spent teaching Welsh in schools in Wales in the(a) primary and (b) secondary sectors; and if he will give a breakdown by county.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Since 1990, schools in Wales have been progressively implementing the requirements of Welsh as a national curriculum subject. Information on the number of hours or periods spent on national curriculum Welsh is not collected centrally.

  However, the 1989 secondary school staffing survey provided information on the number of teaching periods spent teaching Welsh as a first language, Welsh as a second language and remedial Welsh and is given in the following table. Equivalent information is not available for primary schools.
  664

  Environmental Contamination
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has received from Gwent county council regarding the potential environmenal contamination of south-east Wales by airborne radioactive particulates arising from Ministry of Defence tests at its Salisbury Plain test area.

  Mr. Redwood
  None. The Ministry of Defence has also confirmed that it has no knowledge of tests on Salisbury plain which could give rise to radioactive particulates in the environment of south-east Wales.

  Land Authorities
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total budget of each land authority in Wales in(a) 1990–91, (b) 1991–92 and (c) 1992–93; and what proportion was spent in Gwynedd and Clwyd.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Land Authority for Wales is required to be self-financing. The total value of development land sold by the authority and the percentage in respect of Gwynedd and Clwyd were as follows:

  Local Education Authority

  Percentage of periods spent teaching Welsh

  Clwyd

  6

  Dyfed

  7

  Gwent

  1

  Gwynedd

  11

  Mid Glamorgan

  4

  Powys

  6

  South Glamorgan

  3

  West Glamorgan

  5

  ALL WALES

  5

  Mental Illness
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many mentally ill patients were treated(a) in the community and (b) as in-patients, for each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information in the exact form requested is not available centrally. However, the available information is given in the following table.

  Discharges and deaths1

  Resident patients2

  First contacts by community psychiatric nurses3

  1987–88

  14,157

  43,952

  —

  1988–89

  14,289

  —

  —

  1989–90

  15,000

  43,577

  —

  1990–91

  15,094

  53,348

  24,984

  1991–92

  16,236

  53,013

  22,629

  1 Deaths and discharges of in-patients from NHS hospitals. This does not relate to the number of people treated as one person may

  665
  have been discharged more than once during the year. Includes people treated in the specialities of mental illness, child and adolescent psychiatry, forensic psychiatry and old age psychiatry.

  2 Patients resident in mental illness hospitals and units in Wales on the day an annual census was taken. This will not include patients who although resident at some time during the year were not resident on the date of the census.

  3 Information was not collected centrally prior to 1990–91. This does not include patients cared for by other groups of staff (ie GPs and social workers) and voluntary organisations for which no information is collected centrally.

  4 At 5 April.

  5 At 31 March.

  Total gross expenditure on new construction improvement and maintenance (Wales)

  Expenditure in Clwyd

  Expenditure in Gwynedd

  Expenditure in Powys

  £ million

  £ million

  per cent.

  £ million

  per cent.

  £ million

  per cent.

  1990–91

  184·9

  22·0

  11·9

  75·2

  40·7

  14·4

  7·8

  1991–92

  171·0

  24·7

  14·4

  62·6

  36·6

  11·0

  6·4

  1992–93

  204·5

  16·3

  8·0

  54·3

  26·6

  14·1

  6·9

  Health Education
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what funds have been made available by his Department for health education in Wales in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The amounts made available for health promotion, of which health education forms part, is shown in the following table.

  £ million

  1987–88

  2·4

  1988–89

  3·3

  1989–90

  4·2

  1990–91

  6·1

  1991–92

  7·5

  1992–93

  19·4

  1993–94

  29·9

  Net current expenditure on museums and art galleries1

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  Alyn and Deeside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Colwyn

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Delyn

  109

  158

  168

  190

  Glyndwr

  43

  66

  72

  48

  Rhuddlan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wrexham Maelor

  117

  140

  168

  169

  Carmarthen

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ceredigion

  137

  133

  139

  135

  Dinefwr

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Llanelli

  35

  107

  28

  45

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Pembrokeshire

  1

  1

  3

  3

  Blaenau Gwent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Islwyn

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Monmouth

  250

  350

  373

  384

  Newport

  341

  425

  453

  515

  Torfaen

  39

  8

  47

  44

  Aberconwy

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Arfon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dwyfor

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Meirionnydd

  6

  8

  13

  11

  Ynys Môn

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cynon Valley

  0

  83

  40

  85

  Merthyr Tydfll

  86

  99

  121

  123

  Ogwr

  0

  0

  0

  0

  666

  Welsh Office Highways Department
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total budget of the Welsh Office highways department in(a) 1990–91, (b) 1991–92 and (c) 1992–93; and what proportion of this money was spent in Gwynedd, Clwyd and Powys.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Gross expenditure in Wales on new construction, improvement and maintenance on motorways and trunk roads was £184·9 million in 1990–91, £171·0 million in 1991–92 and £204·5 million in 1992–93. The proportion spent in Gwynedd, Clwyd and Powys is given in the following table.

  1 Projected outturn.

  2 Estimate.

  Arts Services
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the level of arts services budgets in each local authority in Wales since 1990.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Individual local authorities decide what to spend on the arts from within their available resources. Information on the budgets they have set for museums and art galleries is given in the following table. Other arts spending is not separately identifiable from local authority budget returns.
  667

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  Rhondda

  106

  152

  262

  158

  Rhymney Valley

  134

  241

  98

  216

  Taff Ely

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Brecknock

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Montgomeryshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Radnorshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cardiff

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Vale of Glamorgan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Port Talbot

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lliw Valley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Neath

  78

  94

  93

  108

  Swansea

  944

  1,022

  1,335

  1,136

  Clwyd

  892

  559

  444

  392

  Dyfed

  337

  368

  450

  393

  Gwent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gwynedd

  725

  193

  223

  157

  Mid Glamorgan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Powys

  175

  208

  227

  228

  South Glamorgan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Glamorgan

  0

  66

  80

  93

  Total Districts

  2,426

  3,087

  3,413

  3,370

  Total Counties

  2,129

  1,394

  1,424

  1,263

  Total Wales

  4,555

  4,481

  4,837

  4,633

  1 Local authority budgets.

  Housing Revenue Accounts
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set out the notional housing revenue account figures for Wales for the current financial year and the estimates made in respect of the next financial year; and if he will list the assumptions on which they are based.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is as follows:

  1993–94

  1994–95

  £ million

  £ million

  Notional income from rents

  322·9

  346·9

  Notional management and maintenance allowance

  168·8

  174·3

  The 1993–94 figures are taken from local authorities first advance subsidy claim forms.

  For 1994–95, the estimated figures are also based on the initial claim form data for 1993–94. The key assumptions are for per dwelling increases in real terms of 5 per cent. in guideline rents and 1 per cent. in management and maintenance allowances. These assumptions will be reviewed in this year's public expenditure survey and will be subject to consultation in the usual way. The relevant inflation assumption from 1993–94 to 1994–95 is 4·25 per cent. as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1993–94.

  Home Helps
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many home helps were employed in each local authority area in the counties of Gwynedd and Clwyd in(a) 1980, (b) 1985 and (c)

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The numbers of people employed by the social services departments of Gwynedd county council and Clwyd county council are not reported at district level. The total numbers of home helps—including 668
  home help organisers and assistants—employed in each county at the 30 September of each year are shown in the following table:

  Clwyd

  Gwynedd

  1980

  Number

  560

  627

  Whole-time equivalent

  314·0

  260·0

  1985

  Number

  660

  670

  Whole-time equivalent

  400·0

  278·0

  1992

  Number

  1840

  900

  Whole-time equivalent

  1335·3

  390·0

  1 Provisional

  Bus Routes
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many bus routes were operating in each local authority area in the counties of Clwyd and Gwynedd in(a) 1980, (b) 1985 and (c)

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on the number of bus routes operating in Clwyd and Gwynedd is not available centrally.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many students are currently studying at each public sector higher education college in Wales; and how many of the students are normally resident in Wales, both in terms of total numbers and as a percentage of the main student body.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Provisional data for the 1992–93 academic year on students enrolled on higher education at the former public sector higher education colleges in Wales—including Trinity college—together with the numbers and proportion who were resident in Wales, are as follows:
  669

  Students1 enrolled on higher education courses at 2 November 1992

  Students usually resident in Wales

  Institution

  Total number of students2

  Number

  Per cent, of total

  Cardiff Institute of HE

  5,520

  3,776

  68

  Gwent College of HE

  4,876

  3,833

  79

  Normal College Bangor

  1,031

  745

  72

  North East Wales Institute

  3,452

  2,147

  62

  Swansea Institute of HE

  3,759

  2,889

  77

  Trinity College

  1,251

  852

  68

  University of Glamorgan

  11,525

  7,078

  61

  Welsh Agricultural College

  324

  105

  32

  Welsh College of Music and Drama

  415

  149

  36

  Total

  32,153

  21,574

  67

  1All modes of attendance. Excludes students enrolled on further education courses.

  2Includes other United Kingdom students and those from abroad.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of the tender specifications for the market testing of the training office functions of his 670
  Department; and if such tender specifications will have to be advertised in the supplement to the Official Journal of the European Communities.

  Mr. Redwood
  The specification for the market test of staff training services within the Department will form part of the tender documentation, which will be issued when tenders are invited. There is no requirement to advertise details of the tender specification in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

  Powys TEC
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Powys training and enterprise council in relation to refunding part of the 1992–93 grant in aid to the council.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None. My officials have been in regular contact with the TEC since a routine financial appraisal monitoring visit revealed that insufficient evidence was available, at that time, to substantiate some of the TECs adult training invoices for payment by the Welsh Office. The TEC has now gathered additional evidence to suport their claims. My officials will meet with the TEC on 19 July to consider the adequacy of the further evidence.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Coventry.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Berkeley—Sat first in Parliament upon the death of his aunt.

Unemployment Figures
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Turner, and at her request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper:
Whether instructions have been issued to staff at local Department of Employment benefit offices to reduce by administrative means the numbers receiving unemployment benefit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, no one who is entitled to claim unemployment benefit is discouraged from doing so. Instructions issued to local office staff of the Employment Service require them to give people positive help to get back into employment.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the strangest features of the present time is that we still read of huge job losses but that unemployment figures continue to decrease? Despite what he said, will the Minister give a categoric assurance that benefit office staff are not encouraging people to claim sickness and invalidity benefit rather than unemployment benefit?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, there is no truth in the claim that the Employment Service is operating a deliberate policy of denying eligible claimants of their rightful benefits or pressurising claimants into claiming alternative benefits. There were fewer claims for invalidity benefit and sickness benefit in the first quarter of this year than in the first quarter of last year.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that over the years a series of charges has been made that the figures are manipulated? Will he give a categoric assurance that that has never been and is not the case?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the whole point of the seasonally adjusted series of figures is that they should be consistent over a long period of time.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the Minister will, I am sure, agree that there is a considerable difference between the term "unemployed and claiming benefit" and those actually unemployed.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, there are various definitions of "unemployed". This country uses two: the ILO series, and the claimants' series which is published today.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, has my noble friend had an opportunity to read today a report from the Employment Policy Institute which says that it found little convincing evidence that the Government had conducted an administrative fiddle to make the figures more acceptable? Is not what we are seeing a smokescreen to disguise that other piece of information published today; namely, that the unemployment figures have fallen for the fifth month in a row?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, yes, that, of course, is good news for this country, coming on top of yesterday's figures for the retail prices index showing that inflation had fallen to 1.2 per cent. On Tuesday we published figures on manufacturing output, which was up 3 per cent. on a year ago. That is good news for the economy, individuals and Britain.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is pleasing to note that unemployrnent has come down once again this month? To what extent are the long-term unemployment figures coming down? Secondly, on the figures that have been produced by the department today, is it not still disturbing to note that the loss of employment in manufacturing industry continues, and that 245,000 jobs have gone in the past 12 months? There does not seem to be much sign of an industrial increase there.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, no, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mason, that losses of manufacturing jobs are still occurring. However, what is important is to note that manufacturing output is increasing. That continues the long-term trend since the 1960s when we lost nearly 3 million jobs in manufacturing. Some have been reclassified, but the most important point is that manufacturing output is now increasing.
Lord Rea: My Lords, will the Minister accept from me that as a practising NHS general practitioner during the past few years a number of patients have asked me to put them on to the invalidity list? They say they have been told to do so by their local employment officer. Those people had not thought that their minor illnesses were sufficient for them to claim sickness benefit, but they had been advised to see the doctor to be put on the sick list. I can give names if the Minister would like them.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, all members of the public are entitled to make a claim for unemployment benefit, but some may not be eligible. The Employment Service research advisers seek to ensure that clients are capable of work. It is for the clients to decide whether to seek a medical opinion of their capability.
Lord Jay: My Lords, has the Minister noted that those pieces of good news are due mainly to the fall in the exchange rate last September which the Government did their best to resist?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that does not affect the good news on retail sales which are up 3 per cent. on a year ago; car registrations up 11 per cent. on a year ago; and housing starts up 17 per cent. on a year ago. There is a great deal of good news about.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, how many times since 1979 has the definition of eligibility for benefit been changed? What is the department's current estimate of how much higher the level of unemployment, as measured by eligibility for benefit, would be now had those definitions not been changed?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as I said in reply to an earlier question, the consistent seasonally adjusted employment series gives a comparable assessment of trends over time. It is not possible to record the figures as suggested by the noble Lord. There have been adjustments to the figures over the past 15 years or so as there were in the 15 years before that.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his reply to my noble friend Lord Rea was less than satisfactory? Is he further aware —I am sure that he is—that the Government have been complaining about the number of people who have been claiming invalidity benefit? I should like the assurance that benefit officers are not recommending people who they know are well to see their doctor so that he can pronounce them unfit in order that they may obtain invalidity benefit.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is suggesting that doctors will take that decision when someone—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, no, no—benefit officers.
Viscount Ullswater:—is not fit. In answer to a previous question, I suggested that there were fewer claims for invalidity benefit and sickness benefit in the first quarter of this year than in the first quarter of last year.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in his earlier replies, the Minister gave assurances that the unemployment figures had not been fiddled or rigged. Would he care to use part of the Summer Recess to read the diaries of Alan Clark, who made it clear that at his time in the Department of Employment the numbers were being rigged to reduce apparent unemployment figures? Does the Minister agree with me that common English usage indicates that "unemployment" means those who are out of work and looking for work (as it was until September 1982) rather than those who are successfully claiming benefit. which has been the definition since then?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, no, I do not believe that there is a common definition of "unemployment".
338
Many people in full-time education say that they are unemployed because they say they are looking for short-term, part-time jobs.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a problem in defining "eligiblity" as regards unemployment benefit, because people who undertake work for voluntary organisations while they are unemployed are defined as not being available for work? Does the Minister agree that voluntary work keeps people in the community and keeps their minds alive and that they are prepared to stop that work immediately a job becomes available? Is it right that they should be deterred from claiming unemployment benefit?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the situation is, perhaps, the reverse. They are not deterred from claiming unemployment benefit but the rules of eligibility—that they should be prepared to take on work when it is offered to them—make their entitlement secure. The noble Countess said that they are not able to claim unemployment benefit, but they can do so.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is ridiculous for anyone to suggest that the unemployment figures are in any way fiddled; they are just genuinely appalling?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, of course. I have not indicated that the Government are complacent about the unemployment figures. Indeed, they are not. We wish to see the economy grow stronger and as a result more job opportunities occurring.

Iraq: Infant Mortality
3.12 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they accept that the level of childhood malnutrition and mortality in Iraq is increasing; and whether they are actively seeking ways of encouraging and enabling Iraq to spend at least its current limit of 1.6 billion dollars on food and medical supplies.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, there are no reliable figures on infant mortality or malnutrition in Iraq. The suffering of the Iraqi people could immediately be alleviated if Saddam Hussein implemented Security Council Resolutions 706 and 712. We welcome Iraq's decision to renew negotiations on that on 7th July.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that predictable Answer. Is she aware of the detailed report written for UNICEF by the distinguished Canadian public health specialist, Dr. Eric Hoskins, entitled Children, War and Sanctions, which demonstrates that in Iraq infant mortality has almost trebled since the Gulf War and that 100,000 excess child and infant deaths have occurred? Is the Minister further aware that the democratic Iraq opposition in exile considers that the terms imposed by the Security Council, under

339
which Iraq can sell up to 1.6 billion dollars-worth of oil to pay for food and medical supplies, are so draconian and humiliating that no self-respecting government can be expected to accept them?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have not read the UNICEF report in detail but I shall turn my attention to it in the long Recess. I know that the United Kingdom has funded medical aid work and the work of the Amar appeal. It has given nearly £500,000 to the non-governmental organisation CARE for essential water and sanitation work in southern Iraq. It is further helping the Kurds in the north with medical and other assistance. I know that the Iraqi regime could ease the suffering of all Iraqi people if it agreed to implement Security Council Resolutions 706 and 712 because those resolutions would permit Iraq to export oil and to have the benefit of that oil for the Iraqi people.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, does my noble friend believe that even if Saddam Hussein implemented those resolutions he would allow any aid to go to the Kurds whom he is systematically murdering?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that some of the assistance would get through but certainly not to the total value of the oil sold. In that regard I believe that my noble friend Lord Finsberg is right. But the Kurds have made clear that they are not going for independence but are looking for autonomy. If they can achieve that autonomy they may be able to do even more to help themselves. We are there to help them to help themselves. I believe that neither they nor the Iraqi people will be able to rely on Saddam Hussein in the medium or long term.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the Minister kindly enlarge on the reference she made to the application of the Iraqi Government on 7th July? Precisely what have they applied for, and is there any possibility that that could help to alleviate the situation?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand that on 7th July representatives of the Iraqi regime went to New York to begin further discussions on Security Council Resolutions 706 and 712. I also understand that they have returned to Baghdad for further instructions. The talks have not been suspended, as was stated in some newspapers this morning: they will be reconvened when the representatives have those instructions. I can say only that we, as president of the Security Council, will do all that we can to see that Resolutions 706 and 712 are implemented.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, while acknowledging the efforts of the British and United States governments, who are making first-class endeavours to relieve the suffering, does the Minister agree that it would be wise for them to go to the Security Council and make certain that the suffering of the Kurds and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis under the brutality of Saddam Hussein is relieved? Is it not about time that there was a united effort to stop his terrible ways and to get rid of him once and for all?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that that goes a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper. Nevertheless, I assure the noble Lord that in the Security Council we shall be taking all possible action to bring relief to the Iraqi people, to the Kurds, to the people in the marshlands and to ordinary Iraqis who are innocent of the actions of Saddam Hussein.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the Minister dot an "i" and cross a "t"? She said that there are no reliable figures relating to mortality and disease in Iraq. Does the blanket statement cover the report mentioned by my noble friend Lord Rea about infant mortality? That report by Dr. Hoskins indicates that infant mortality has trebled since the end of the Gulf War and that there have been 100,000 excess infant deaths.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my initial Answer was that there are no reliable figures on infant mortality or malnutrition, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. The reason is that figures are made up when they have none. Although I shall look at the report in considerable detail I cannot say that there is anything on which we can currently judge the level of difficulty, although we know and fully accept that it is great.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the whole House is agreed that we are dealing with a cynically ruthless and cruel regime which is responsible for taking the lives of thousands of its own people? Does she agree that the priority must be a change of government and that effective pressure is therefore essential? But will the Minister also agree that that must never be at the price of an unacceptable degree of suffering by the vulnerable and innocent? Will the Government look at the possibility of lifting the blockade as regards areas largely controlled by the Kurds, of ensuring direct humanitarian supplies to the Shi'ites most at risk and to those who have fled to the marshes on the Iranian border, and of ensuring the effective delivery of desperately needed spare parts for sewage treatment and water purification plants?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, all those matters are under constant review. However, I make it clear again that there is one way above all which can bring relief to all sections of the Iraqi people; that is, the implementation of Resolutions 706 arid 712.
Lord Rea: My Lords, does the Minister not see a parallel situation in which Saddam Hussein is strengthening his position with regard to his own people? He can point to sanctions in the same way that Hitler did 12 years after the signing of the Versailles Treaty and so increased his popularity with the German people.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, no. I believe that there are many people, led by the opposition to Saddam Hussein, who know the truth of the situation and who are making sure that it is known throughout the country.

Iraq and UN Weapons Inspection
3.20 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will raise in the Security Council of the United Nations the importance of UN weapon inspection teams being enabled to re-enter Iraq.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the United Nations Special Commission and International Atomic Energy Agency inspection teams are not being refused access to Iraq, but the Iraqi Government obstruct the work of the inspectors once they are in the country. We continue to make clear the importance of full compliance with all Security Council resolutions.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her reply. Of course, much has happened since I tabled the Question. While the present attempt at negotiating access is welcome, will the Government ensure that Iraq is not allowed to play for time in trying to develop nuclear weapons? That is not bullying by the coalition nations; it is the prevention of what could become a very great mischief.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have much sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy says. The Iraqis should remember the allied action of 1991 before deciding to attack Kurdish areas. There have been many rumours of that happening recently. Allied aircraft continue to be deployed over northern Iraq in the limited region north of the 36th parallel. In co-operation with the other governments of the coalition, we shall try to do what we can but we cannot ensure the safety of those people.

Community Care: Mentally Ill
3.21 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take following the killings and rapes committed by mentally disordered offenders released into the community.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health is considering the case for new legal powers in this area and will be announcing her conclusions shortly.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Is she aware that apart from the three killings which have already taken place and a case of multiple rape, there has been a significant number of cases of violence to which members of the public have been subjected by mentally disordered offenders? Is it not clear that care in the community in those cases is simply not taking
342
place? Will the noble Baroness say what specific action the Government will take to protect the interests of the public?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I believe that, in general, community care is working well, but I accept that it is failing a small minority of people. I have already outlined to the noble Lord the action which the Government are taking. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is considering whether increased legal powers are necessary. She will announce her conclusions in the autumn.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that each mentally ill individual should be sep, rately assessed, and that only a small minority of schizophrenics are violent, but that they must be identified and special arrangements made for them?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I agree absolutely with my noble friend. That is why we introduced individual care plans for every person who is discharged from hospital into the community. The challenge is to ensure that there is adequate supervision as regards their whereabouts and their medication.
Baroness Masham of IIton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that recently a unit for mentally ill people has been opened in Brixton prison? What communication and co-operation does her department have with the Home Office when mentally ill people are discharged from prison into the community?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, a great deal is being done in conjunction with the Home Office. A number of reports have been produced by Dr. John Reed who chaired a committee composed of both Department of Health and Home Office officials. That committee has produced 10 reports and a further report is to be published shortly on services for people with psychopathic disorders. Clearly, the department will wish to look at that carefully to see how we can best implement the recommendations.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, will the noble Baroness, who is so much admired by all involved in these topics, reconsider the idea that community care is working well? She must be the only person in the world who thinks that it is. Will she bear in mind the possibility that community care is a tremendous ambiguity? On the one hand, it involves the conception of all kinds of active provision by local authorities and voluntary bodies and, on the other, it leaves it to the man in the street who, of course, does nothing.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I do not believe that my views are unique. In fact, a survey carried out this week showed that more than three people out of four favour the policy of caring for people with mental illness in the community. I am sure that my views that community care is working well are supported by the vast majority of people in this country. I accept that a

343
small minority of people who need special attention fall through the net.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I am sure that many meetings are taking place and many surveys are being carried out. But what happens in practice, for example, if a person as referred to in the Question moves to a certain area in Leeds and then goes to the social services? What happens in practice rather than in theory?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the care programme that we have introduced has to be agreed by the patient. It is a multi-disciplinary exercise so that all individuals who are professionally involved with that patient are involved as are the relatives and carers of that individual. If a person who has been discharged from hospital, hostel or some other accommodation then moves to another area, it is up to the key worker designated to look after that patient to ensure that adequate supervision is maintained. It is that area that we are addressing.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that some of the problems, although not all, are due to the fact that mental patients discharged from hospital do not take their medication? That being the case, does the Minister agree that a community treatment order should be made so that a district nurse, health visitor or someone with medical knowledge is named who can help such a person and supervise him on a daily basis? Would not a community treatment order meet that need?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that has been the subject of wide discussion now for several years. Indeed, the Royal College of Psychiatrists produced a report recently suggesting something of that nature. But we must be very careful that under the European Convention on Human Rights we do not violate people's freedoms. It is clear to us that people cannot be made to take medication in the community and cannot be returned to hospital just because they refuse that medication. Many difficult issues are involved in this matter. That is why a departmental team has been set up to consider whether the present legislation is being adequately used, and whether further legislation is needed. That group will report to my right honourable friend in the autumn.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the reason why the special unit has been opened in Brixton prison, and the reason why there has been a great increase in the numbers of such people incarcerated in our prisons, is the far too rapid rate of closure of psychiatric beds in hospitals? Those beds are being closed at the rate of more than 4,000 per year. Further, does the noble Baroness agree that the solution is to slow down considerably the rate of those closures?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is a very tiny minority of people who suffer from mental illness. When we look at those who have offended, who have murdered or committed some other crime, they are not those who have been released from long-stay beds. They are people who suffer from acute psychotic
344
disorders. A distinction must be drawn between those people and others who have been incarcerated in mental institutions for many decades. Some have been incarcerated merely because they were socially unacceptable. In some cases, young girls who became pregnant were unacceptable to the community and have spent decades in mental institutions as a result. That is unacceptable. We must address those problems. We must also address the problems of those who are causing harm to society.
Lord Rea: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the cases mentioned in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, represent only the tip of the iceberg and that there are many thousands of other seriously mentally ill patients in the community not receiving adequate care? Can she grasp the nettle that it is not so much long-stay patients discharged into the community either from prison or from mental hospitals that cause the problems but the new generation of severely mentally ill people who have been discharged after a short time, often to be repeatedly readmitted in what is called the "revolving door" syndrome?
Does not the Minister realise that good community care, whether or not we introduce some form of community care order, is not cheap and that it may in fact cost more money than that spent on hospital care—at least initially—to develop the service?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we believe that there are about 750,000 people living very successfully in the community who have had a mental illness. Indeed, only 0.7 per cent. of the population will suffer from schizophrenia at some time in their lives. Those people need care, supervision and help. However. it is a tiny minority causing great distress and trouble within the community. We must keep the matter in proportion.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that most of us know that we are talking about a small minority of potentially violent people? Is she also aware that in the cases that I have cited—and in many other cases to which social agencies, including the police, have drawn to the attention of Ministers—there is a deep sense of public concern that such people are not receiving the degree of care in the community that they require?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is why we are reviewing our present policies to look at the cases of a very small minority of people who clearly are a great distress to society.

Business
3.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House for me to outline the procedure to be adopted on the debate on the Motions relating to Hong Kong which will be taken after the Committee stage of the Railways Bill and the Third Reading of the Sexual Offences Bill. The Motions

345
standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ferrers and in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, will be debated together. The order of speakers is set out on the list which has been made available to your Lordships.

Summer Recess
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, perhaps I may now turn to matters of even greater importance. It may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, it is expected that the House will adjourn for the Summer Recess on Wednesday 28th July. It is expected that the House will sit at 11 a.m. on that day. It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that it is expected that the House will return on Monday 11th October, thus providing the opportunity for all of those noble Lords who wish to attend political festivities at various resorts the chance not to miss out.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will be discussed with the main Motion?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is correct in his assumption. Perhaps I may draw the noble Lord's attention to the speakers' list. He will see there that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is also incorporated in it.
I should also like to take the opportunity on behalf of the whole House to congratulate the noble Lord on his birthday.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Pwllheli Harbour (Amendment) Bill
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I do not propose to make a speech, but I should merely like to point out that the proper pronunciation of this small and attractive town in Gwynedd is "Pwllheli". Noble Lords should take as much care to pronounce Welsh place names as they do with those of outer Mongolia.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I apologise most profoundly to the noble Lord. I sincerely hope that I shall be able to do better next time.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Crofters (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Scottish Land Court Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Railways Bill
3.36 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I thought that it may be for the convenience of the House if I were to say a word or two on the subject of the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee which was discussed in your Lordships' House last week.
Those noble Lords who were present will remember that it was wondered when it would be possible to discuss the matters referred to in the report and whether it would be possible for that debate to take place at a reasonable time of the day—that is, not late at night. By a certain amount of judicious placing of amendments, we believe that we have succeeded in making it possible for the subject (based on an amendment which I have tabled) to be debated as first business next Wednesday. I hope that is for the convenience of your Lordships.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I wish to follow the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, only in the respect of thanking him from this side of the House for what he said. I should also like to extend our appreciation to the Minister. One of the points made in those earlier discussions was whether the Government would be in a position to state their case in advance of the debate. The Minister has done so in a letter to me, to my noble friends and, I think, to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. We are very grateful to him for that fact. However, perhaps the Minister can indicate to the House that he will be prepared to put a copy of the letter in the Library so that all interested Members can have access to it and therefore perceive the Government's case in advance of the debate. I do not agree with their case; but, nonetheless, the letter has been most helpful.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the letter mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has been sent to every Member of the House who took part in the Second Reading debate; in the Committee stages; and also to other noble Lords who may have an interest in the matter. I can reassure the noble Lord as regards his request: a copy of the letter is already in the Library.
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.

347
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis: moved Amendment No. 125ZB:
After Clause 78, insert the following new clause:
("Establishment of Railtrack
—(1) There shall be established a body corporate to be known as Railtrack with which the Secretary of State shall vest—

(a) all stations

(b) all track and associated infrastructure,

(c) all maintenance depots (whether "light" as defined in section 75(2) below or otherwise)

hitherto vested in the Board.
(2) The Secretary of State shall appoint a Chairman and Board of Directors of Railtrack.").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we considered amendments Nos. 125ZC and 125ZD at the same time. I mentioned earlier in our debates a rather curious fact; namely, that Railtrack is the sort of invisible man in this farce produced by the Government. In fact, Railtrack is not mentioned anywhere in the Bill. The Minister has alluded to that, arid I shall return to the points he raised shortly.
In my submission, Railtrack is a vital player. It certainly merits mention in the Bill. The object of my amendments is to remedy that omission and also to enable the Committee to debate in some detail what Railtrack is all about; what functions it will perform, and so on. But first of all, how is it that the Minister justifies the omission? In our debates on 1st July he said at col. 1055 of Hansard:
"The names of the companies are rarely mentioned in legislation".
He added at col. 1056:
"One good reason for that is that their name may change in future. Railtrack is covered by the expression "network operator" in the Bill. This approach allows us to legislate for all network operators, not just Railtrack. For example, if the Isle of Wight Railway is operated as a vertically integrated franchise, the franchisee will be a network operator as well as a passenger service operator".
That is true, but taken overall it is a pretty unconvincing argument and wholly ignores the fact that the sort of responsibilities to be undertaken by Railtrack are out of all proportion to those of any other network operator of which one may conceive. The responsibilities are quite dramatic; I shall come to them in a moment.
The Minister also prayed in aid the fact that a precedent exists. The Electricity Act 1989 followed the same rather doubtful practice that the Minister is now recommending to the Committee. I believe there are also precedents the other way. For example, the 1962 Transport Act—I am not sure whether that was an Act the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was responsible for in his days as a Minister—had the effect of abolishing the British Transport Commission and established the British Waterways Board, the London Transport Board, the British Transport Docks Board and the British Railways Board. All those departed from the concept that the Minister is now advancing. The Transport Act 1968 created specifically the National Freight Corporation. There are good precedents in this matter. In my view there is
348
a dramatic need to refer to those precedents in this case because of the critical role that RaiItrack will play in the Government's conception.
Why do I say that it is different from other national network operators? First of all, Railtrack will take over assets worth many billions of pounds. It will inherit 10,000 route miles and 23,000 track miles from British Rail. It will be responsible for huge numbers of employees including signalmen. It will be responsible for the safe and efficient operation and the development of the rail network. It will be responsible for monitoring the performance of rail operators. It will have responsibility for dealing with certain emergencies. It will have to publish an investment programme and co-ordinate with rail operators on it. It will have access to, and use of, stations and light maintenance depots. That is not to be compared with the Isle of Wight Railway. The Minister must take the idea seriously on board that Railtrack is sui generis.
The Committee may think that the responsibilities to which I have alluded are not unimportant, but there is not a word about the situation in the Bill itself. I do not believe it is safe, when dealing with legislation of this kind, simply to be given assurances—I am sure they are given in good faith—by the Minister. We seek therefore by the amendments that we are moving to redress that situation.
The proposed new clause in Amendment No. 125ZB provides for the establishment of Railtrack on the face of the Bill. The proposed new clause in Amendment No. 125ZC sets out the duties that it is required to undertake and the proposed new clause in Amendment No. 125ZD provides for an access regime policy statement to be in the form of an order based on guidance from the Minister to Railtrack.
I shall now deal with the amendments in a little more detail. Amendment No. 125ZB is designed to establish Railtrack on the face of the Bill. It would put flesh on the bones of the description of Railtrack that Ministers have provided thus far orally and in writing but not in the Bill. I shall give a single example to illustrate what I am talking about. As regards stations, ownership will pass to Railtrack but Railtrack will not operate the stations. At least that will he the case generally. The observations I make are in general terms as there may be exceptions I do not know of. That is therefore to be the duty of franchisees or of private companies. But how is investment to be encouraged and secured? That, surely, is a matter of some considerable importance, particularly as regards lines which are subsidised.
Who is to provide information at stations? Who is to be responsible for the security of passengers? Are we to understand that British Rail will start restructuring itself for franchising on the assumption that maintenance depots as defined in. Clause 75(2) —I believe that deals primarily with light maintenance services—which are currently owned by vertically integrated profit centres, will he allocated to a franchisee? On that basis presumably maintenance staff will be employed by the franchisee. But where a station is used only by a single franchisee, the lease will be vested with the franchisee. If there is more than one user, the lease could be vested in an operating

349
company which deals with a separate station. But in that case mánagement and control would be allocated to one of the franchisees. If that is usually the case, we should consider the potential for conflict; for example, operators believing that their trains are not receiving fair treatment as regards maintenance undertaken by another operator or by the station staff. If, instead of that situation, the running of all multi-user assets, for example stations and depots, were handed over to Railtrack—it would be publicly owned and, I think it is agreed, an impartial authority—conflicts, which could easily abound, would be averted.
Amendment No. 125ZC seeks to set out the duties Railtrack will be required to undertake. The duties are in a list form. In that way we do not simply rely on assurances from Ministers which are not enforceable and which clearly have limited value, however much they may have been given in good faith. The amendment refers to vitally important matters. It provides for cast iron guarantees that Railtrack will be responsible for undertaking these duties unless Parliament decides otherwise.
The new clause also addresses the question of equality of treatment as between different rail operators in the charging regime. That issue was raised in the context of Amendment No. 43, but the Minister did not address a simple question: how can the operator of a franchise service be reasonably sure that unfair competition will not emanate from an operator which has taken advantage of the marginal charge option available to open access operators?
Amendments Nos. 125ZC and 125ZD deal with the way in which the access arrangements will work in the second round of tendering. During the first round of tendering, train paths will be allocated by Railtrack, and the franchising director needs to provide for the services intended to be undertaken in the franchises that he is letting. However, in the Government's own document Gaining Access to the Railway Network, it is said that in subsequent rounds of franchising Railtrack,
"will be under no obligation to meet the access requirements of the Franchising Director".
It is extremely difficult to see how franchising can work in those circumstances.
The Minister has given certain assurances that PTAs and PTEs will continue to specify local rail services. How will that fit in with the sentence in the Government's document which I have just quoted? What factors will Railtrack take into account when it has to decide whether to meet the franchising director's requirements? Will the issue be decided on cost alone, or to what extent will policy issues also be taken into account?
I should like to make a further point in parenthesis. I referred to the duty in subsection (1) (a) (ii) of the new clause in Amendment No. 125ZC:
"to secure the maintenance, improvement and development of the railway network".
For many years local people have been campaigning for the reintroduction of passenger services on the Luton-Dunstable freight branch line. Occasional excursion trains were run over the route for people who were particularly enthusiastic. Most people,
350
including Luton Borough Council, consider reopening to be a very good idea in what is a densely populated area with severe road congestion, as anybody who has travelled in that area will be able to testify. I have been told only today that in about 10 days' time BR intends to remove about one-and-a-half miles of the track for redeployment elsewhere. I believe that such a closure would prevent any possible reopening and development at that point in the network. It also illustrates that BR is having to take infrastructure from one part of the network to patch up another. That is a serious matter. I am afraid that I have not had an opportunity to give the Minister notice of that specific point, but I should be grateful if he could provide some information about it, or at the very least write to me, because that point merely exemplifies a situation to which I am seeking to draw attention. However, it does not necessarily merit a factual reply today.
In conclusion, so many frailties affect the Government's approach to the whole issue of Railtrack. The new clauses seek to provide some answers by requiring Railtrack to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State when he enters into access agreements, by ensuring full consultation on the contents of the guidance and by providing that the guidance should mirror the significance of rail services in meeting economic, environmental and wider transport objectives. So far ministerial responses on all those points have been less than satisfactory.
It may be that we have not got the drafting altogether right. I always bear in mind the drafting abilities of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who may well have something to say in that respect. We do not have the drafting services available to the Government. Leaving that aside, I believe that it is important to incorporate in the Bill some specific provisions in relation to Railtrack. I believe that the Government ought to have done that, and I am not satisfied that the responses they have given in that regard have been anything like adequate.
I hope that something positive will be elicited during the debate on the proposed new clauses. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I should like to make a few comments, because we are engaged in a very unusual debate. The Government have, for their part, engaged in a display of most becoming and maidenly modesty, which is very unusual from government Benches. They have proposed the creation of this organisation called Railtrack but wish to keep it as quiet as possible and submerged beneath the waves. I find that very strange.
The second phenomenon in this debate is the infinite kindliness of the Opposition—a quality which they do not always parade— in attempting to help the Government out of their difficulty and give a body of their own to a shadow which the Government have not provided with one. It is a very unusual debate, and one which I have quite enjoyed so far. I do not believe that I can support the amendment because I do not wish with any enthusiasm to see Railtrack achieve visibility or a high profile. I would much rather that it were well and decently buried without further ado.

351
I also have some quarrel in detail with the terms of the amendment. It is a regular feature of our legislation to give enormous discretion to the Secretary of State. However, the Opposition can be forgiven for doing so in this instance because he is about the only person in a position to go further with the creation of this being. I do not feel that any Secretary of State ought to be called upon to do on his own what the Secretary of State is called upon to do by this amendment.
There are traces of great optimism in the amendments. One of the duties which is to be placed upon Railtrack—and I applaud the notion although in these circumstances it is hardly practicable—is to prepare a 10-year programme of investment in the railway system. That is something we have never had so far; but it would be most welcome. However, I am not sure that this is the right way to ahieve that. There is a notorious obstacle in the way of such a plan, which is the short-termism and short-sightedness of the Treasury, which dominates such issues. I believe that such a provision in the Bill would not be as effective as its authors would like.
I should also like to mention one further point which puzzled me and which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, would like to deal with. In Amendment No. 125ZC, subsection (4) (c) puts upon Railtrack the duty to,
"treat equally those rail services which are provided by a franchise entered into by the franchising director and those which are not".
I should like to know what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, means by that. Is he talking about distribution of subsidies? Perhaps he would make himself clear on that.
While I salute the kindliness and good nature of the Opposition in attempting to give some body to the dream which the Government are entertaining, I believe that the amendment should be resisted because the Government's dream has more of the quality of a nightmare and perhaps should be decently buried.
4 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I should like to ask the noble Lord a question. He takes root and branch exception to Clause 78; and I have some sympathy with that. We seek to improve the Bill if it is capable of improvement. Is it the noble Lord's intention—it does not appear on the Marshalled List—to vote against Clause 78? If it is not, I do not understand the position that he adopts.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I shall have to ponder with great care after I have had the benefit of listening to my noble friend on the Front Bench. At present I am content to say that I would find it difficult to support the amendment because, kindly as the noble Lord is being, I do not believe that he should be encouraged to help the Government in this instance.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: First, perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that I was not responsible for the Act of 1962. Indeed, he is seven years out because I moved from the Ministry of
352
Transport in December 1955 to other departments. Therefore I could have had nothing whatever to do with that no doubt worthy piece of legislation.
The amendment that he has moved is part and parcel of the Opposition's policy of seeking to diminish the privatisation aspects of the Bill. In support of that statement, I need only invite the Committee's attention to two short sentences in the amendments. First, subsection (1) of Amendment No. 125ZB states:
"There shall be established a body corporate to be known as Railtrack with which the Secretary of State shall vest all stations, all track",
and so on. The creation of a body corporate is obviously intended to obstruct the privatisation process. Indeed, if that were not evident, I invite the Committee's attention to subsection (5) of Amendment No. 125ZC, which states in terms,
"Railtrack shall not be permitted to sell or in any other way dispose of assets either vested in it by the Secretary of State or which it subsequently acquires"—
in other words, no privatisation; and that, of course, is the purpose of the amendment.
Lord Annan: I should like to say how much in sympathy I am with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. I, of course, should like to have moved, That Clause 78 does not stand part. However, in so moving one would merely be making a Second Reading speech and I believe that that is to be deplored at Committee stage.
Like the noble Lord, I have never been able to understand how one can run a railway in which the track is separate from those who put the trains over it. Therefore the amendment is a noble attempt to make more sense of that policy. However, I confess that I do not entirely agree with it.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, drew attention to the last subsection which states that,
"Railtrack shall not be permitted to sell or in any other way dispose of assets … vested in it by the Secretary of State".
I believe that that is a retrograde idea. Under a Labour Government, in the 1960s and 1970s British Rail was encouraged to sell large quantities of derelict land on which factories and housing were built to the great advantage of the country. I deplore the clause although I understand that it is part of the amendment. I shall simply abstain if the amendment comes to a vote.
The Earl of Caithness: I found the presentation of the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, interesting. I thought that I was being made redundant. He made an interesting case as to why Railtrack was not mentioned in the Bill. He then gave a very good account of the Government's reply. He then said that he found it unconvincing. What more can I say to him? I shall repeat again what I said at an earlier stage.
The noble Lord knows full well why Railtrack is not mentioned on the face of the Bill. It will be a government-owned company; and the names of companies are rarely mentioned in legislation. There is good reason for that: such a company might change its name in the future and if that were the case and the name was mentioned in primary legislation, this Chamber would have to tolerate another Bill from Her Majesty's Government.

353
The noble Lord then referred to the Isle of Wight. I, too, was going to mention the Isle of Wight but I shall not dwell on it. Instead, I thought that I would give a good precedent to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I refer to the British Airports Authority when it was privatised. Its assets were vested in what was called simply a successor company. It so happened that the successor company used the same name for some time after privatisation before changing it to BAA plc.
I admit that I could not follow what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and the noble Lord, Lord Annan, found difficult about the separation of the track from the operator of the railway. I do not know how those noble Lords believe that Heathrow works. Presumably they find it extraordinary that the world's leading international airport operates at all. The runways are not owned by the airlines. Yet it is the most successful airport in the world. It is run by a separate company. The airlines have rights to come in and land. That is extremely well co-ordinated, and an extremely safe and efficient organisation. I pay tribute to what BAA has done with regard to Heathrow and Gatwick, and what it is doing with regard to Stansted. I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, would have great difficulty in supporting a Bill such as the BAA legislation when it came before your Lordships' House because he would not have been able to understand how one can possibly have a multitude of airlines coming in on a common runway.
Lord Annan: I believe that there is a difference between a runway which is a measurable length and an aircraft which then goes on to fly 3,000 miles, and a train which starts on rails and continues to the north of Scotland.
The Earl of Caithness: A 'plane also has to land on a runway at the other end. I do not see the difference. One is of a shorter length than the other but they have exactly the same problems. If, perchance, an aircraft breaks down on the runway, and there is a stack of aircraft waiting to come in and take off, one has a management problem. You have exactly the same management problem on the railway now if a train breaks down. You will have exactly the same management problem in the future. At present, the system is all under one hat, beautifully concealed from us and none of us knows much about it. In the future it will be a great deal more transparent and efficient as a result.
However, let me now deal in detail with the amendments. Much of what Amendments Nos. 125ZB and 125ZC seek to do can already be achieved under the Bill as it stands. As Members of the Committee know, it is our stated intention that Railtrack should become responsible for the railway infrastructure and the powers in Part II of the Bill will enable the intention of Amendment No. 125ZB to be fulfilled. In respect of Amendment No. 125ZC, we have already given commitments about Railtrack's role in the publication of a national timetable;
354
Railtrack will be responsible for the safe operation of its network; and it will inevitably need to prepare a programme for investment.
However, there are some elements of these amendments with which I have some difficulty. We have made it clear that Railtrack's existence as a government-owned company will last only until it is feasible to transfer it to the private sector. I cannot say at this stage how long that might take, but after privatisation it will be for Railtrack's board of directors to determine the scope and commercial direction of the company. While Railtrack remains in government ownership, the Secretary of State's role will be confined to reconciling the need, on the one hand, to ensure the effective independence of the regulator and on the other, to take proper account of the Government's role as sole shareholder and provider of finance to Railtrack.
I also believe it would be wrong to constrain Railtrack on issues such as the financial structure within which it will be expected to operate and the policies it will be expected to pursue. We want to encourage commercial and innovative thinking in the new organisation, particularly in putting in place mechanisms likely to assist the eventual move to privatisation, and to ensure full and proper accountability of the Government's financial position. I hope the Committee will agree that we should not seek to prescribe, in the ways suggested by these amendments, selective duties and structural parameters of Railtrack. While Railtrack is government-owned, appropriate controls will be included in its network licence and its memorandum and articles of association.
Turning to Amendment No. 125ZD, we have made it very clear that we believe that the regulator should be independent, once any special transitional arrangements—which may be required at the start of the new regime—have ended. The effect of Amenment No. 125ZD would be to give the Secretary of State continuing opportunities to interfere in the access regime, through guidance to Railtrack. I also have to say that I find the formal procedure which the amendment proposes very cumbersome. I was delighted to cherish that moment of support from my noble friend Lord Peyton with regard to the Secretary of State. I firmly commend my noble friend's advice to the Committee on this occasion.
I should like to answer a couple of points in detail. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked how franchisees could be assured that they would not face unfair competition from open access operators paying marginal costs for access to the network. The answer is the same as the one which I gave at an earlier stage when we discussed something similar. It is that the regulator will exercise control over unfair competition. He will not approve an access agreement if any franchisee is unfairly disadvantaged.
The noble Lord also raised the question of BR's plans for the Luton-Dunstable line. I shall look into that and write to him, but he will be aware that BR is subject to closure procedures which are being fully

355
maintained under the Bill. It is interesting that the noble Lord sought to raise the issue which is a matter that BR has in hand at this stage.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I hate to disturb the cordial and friendly relations which now exist between my noble friend and myself, but I have not yet quite understood by what processes Railtrack will be brought into being. It would help me if my noble friend could tell me that. We have heard of the birth of Venus—an unusual affair—but one cannot expect anything so beautiful to emerge from a Bill.
My problem is that the matter is not even mentioned in the Bill. One feels that my noble friend, his right honourable friend and the department are qualifying themselves for the task of rewriting Hamlet without referring at all to the Prince of Denmark.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: Before the noble Earl replies, it seems strange that throughout the whole of his address to the Committee this afternoon the Minister talked about Railtrack. My question is: what is this Railtrack thing of which he speaks? It is not in the Bill. Any attempt to put it in the Bill is met with total derision from the Government—we must not call it that. It is either Railtrack or it is not Railtrack. Will someone please tell me what it is?
The Earl of Caithness: I hope that my noble friend Lord Peyton will feel that we could equal one or two of the miracles of the past. Railtrack is fully covered in the Bill by the expression "network operator". Perhaps my noble friend will therefore have in his mind that when we mention "network operator", it is most likely—but not 100 per cent. certain because of the situation of the Isle of Wight, of which we gave an example earlier—that it is the equivalent of Railtrack or something like the Isle of Wight railway operation after it comes into being after Royal Assent. If my noble friend does that, I believe that on reconsideration, he will find that it is a perfectly logical way in which the operation, with the network operator, will come into existence, we hope, on 1st April next year.
Lord Renton: Does my noble friend agree that the word "property", which is frequently used in the Bill, must inevitably include Railtrack?
The Earl of Caithness: There is no doubt that my noble friend is right, Railtrack will own a considerable amount of property: the track, the signalling and all that goes with them, which is an essential part. I hope that that also will reassure my noble friend Lord Peyton.
Lord Greene of Harrow Weald: I should like to ask a question. As I understand it, the Bill privatises parts of British railways. Apparently the Government are not privatising the track, so it is not in the Bill.
The Earl of Caithness: With respect, I think that that is a slight simplification. We are suggesting the privatisation of the freight side of British Rail, the franchising of the passenger services, the creation of a network operator which, in due course and at a suitable time, will be put into the private sector.
Lord Greene of Harrow Weald: Whether it be passenger or freight trains, both run on the same rails.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My noble friend has bowled the Minister out with a yorker. I thank Members of the Committee who have participated in the debate. I should like, in responding to it, to deal with points in the order in which they were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, accuses me of a kindliness which is wholly in character.
The Earl of Caithness: I thought he said it was out of character.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I did not accuse the noble Lord of anything; I merely said that the Opposition was showing on this occasion a degree of kindliness which was not always manifested from those Benches.
Lord Clinton-Davis: That is the purpose of Opposition—we are always kindly. I could not understand why, having this compelling reason for opposing Clause 78, the noble Lord, who has not yet answered the point I put to him, does not propose to vote against the proposal, because he has not yet given notice of his intention to do so.
Lord Tordoff: One of the reasons, I suspect, that he will not vote against it is that it has already been passed.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am sorry, I missed the point. That is being extraordinarily kind, but he missed his chance.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: That is right.
Lord Clinton-Davis: While we are being charged with kindliness on this occasion, I point out that we are often charged—notably by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—with introducing wrecking amendments, whether or not the charge is made out Indeed, it was deeply embarrassing that he should have said that on the occasion when the Government were so soundly defeated on Monday of last week. This is not a wrecking amendment. The noble Earl has not accused us of that. It is an amendment to seek to improve something that possibly is unimprovable; possibly something that is totally impracticable.
It is odd, notwithstanding the arguments that have been adduced by the Minister, that Railtrack, with the extraordinary obligations that it will undertake—obligations that are far greater than those undertaken by the BAA in the context to which the Minister referred—is totally omtted from the Bill. The Bill is completely silent about this new entity. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is quite right in the observations that he made in his intervention a moment or two ago. I too would like to see, as would the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, the whole concept decently buried. But then we would certainly be accused of introducing a wrecking amendment.
The noble Earl introduced a number of detailed objections to the points which we have raised. He objects to the huge discretion given to the Secretary of State. But it is better to deal with it in that way than to be totally silent about the whole wretched thing. Then he questioned whether a 10-year programme

357
was practicable in this particular context. I shall not embark upon that argument again; we had a long debate about it in another area of our considerations. I believe that it is possible.
The noble Earl then asked about equality of treatment. We were motivated to put down this particular part of the amendment because Railtrack is being given powers to favour certain operators in setting its charges—explicitly, freight. Perhaps that is something to which the Minister has already alluded. But what about open access passenger transport, possibly in the future? The net effect of that is that the franchising director's bill for subsidised services will increase. It is effectively a cross-subsidy from public to private sectors unless offset by a grant, as may be the case for freight under Clause 126. So there is a case for dealing with the point about equality of treatment. I hope that the noble Earl will concede that there is something in that argument.
I am sorry that I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, might have been responsible for the 1962 Act. I did not check up on the history—I forgot to do that—but I thought that there was something known as collective responsibility; so he cannot dismiss the responsibility that he has for that piece of legislation. The charge he makes is the usual one: that it is a wreckig amendment. He said that it is part of the Opposition's purpose to diminish privatisation by introducing these amendments. I make no secret of the fact that I do not like this Bill. But this amendment is perfectly sensible and coherent. Its main purpose is very clear; namely, to write into the Bill the duties of this organisation about which we hear from the Government from time to time but with which they eschew any dealing in the Bill itself. That is extraordinary. I suspect that the noble Lord wishes to intervene. He seems uncomfortable on his Bench.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am obliged to the noble Lord for his concern for my comfort. He of course ignores the fact to which I invited the attention of the Committee a short time ago—that subsection (5) of Amendment No. 125ZC explicitly inhibits Railtrack from disposing of any of its property. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that that amounts to opposition to any form of privatisation as regards Railtrack.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Lord could not contain his impatience. I intended to come to that point, and I now do so. It is not my purpose to avoid the substantial point that the noble Lord made.
We are not challenging the whole privatisation process here. Of course we are not. We say that in this particular respect it makes no sense for Railtrack to operate along the lines that the Government say it should do unless this provision is included. That is our case. I do not expect the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to agree for one moment with that. I should feel very uneasy if he were to do so. But that is our point.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, took a similar point of view to that of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton; namely, that it was better to have moved that Clause 78 should not stand part of the Bill. It is a noble
358
attempt to make more sense of what he believes is not a very sensible Bill—and I rather agree with him. But there it is. We have to do our duty as an Opposition to try to improve even that which is almost incapable of improvement.
The Minister was very dismissive (as he usually is) of everything I had to say; but I do not complain about that unduly. He asked the rhetorical question: what more could he do? First, he could start to improve the Bill. I believe it was Helmut Schmidt who said that the greatest need for improvement in the world—but I cannot recall the exact quotation so perhaps I should not continue with it. However, the Minister, while being coy about Railtrack, has been totally dismissive of our intentions.
The BAA does not compare with Railtrack in the significance of its obligations. I have listed them before. They are massive. It is totally wrong that the position should be left imprecise by simply referring in the Bill to a successor company. It does not make any sense at all. The Minister says that what we seek to do is already attainable under the Bill. If that is the case, it is a little odd that he should be as dismissive as he is. He says that he wants to encourage commercial or innovative thinking. So be it. I do not accept that commercial and innovative thinking is at all discouraged by Railtrack or by British Rail. It makes absolute nonsense of the Government's constant assertions that so much has been achieved by British Rail if they say over and over again that British Rail is lacking in commercial or innovative attention.
The Minister says that we have set out selective duties. The Government could improve on the proposal in that respect by saying, "We don't think that the Opposition have set out the duties sufficiently and therefore we shall improve on these new clauses". I would not object to that. It is a perfectly reasonable way of dealing with the situation. But he does not do that at all. He says that it is not necessary; but the grounds upon which he bases his argument are very elusive indeed.
The Minister referred finally to the point to which he had alluded earlier; namely, that all network operators were caught by this particular provision and therefore it was unnecessary to introduce Railtrack at all. It seems to me to defy common sense for the Minister to try to equate the Isle of Wight railway or similar undertakings with Railtrack. It makes no sense whatsoever. Indeed, it destroys the totality of his argument. Consequently, because I find the Minister's reply so terribly unconvincing, I think that we should test the view of the Committee on this matter.
Lord Annan: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he would answer a question that I put to him about the selling of land by Railtrack. I raised that point because I feel that perhaps the best thing that Mr. Richard Crossman ever did when he was Minister of Housing was to persuade British Rail to sell a very large area of ground north of Marylebone Station on which a large and extremely well conducted housing estate has now been built. It seems to me that that is the kind of initiative from a public corporation such as British Rail which is an admirable way of arranging matters between British Rail and local government.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Lord, Lord Annan, has a point. This provision could be improved by providing that British Rail would have discretion to sell land. That would meet the point raised by the noble Lord. But in a way that is a detail, though it is an important detail.
I feel that what is at stake here is the principle that Railtrack should be mentioned in the Bill. It is such an important entity that for it to be given such a Cinderella-like aspect seems to me to make no sense at all. That is the burden of the case that I put.
4.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 125ZB) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 128.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jay, L.

Aylestone, L.

Jeger, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Judd, L.

Birk, B.

Kennet, L.

Blackstone, B.

Listowel, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Longford, E.

Bottomley, L.

McNair, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Monson, L.

Clinton-Davis, L

Mulley, L.

David, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ogmore, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Elis-Thornas, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Rea, L.

Falkland, V.

Richard, L.

Gallachcr, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Galpern. L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Rochester, L.

Glasgow, E.

Russell, E.

Graham of Edmonton. L.[Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Seear, B.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Serota, B.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Shackleton, L.

Grey., E.

Stallard, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hayter, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Thurso, V.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

White, B.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hunt, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Annaly, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Archer of Weston-super-Mare, L.

Butterworth, L.

Cadman, L.

Arran, E.

Caithness, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Caldecote, V.

Astor, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Attlee, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Bessborough, E.

Carnock, L.

Blatch, B.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Blyth, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Boardman, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Craigmyle, L.

360

Cranborne, V.

Merrivale, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mersey, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Morris, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Mountevans, L.

Davidson, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Denham, L.

Moyne, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Munster, E.

Donegall, M.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Downshire, M.

Newall, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Orkney, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Faithfull, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Ferrers, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Finsberg, L.

Porritt, L.

Flather, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Foley, L.

Renton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Richardson, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Goschen, V.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Romney, E.

St. Davids, V.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Harmsworth, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Harrowby, E.

Sandford, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Henley, L.

Soulsby of Swallham Prior, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Strathcarron, L,

HolmPatrick, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hooper, B.

Strathmore and Kinghcrne, E.[Teller.]

Hothfield, L.

Howe, E.

Swinfen, L.

Huntly, M.

Swinton, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Terrington, L.

Kimball, L.

Teviot, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Trumpington, B.

Knollys, V.

Ullswater, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Leigh, L.

Vivian, L.

Lindsay. E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Long, V.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Lucas, L.

Lyell, L.

Waverley, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Westbury, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.[Lord Chancellor.]

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Wise, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Young, B.

Mancroft, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Marlesford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.38 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 125ZC and 125ZD not moved.]
Clause 79 agreed to.
Clause 80 [Transfer to the Secretary of State or the Franchising Director of the Board's function of making transfer schemes]:
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 125ZDA:
Page 90, line 24, at end insert ("and the details of any such transfer shall be included in the National Rail Statement published in accordance with Clause (National Rail Statement)").
The noble Lord said: For the convenience of the Committee, in moving Amendment No. 125ZDA I shall speak also to Amendment No. 125ZH. in the names of my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. That being a new clause it is the principal proposal to which I shall direct my remarks.
Amendment No. 125ZDA is a paving amendment to Amendment No. 125ZH. They are designed to achieve the publication of a national rail statement each two years, which will cover the period ahead of 10 years. Let me say at once that having listened to the last debate, when the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, chastised my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis for being helpful to the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, chastised him for hindering the Government, I feel that I must bare my soul to the Committee and confess that the new clause is designed, without a shadow of doubt, to be helpful to the Government. I apologise profoundly to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, but then I am a generous chap. It has always been in my nature to be as helpful as I possibly can. Having laid the groundwork, I am convinced that I shall persuade the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, to accept the proposal.
During the passage of the Bill in Committee in another place the transport Minister, Roger Freeman, indicated that the publication of Railplan would continue. But to this da—and there has been ample opportunity—we have had no indication as to the shape or form of that publication. Indeed, in his statement during the Committee stage of the Bill in another place Roger Freeman made clear that he was not sure what exact form and shape Railplan would take.
The Ministers say that Railtrack is not mentioned in the Bill. But it is important to recognise that in his statement in another place Roger Freeman made it clear that Railtrack, being in the public sector, would take the lead in the publication of Railplan. Our new clause is designed to put shape and form to Roger Freeman's proposal that the publication of Railplan should continue albeit under the different name of the "National Rail Statement".
The Bill contains a proposal for three separate aspects for the future of the railway network in this country. We have the franchising director on the one hand, the regulator on the other and Railtrack as the third pillar of the three. Under the terms of the Bill the franchising director and the regulator will both be required to publish an annual report. I am assuming, and the Minister will confirm whether or not I am right, that Railtrack will also be under an obligation to publish an annual report and strategy proposals.
Our proposal brings those three reports together in an understandable fashion so that first, Parliament, secondly, the public, and thirdly (of equal importance) all three elements of the franchising director, the regulator and Railtrack, can understand clearly exactly what part each separate component of the set-up is playing. One of the problems of the Bill is that there is a proliferation of organisations. Each time either the Minister in your Lordships' Chamber or in another place says that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to issue guidance and objectives to the various component parts, I must be honest and say that it strikes some fear and concern in my heart. There is a great danger that the proliferation of those bodies—the three to which I referred and no doubt others —will lead also to a proliferation of
362
guidance and objectives. It is possible, because of the way in which the Bill was drafted and the duties laid upon the component parts of the proposed future arrangements, that each different part could have different guidance and objectives placed upon it.
All we are seeking to do in the most helpful manner —I am being sincere when I say that—is to place upon the Secretary of State an obligation to publish what would be the equivalent of Railplan but would be known as the "National Rail Statement". It would cover all three component parts—freight as well as passengers—and give us a co-ordinated approach and an opportunity to see in a co-ordinated fashion exactly what the future holds or what the future plan is for the 10 years ahead.
We are not talking of investment. It is noticeable that the earlier clause does not refer to investment; it talks of strategy. I am the first to accept the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, that one can publish one's desires but the heavy hand of the Treasury could easily frustrate the desired plan for the future of anything for which the Government are responsible. But unless there is a publication in the co-ordinated fashion indicated in the new clause in regard to the future proposals for the strategy of the rail network in this country, we will not know what investment is required. We can argue about investment once we have seen the proposals for the future development of the rail network throughout Britain.
There is a parallel to this and I want to leave this thought with the Minister. Certainly in my time as health Minister in the Scottish Office—I am sure that it happened also in England and Wales—it was always the position that governments published their advance building programme for hospital buildings, health centres and all those buildings connected with the running of an efficient health service. We argued about the investment afterwards. We argued with the Treasury sometimes in bilateral discussions in relation to priorities and where the money should be spent. Sometimes that meant projects being pushed back five or six years, and in one case 25 years, until the money was available. But at least people in the country knew that such-and-such a district general hospital was to be built in a specific location and such-and-such a hospital would be taken out of service.
All I am saying is that we should have something similar in relation to the future of the rail network in this country. It is for that reason, in that helpful fashion, that I tabled the amendment. The transport Minister, Roger Freeman, has not been able to come up with any proposal to meet the commitment that he made during the Committee stage of the Bill in another place. We are therefore attempting to help to put flesh on the bones of the promise that he made by proposing the amendment and the new clause. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, for explaining his amendment. I wish to make absolutely clear that the shortness of my reply is no discourtesy to the noble Lord. The reason my reply is short is that, as many of your Lordships will recall, in Committee on 1st July

363
the noble Lord spoke for longer than he did today. His words can be found in col. 950. He spoke to his then very similar Amendments Nos. 3 and 6 which, speaking from memory, were grouped with Amendment No. 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. Those amendments were discussed, and I responded to the noble Lord's concerns. The noble Lord will recall that I mentioned the amendments specifically:
"I turn, secondly, to the matter of national rail strategy —I refer to Amendments Nos. 3 and 6, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirk ford".—[Official Report, 1/7/93; col. 969.]
That is why I shall not deal at length with the noble Lord's points. They are not unimportant, but we have already been over this ground.
I should like to tell your Lordships exactly what the Government's view is on the matter. We believe that a strategy document of the type envisaged by the amendments would he inflexible and likely to be out of date before it was implemented. A centrally imposed strategy document would be quite inappropriate for the new privatised railway. Privatisation is the Government's strategy for the railways into the 21st century. That is clear, and it is a sensible and logical policy. It was a strategy outlined in last year's White Paper and fleshed out in the Railways Bill. The strategy provides for all passenger services to be franchised; Railtrack to be set up as a government-owned company responsible for track and infrastructure; the sale of freight and parcels business; a new right of access to the network for private operators; and the establishment of a rail regulator and franchising director.
Under the new system the main responsibility for many aspects of planning will rest with Railtrack. It will be responsible for infrastructure investment and will need to be in close touch with others who have a strategic interest in new infrastructure projects. The franchising director will also want to take a long-term view about the future of passenger services and how changes in demand may lead to changes in the services it wishes to franchise and the facilities that will be required from Railtrack. As the private sector becomes increasingly involved in railway services it will enter direct negotiations with Railtrack about strategic developments. It is for that reason and the reasons I mentioned earlier that suddenly to bring the Secretary of State back into it will, we believe, do nothing but ossify the situation. It would mean that one would have to try to produce a blueprint which would be out of date before it was even published, and it would curtail the flexibility which the Government are trying to build into the railways for the future.
Lord Tordoff: In some ways that is an amazing reply. The whole of British industry does indicative planning at least on a 10-year and very often a 30-year basis. Frankly, to suggest that that ossifies matters is ludicrous.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his intervention. I did not say that the plan indicated by the noble Lord would ossify matters. I referred to the amendment whereby the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, tried to collect together all
364
the various aspects that he mentioned. He mentioned three in particular. I said that the ossification would result from the time taken by those separate organisations to make submissions to the Secretary of State and for the Secretary of State to produce the document.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps I should read the Official Report tomorrow in order to clear my mind on the matter. What I find very difficult to get to grips with is the suggestion that somehow in future the Secretary of State will simply take his hands off everything and it will run on its own. The point made so capably by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, is that there will be pieces of a jigsaw puzzle and somewhere they have to mesh; otherwise, we will have the kind of thing that we used to see in advertisements for The Times newspaper. Perhaps noble Lords recall the picture of the building of a huge motorway bridge which missed in the middle by about 5 metres. The slogan ran, "If only they had been better informed". It seems to me that that is what lies behind the amendment. It is a method of making sure that everybody knows what everybody else is doing. It is not a question of laying down the thing in concrete in any way. It is clear to me that the Government do not want to have any hand in a rail strategy for this country beyond the point at which this Bill passes into law.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Before the Minister responds to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, perhaps I may ask whether he can say at this stage how the commitment of the transport Minister, Mr. Roger Freeman, will be discharged and .what form Railplan will take once privatisation is in operation. The Minister has given a clear commitment that Railplan in a different form will continue to be published but we have not been told how. Perhaps the noble Earl, in his usual helpful way, can tell us exactly what stage the Government have reached on the issue.
The Earl of Caithness: I deal first with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I understand the difference of view between the noble Lord and the Government on the issue. The Committee decided upon that fundamental issue when it dealt with Amendment No. 1. I am still not persuaded that the noble Lord is right. Although I understand that the noble Lord is firm in his belief, in my view what he proposes will not help the situation.
If I may refer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, on Railplan, that will be prepared by, and be the responsibility of, Railtrack, not the Secretary of State. That is what my right honourable friend the Minister for Transport has said and how his particular comment will be implemented.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: With great respect, that is not what Roger Freeman said. He said that Railtrack, being in the public sector, would take the lead. I assumed from that that if someone or some organisation was taking the lead others would follow. I should like to know who is following the leader. Who else will contribute to Railplan under a different name

365
led by Railtrack? Roger Freeman has said that Railtrack will take the lead, so others must be following. I should like to know who the others are.
The Earl of Caithness: I do not have the advantage of having before me what my right honourable friend the Minister for Transport said at that time. In order to give the Committee the right answer I ought to look carefully at what my right honourable friend said. All I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, is that my advice is that the continuation of Railplan, in whatever form, will be by Railtrack.
Lord Tordoff: That may be all very well up to a point while Railtrack remains in the public sector. What guarantee is there that when it gets into the private sector Railplan will still be produced?
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I have listened to the reply. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for supplementing my contribution in such an effective way. I should like to test the feeling of the Committee on this important matter.
4.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 125ZDA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 120.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hunt, L.

Attlee, E.

Jay, L.

Aylestone, L.

Jeger, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Judd, L.

Birk, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Blackstone, B.

Listowel, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Longford, E.

Bottomley, L.

McNair, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mulley, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

David, B.

Ogmore, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Rea, L.

Falkland, V.

Richard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Galpern, L.

Russell, E.

Geraint, L.

Seear, B.

Glasgow, E.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Grey, E.

Thurso, V.

Hanworth, V.

Tordoff, L.[Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

White, B.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Bessborough, E.

Annaly, L.

Blatch, B.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Blyth, L.

Boardman, L.

Arran, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Astor, V.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

366

Brigstocke, B.

Lindsay, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V.

Bruntisfield, L.

Lucas, L.

Butterfield, L.

Lyell, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cadman, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.[Lord Chancellor.]

Caithness, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Marlesford, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Marshall of Goring, L.

Carnock, L.

Merrivale, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mersey, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Mountevans, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Moyne, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Munster, E.

Cranborne, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Newall, L.

Cumberlege, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denham, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Donegall, M.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Downshire, M.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Renton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Romney, E.

Faithfull, B.

St. Davids, V.

Ferrers, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Finsberg, L.

Sandford, L.

Flather, B.

Shuttleworth, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Goschen, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.[Teller.]

Harmsworth, L.

Swinfen, L.

Harrowby, E.

Swinton, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Teviot, L.

Hemphill, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L.[Teller.]

Ullswater, V.

HolmPatrick, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hooper, B.

Vivian, L.

Hothfield, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Howe, E.

Wakeham, L.[Lord Privy Seal.]

Huntly, M.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Waverley, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Westbury, L.

Kimball, L.

Wharton, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Knollys, V.

Wise, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 125ZE:
Page 90, line 27, at end insert:
("() Where the Secretary of State, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him in subsection (1) above, directs the Board to secure the disposal of any subsidiary principally concerned with the transport of goods, it shall be a condition of the disposal that the persons acquiring control of the subsidiary shall continue for the relevant period to use railway services for the movement of goods as far as reasonably practicable to the same extent as applied prior to the disposal.
() In this section, "the relevant period" means the period beginning with the date of the disposal and ending on the fifth anniversary of the disposal.

367
() In this section, "goods" includes mail, parcels, animals, plants and any other creature, substance or thing capable of being transported, but does not include passengers.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the private sector will continue to use rail if it has bought the franchise for the freight and parcels subsidiaries. As drafted Clause 8 does not provide any guarantees that privatised rail freight and parcels companies will continue to use the railways. There is nothing to prevent those companies being acquired by existing road hauliers who could promptly move the former British Rail traffic to road. That would liquidate a very important part of rail assets.
As we heard during the two previous debates, there is no strategy to guide the future of rail use. So if this clause is not amended in the way we suggest it is possible that we shall lose a certain amount of rail infrastructure which might have a deleterious effect on other parts of the network. Such an outcome would be contrary to the Government's stated aim of transferring freight from road to rail.
This outcome may not even result from any bad feeling towards rail on the part of the new owners. The Government have already recognised that a track charging regime open to unbridled market forces could work against the use of rail for freight. That is the reason for the elaborate compensation system set out in Clause 124. Nevertheless, the continuing confusion surrounding Railtrack and the fragmentation of the industry in general could lead to freight operators throwing in the towel. The Government should accept this amendment which provides a minimum degree of protection for rail freight and for the environment.
If the Minister reads the amendment, he will see that it has been carefully worded and that "the relevant period" means
"the period beginning with the date of the disposal and ending on the fifth anniversary of the disposal".
It is not a case of writing the provisions in stone; it is a case of providing a breathing space so that when the rail strategy is ultimately brought forward it will not already have been debased. There is a possibility that the track and service areas could be debased because of a lack of protection. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The effect of the amendment, if not its purpose, must be to make the acquisition of any of these properties less attractive than might otherwise be the case. The five-year rule that there must be a similar movement of goods,
"as far as reasonably practicable to the same extent as applied prior to the disposal",
ignores the possibility that during that five-year period there may be a serious slump and the market for the movement of goods may be reduced. The purchaser, however, is apparently to be compelled to maintain during the whole of that five-year period,
"as far as reasonably practicable",
the level of rail usage which had existed previously. It seems to me that that will make the acquisition of any of these properties less attractive—but no doubt that is part of its purpose.
368
On a separate point, I am fascinated by the last sentence of the amendment which defines "goods" as including,
"mail, parcels, animals, plants and any other creature, substance or thing capable of being transported".
As the definition covers animals and plants, what other creature is contemplated? Is it insects or mosquitoes? What is contemplated?
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Mosquitoes and other such insects usually take a piggyback when they travel by rail. Obviously, there are problems with this, but then there are problems whichever way one looks at it. Looking at rail in the longer term, we have suggested a period of five years in the amendment. The Minister could suggest a different period.
I am sure that the Minister will remember that the Government, through the then Minister, the right honourable Mr. Malcolm Rifkind, made it quite clear that they would do everything possible to transfer goods from road to rail. I have been involved in transport for long enough to know that there is no magic wand for doing that. The railways' methods of handling goods are improving all the time. All that I ask—and all that the amendment seeks to do—is to help Mr. Rifkind's dream to come true and for us to have a decent transfer of goods from road to rail. We hope that from the moment that that movement begins, there will be something for the goods that used to be carried by road to move on to and that rail will be able to play its part. It is a fairly simple amendment and we accept that the Minister may want to change it slightly. As I am sure the Minister is aware, the definition of "goods" is taken from page 85 of the Bill. I look forward to his reply.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I can appreciate the sentiment which lies behind this amendment. if not the substance of the amendment itself. The Government share the widely held view that freight should be transported by rail wherever that makes commercial sense. I have no need to remind the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that in recent months the Government have announced a range of measures to help the rail freight industry. Copies are available in the Library. At the heart of our plans is the knowledge that the introduction of competition and private sector skills can restore the fortunes of the industry. We discussed that earlier in our Committee proceedings.
I believe that the amendment falls into the trap of believing that freight should go by rail almost irrespective of the financial cost. That is no way to safeguard the future of the industry. It is merely a recipe for stagnation and inefficiency.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was right to bring to the Committee's attention how variable the market can be over a five-year period and the consequent down side of that. In order to secure its place in the market, rail must show that it can offer advantages to the distribution manager that other transport modes cannot match. It already has significant advantages. Where volumes are sufficient (as in coal and iron ore, for example), rail can be highly competitive even for quite short journeys.

369
Where distances are long and speed is at a premium, rail can also be highly competitive—for example, the Post Office attaches high value to the mail train service currently operated by BR's rail express systems. The opening of the Channel Tunnel will also open up new opportunities for rail freight. I fear that all too often the media and others try to sell the prospects for rail freight short. Despite everything, it remains a major industry with a shifting portfolio of traffic, still capable of winning new traffic against competition. No doubt the noble Lord was as pleased as I was to see the recently published BR annual report highlighting major new contracts for the rail freight sector, against the prevailing downwards trend.
Our aim in transferring the BR businesses to the private sector is to enhance their long-term prospects as rail-borne operations. It is a fact that overall rail freight has undergone a prolonged period of decline while in public ownership. Now is the right time to let the private sector have a go.
However, I do not believe that it would be right to force businesses to use rail, any more than it would be right to force them to use any other form of transport. Keeping freight on rail means providing attractive, affordable services which can pay their way without the aid of state coercion.
With regard to the interesting exchange between my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, I thought for a moment that, being a good Scot, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, might move from mosquitoes to midges. Some of those who have been bitten to death would not mind if one or two midges took a piggyback elsewhere from the west coast of Scotland. I can assure the Committee that the definition of "goods" is in Clause 76(1).
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, and especially for emphasising the commitment to rail freight. All that we were trying to ensure in this amendment was that if part of the rail freight business was purchased by a road freight group which was merely after the traffic, it could not immediately devalue the infrastructure of the railways. We are still a bit concerned about what will happen if too many subsidiaries are purchased for the deliberate purpose of transferring their traffic onto the roads because that would reduce the possibilities of expanding railway services.
As I am fairly confident that the Minister is not likely to give away any more than he has already done, we shall take the amendment away, read what the Minister has said and compare that with the statements made by Mr. Rifkind and with the booklet which the Minister has placed in the Library. I have a copy of that booklet and have read it. In the meantime, we shall take the amendment away and consider whether there is any way of raising this important point at a future stage in our consideration of the Bill. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 80 agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 125ZF:
After Clause 80, insert the following new clause:
("Register of railway lands
.—(1) Within two years of the passing of this Act, or by 1st January 1996, whichever shall be sooner, the Board shall compile and make available to local authorities and such other parties as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine, a register of railway lands.
(2) The register of railway lands shall classify all land holdings of the Board, its subsidiary companies and all publicly owned facility owners, except those to whom an exemption has been granted under section 17 of this Act, into—

(a) land required for the safe and efficient operation of railway services, whether passenger or freight;

(b) land required for other purposes connected with the operation of railway services or businesses related to their operation;

(c) surplus railway sites, being all areas of land in the ownership of any of the bodies mentioned above which are not required for either of the above purposes.

(3) In respect of all surplus railway sites falling within subsection (2) (c) above, the Board shall send to each local authority in whose area surplus railway sites exist a list of the sites concerned.
(4) Any local authority which receives a list of surplus railway sites shall examine the list to determine whether in its opinion any or all of the sites may in the future be required for transport use and for any such site the authority may issue a transport protection notice requiring the railway land owner not to dispose of or permit development on the site or any part of it such that the land would no longer be available for transport use.
(5) Any local authority which receives a list of surplus railway sites may require the Board to furnish that authority with a statement of the intentions of the Board or other railway land owner for disposal or development of any or all of the sites concerned and any such disposal or development shall have the prior approval of the authority concerned.
(6) Where there are no proposals for disposal or development within two years of any surplus railway site, the local authority in whose area the site is situated may serve a railway land improvement notice requiring the railway land owner to undertake works necessary to bring the land to a condition acceptable to that authority and to maintain it in that condition.
(7) A railway land owner served with a notice under either subsection (4) or subsection (5) above may if he considers the terms of the notice unreasonable appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment who may require the terms of the notice to be enforced or varied after consideration of submissions from the local authority and the railway land owner.
(8) For the purposes of this section—

"local authority" means any County Council, District Council, Regional Council, Islands Council or London Borough Council, the Common Council of the City of London or the Council of the Isles of Scilly;

"make available to" means available for inspection at the Board's Head Office and such other locations as the Board may determine or to provide copies on payment of such sums as are necessary to reimburse the costs of reproduction of the complete register of such parts of it as may be required;

"notice" means notice in writing; and

"railway land owner" means the Board or any of its subsidiary companies (whether wholly or jointly owned) or any publicly owned facility owner to whom an exemption has not been granted under section 17 of this Act.").

The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 125A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wade of

371
Chorlton. Amendment No. I 25ZF is a necessary addition to the Bill to allow action to be taken to deal with dereliction from the past, and the consequences of the further abandonment of railway facilities resulting from privatisation. The British Railways Board is one of the country's largest landowners and much of the land is no longer in operational use. Throughout the country, large tracts of urban land, meandering alongside railways, abandoned stations and goods yard sites lie disused and derelict, attracting the attention of vandals and causing blight to surrounding properties. At an earlier stage, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, mentioned the vandalism of old railway property.
Future prosperity depends upon creating an attractive environment to draw in much needed investment. That applies to the country as a whole, but particularly to the railways which may want to get rid of some of their Victorian aspects many of which were good, but there is also a great deal that was squalid. That will not be possible if the scars of history disfigure cities, towns and the countryside. The new clause aims to deal with the situation in the following way. We suggest that the British Railways Board sets up a register of all railway land, regardless of current ownership or use. That is necessary, because ownership will diversify under the Government's proposals, and the problem requires co-ordinated action throughout the country.
The board would notify local authorities of land not in operational use. Three categories of land can be foreseen. First, land which could be used again for transport purposes; secondly, that which is already proposed for development; and, thirdly, that which has no identifiable transport or development use. Local authorities should have the power to issue transport protection notices for land in the first category, which may well be part of continuous route corridors, and improvement notices for land in the third category, or if development of land in the second category would be delayed. That does not apply within two years. The Secretary of State for the Environment could arbitrate in the case of disputes.
Another example of the need for power to deal with the problem of disused railway land is to be found in Bradford, where a new station for PTA metro train services, longer distance regional railways and InterCity trains have been provided with support from the Government, the ERDF and local authorities. The old station was required for a large redevelopment jointly by the Burton Group and British Railways Board Property Group. The result was that for over two years passengers had to pick their way through the derelict hulk of the old station, with the associated risks to safety, while the developers prevaricated over whether they could afford to complete the new shopping centre. More public money has had to be spent to provide shelter and passenger access to what should have been within the original development scheme.
To be fair, the developers have met their share of the relocation costs, but have then been content to walk away leaving an incomplete station and surroundings which were an eyesore and a security
372
risk for many using the station. Public authorities in the form of the West Yorkshire PTA, Bradford City Council, Regional Railways and the Safer Cities Project have all had to find scarce funds for the necessary remedial work. That saga may be a precursor of the future when the grandiose plans of the new railway operators will be dropped like hot bricks as their financial fortunes fluctuate leaving railway land derelict, under-used and perhaps even more dangerous and unsightly than some of it is at present.
The new clause aims to tackle not just current. problems, but to provide the means to limit those arising in the future. It is hoped that the Government will recognise that action is required and adopt the spirit, if not the details, of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I hope that the Government will not accept Amendment No. 1252:F. although I accept that it deals with some of the issues to which I refer in my amendment which would allow disused railways to be taken over or used by local authorities. The amendment places too much onus on the rail operator. It expects the rail operator to maintain the line until the local authority decides whether it wants to use it. That is to place an unfair responsibility onto the rail operator. If the rail operator no longer needs to use the railway line, the local authority must decide whether it wants it. It must make the decision immediately, on the terms I have included in my amendment. The matter would end there if the local authority did not need the land.
Amendment No. 125ZF is unnecessarily complicated. It places an unacceptable burden onto the rail operator. However, in Amendment No. I 25A I have tried to simplify the arrangement whereby, in the event of a rail operator no longer wishing to use the line, the local authority will have the first offer. It will then have to bring the use of that railway line into its structure plans and decide whether it wants it. If it does not want it, the rail operator would he able to dispose of it however it saw fit. If the local authority does want it, it would have to pay its transport value and not buy it at some alternative value that the rail operator may feel could arise in the future. The price would have to be based on that of a transport facility.
I am looking at both the rural and the urban economy. On the rural side, one is worried that it might become no longer economically viable for a franchisee to use a line for freight, but there might be other uses for it which could be of considerable benefit to the rural economy. Rural lines form important links between towns. If they are not used for rail they could be easily converted to road use. They could be converted for short distances. They could be used for other activities. The local authority may feel it appropriate to act as the lead organisation to bring in other sources of finance and continue to operate a rail line which was seen locally to be of considerable importance in providing jobs.
We have already seen examples of links into urban areas from rural areas being no longer used. However, they are important links which could be used for other services into urban areas. I am aware of an example in

373
my town of Chester. There is a disused railway line that was used to take milk from the Cheshire farms into Manchester. The train picked up the milk in the mornings in Cheshire and took it to the dairies in Manchester. That line is now disused. It could be of enormous value in providing an alternative route into Chester to resolve the traffic problems that exist in that town. Under the present system, there is no way the local authority could take over that railway line at a sensible price. The British Railways Board is looking for alternative uses that might arise in the future.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will look seriously at the amendment. It is important for the rural economy and for urban areas. It acknowledges the important role which local authorities play in the development of the economy in their areas and the use to which railway lines could be put. They have already had to solve the problems of remaining open and maintaining links between the rural and urban areas. The amendment will enable local authorities to keep them open and to use them for the benefit of the economy in their areas.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, is tending to freeze the assets of the railways into an immovable mould. I should find it extremely difficult to classify land at a certain date into the three categories that he suggested. Two might be possible, but the benefits to be gained from the exercise are far outweighed by the disadvantages of his proposal.
My noble friend Lord Wade touched on an important point; that is the need to preserve routes virtually in their entirety. Immense work was done by the committee of the Croydon Tram Link as to whether five houses should be knocked down in order to complete a route. It was obviously unwise—although it did not seem so at the time—to sell the land which had become redundant from railway use. Many lines had been built in that part of the country by entrepreneurs. However, a shortsighted view was taken and a great deal of trouble was caused. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to accommodate in some part the view of my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton.
The Earl of Caithness: I was interested to hear the phrase used by my noble friend Lord Cochrane of Cults about the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. My noble friend said that it would freeze the assets of BR. I am sure that all Members of the Committee who were in the Chamber when we discussed the first amendment today were interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. My mind goes back to not so many minutes ago when the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said what a wonderful thing Lord Crossman had done by forcing BR to sell surplus land at Marylebone Station because now there was a wonderful housing estate on it. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, made such an
374
impressive point that it was remarked upon by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. But again we are now discussing the freezing of assets.
Perhaps it would be helpful to the Committee if I explained the present situation. Before even considering the sale of surplus land, BR (or in future Railtrack) will satisfy itself that the land will not be required for future railway purposes. In the case of potentially operational land—for example, disused trackbeds of no further use—BR notifies local authorities that it intends to sell so that it can make an approach to purchase the land for its own transport use (for example, light railway systems) at the earliest possible date. If there is no approach from the local authority and once the sale is decided, those with transport interests have every opportunity to bid, in common with other parties.
The future use of redundant railway land is a land use planning issue and the existing planning system is well placed to deal with such matters. Local planning authorities should, as now, have the lead role, not BR or Railtrack. In its guidance to local authorities (Planning Policy Guidance Note 4, Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms dated November 1992), the Department of the Environment stressed the importance of taking into account the potential future transport use of former rail corridors in drawing up its development plans and in planning decisions. Local authorities can, if they wish, allocate surplus railway land for transport purposes in development plans and reject planning applications for conflicting development. They can also make it clear in response to land searches that there are transport uses in prospect and that planning applications for non-transport uses would not be favoured. I know that that is of particular relevance to my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton, who has done so much for local areas and the North West. I believe that the planning guidance helps to satisfy my noble friend's anxieties.
The registration of operational land is an onerous and unnecessary requirement. As for the registration of surplus railway sites, this information is already available from BR. In addition, BR is already preparing a register of unused or under-utilised land for the DoE as part of the Government's initiative to encourage the use of surplus public land.
I believe that the present arrangements strike an appropriate balance between the need to dispose of public land, the need to safeguard potential transport land and the rights of land owners. Disposal procedures and the planning safeguards will, in principle, be unaffected by privatisation.
In the light of those existing safeguards, there seems no justification for the requirements that the two amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and my noble friend Lord Oulton Wade. In particular with regard to Amendment No. 125A, the existing system does not cause the value of ex-railway property to be inflated by any development potential and does not require it to be offered to the local authority.
I hope that I have made the case for the retention of the existing system, which will not be affected by

375
privatisation. It takes into account the serious and real anxieties of my noble friend together with other matters which are relevant.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I thank the Minister for his long and detailed reply. He is aware that one of the reasons for the interest in railway land and railway transport in general is the fact that transport is in a turmoil. Many ideas are being put forward. The situation in London is becoming so desperate that people are using the River Bus. That is a novelty but, sadly, I do not know how long the service will last.
I can see the situation as regards the railways being tied up with surplus land. I believe that local authorities in their transport planning proposals should be given every encouragement to move ahead as fast as possible and make decisions about which land they need. I agree with the Minister that the planning departments should decide such matters. However, at the end of the day we shall need a great deal of the existing railway track, particularly in city centres.
During our debates on the deregulation of the buses I was worried that there would no longer be centres in towns for the buses and coaches to stop. That is now the case and there is talk that Glasgow and Edinburgh coach stations are about to be sold. That is the kind of situation that we are trying to avoid.
I accept that my amendment is somewhat elaborate in proposing national surveys and registers of all railway land. However, the situation is not that bad because every region of the railway will have full records—at least I hope that they will—of all the land that they own. I am disappointed that the Minister is not giving a little more encouragement to local authorities to plan ahead as regards transport, because urban transport is in a mess. Once a length of railway track disappears there is no way of reinstating it. The noble Lord, Lord Cochrane of Cults, spoke about five houses that had been built on railway land and that it was no longer possible to reinstate the track. However, anyone who has been involved in the building of roads knows that if the department believes it necessary houses and almost ancient monuments are knocked down in order that the road can be built. I believe that the railways need rather more encouragement. However, I can see that they are unlikely to be given that encouragement.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I raised the important issue about local authorities. I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining the system but it is a question of the price that the local authorities must pay for the land. In order for the local community to obtain full benefit from it, it is important that the local authorities should be able to take over the land at its transport value rather than at an inflated value which it may be considered that land could command were it put to alternative use. Perhaps my noble friend will think about that issue.
My noble friend gave me the courtesy of referring to me by my christian name. That reminded me of the fact that when I entered your Lordships' House I wanted to use my christian name but I was advised
376
that it could be mispronounced and mistaken for Elton. My noble friend made it clear that it could not be so confused and he pronounced it clearly.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 125ZG:
After Clause 80, insert the following new clause:
("Joint industry body,
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall establish the Railway Operators' Forum.
(2) The Railway Operators' Forum shall consist of—

(a) representatives of every person providing railway passenger or freight services within Great Britain;

(b) one person nominated by each Passenger Transport Authority or Regional Council in Scotland or County Council in England and Wales responsible for the payment of subsidies for railway passenger services and by London Transport;

(c) at least two persons nominated by the Central Rail Users' Consultative Committee.

(3) The Railway Operators' Forum shall, together with the Regulator, ensure that—

(a) the existing business systems of the British Railways Board are maintained as the basis for the future development of common systems available to every person providing railway services in Great Britain;

(b) there shall be published a national railway passenger timetable including all the services of every person providing railway passenger services in Great Britain;

(c) every person providing railway passenger services in Great Britain offers fares which permit the making; of a journey from any railway station in Great Britain to any other railway station in Great Britain at an inclusive fare using only one ticket or voucher issued at the station of origin or by an agent;

(d) every person providing railway passenger services in Great Britain offers or participates in schemes designed to reduce the cost of travel for persons who may be disabled or elderly and for children and for such other groups as may from time to time be determined;

(e) every person providing railway passenger services in Great Britain shall participate in inter -available and multi-journey ticketing schemes promoted by London Transport or a Passenger Transport. Authority or a Passenger Transport Executive or any other local authority that may from time to time promote such schemes, within the areas of those authorities;

(f) measures are taken to promote the development of economically and environmentally efficient intermodal freight transport;

(g) co-operation amongst operators of rail services is. promoted so as to maximise the economic, environmental and social effectiveness of the railway network in Great Britain;

(h) appropriate training procedures and standards are developed and maintained by all persons providing railway services in Great Britain.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to establish a railway operators' forum. The consultative document on franchising made much of the need for a joint industry body in which the operators could come together to resolve matters which need their co-operation. There are many issues on which the operators will need the assistance of some kind of central body. The most immediate is to oversee through-ticketing. In the first instance that can be facilitated by maintaining the computer system currently used by British Rail to allocate revenue between their existing businesses and profit centres.
The forum will also be able to investigate new technology. Similarly, the forum would form a consensus view for debating with the franchising director and the regulator matters relating to concessionary and discount fare schemes. Inclusion of PTAs, London Transport and other authorities which promote such schemes would also assist in that process.
The forum could also assist in determining formats for the provision of timetable information to enable a national timetable to be published. It would provide a single point of contact to streamline discussions of common matters between operators, Railtrack and the regulator.
The forum would be a trade association for railway operators. It would allow them to put their views on economic and environmental questions. As with other such bodies, the forum could be expected to give a lead in training, continuing the work of British Rail's training schemes in that respect. Finally, it will assist the forum to have the benefit of views through representations from a central committee.
Therefore, the purpose of the clause is to promote debate on those issues and to establish the Government's thinking as regards some kind of joint body for the industry which may be quite unrecognisable in five or 10 years time. If it is unrecognisable, I hope that it is for the better rather than for the worse. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am deeply indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. Whereas he could have embarrassed me by tabling an amendment which I should have found it difficult to vote against, he has given me the opportunity, which I always long for, to support the Government.
There is no possibility that I should be willing to support such an amendment as that moved by the noble Lord, great as is my regard for him. I am not capable of adding up the numbers which the proposed railways operators' forum would comprise nor, happily, can I envisage the nightmare which is likely to dominate its proceedings. Suffice it to say that it would be quite a large body. It would no doubt meet quite frequently. It would take up a great deal of time. For those two reasons it would be unlikely to command the constant attendance of the most able people and would be faced with a tissue of absolutely impossible tasks.
It would have to maintain the existing business of British Rail; to publish a national railway timetable in circumstances of very great difficulty; to ensure that there is through-ticketing and that multi-ticketing is preserved; to look after the disabled and take measures to promote the development of economically and environmentally efficient inter-modal transport. That is not all, but it is enough.
The tasks with which it would be faced would be huge. Its competence to deal with them would be inadequate. I believe that the difficulties of running the railways under the system, if it can be run under the system envisaged by the Government, would not be helped by the creation of such a ghastly body. I hope that the Government will give it short shrift.
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: As so often on this Bill there is nothing between the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, and the Government on the principle of the matter. Where we differ, as we have done in the past and as doubtless we will do again in the future, is on the question of detail.
The Government fully accept the need for future operators to be able to enter into joint arrangements in order to facilitate the provision of railway services in a multi-operator environment. In some cases, it will be a condition of the operator's licence that he participates in such arrangements. We have made it clear, for example, that all passenger operators will be required to participate in through-ticketing arrangements, and the Bill provides for this to be secured through licensing.
The Government have also said that operators will be expected to participate in common ticketing and revenue allocation arrangements, based at the outset on BR's existing systems. Again, we intend that this should be the subject of appropriate licence conditions. It is not necessary to establish a statutory body to secure this; the licensing obligation will be sufficient to ensure that suitable joint arrangements are put in place.
Nor do we need a forum to secure the publication of a national timetable. The Government have already made it clear that Railtrack will be required to secure the publication of a national timetable in the event that publication is not arranged by another party.
That already takes care of the first three topics in the noble Lord's amendment. Other aspects of the amendment have already been discussed- in earlier debates: for example, discount schemes and multi-modal ticketing; where those are the subject of requirements in franchise agreements, the agreement itself can make necessary provision to ensure consistency across the network. Training was raised in the noble Lord's earlier Amendment No. 19 discussed last Thursday, and I explained that this was essentially a matter of competence and standards, and as such would be covered by the operator's safety case. We have similarly earlier debated environmental and freight issues in general terms. I do not want to go over ground covered at length in our exchanges on the opening day of the Committee's proceedings.
Not only is it unnecessary to set up a single operators' forum in the manner suggested by this amendment; in the Government's view, it is also highly undesirable.
Once again this afternoon, I am very pleased to welcome the support of my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. He explained more clearly than I could the complications and bureaucracy which would be involved in the proposed unwieldy body.
I am sure that the Committee will agree that we need the flexibility to create the right structures for the wide range of tasks on the future railway. We have that flexibility now, with sufficient power to impose requirements, where appropriate, but also with the freedom for operators to develop their own arrangements within a competitive environment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Whether Members of the Committee believe it or not, I was in fact very glad to hear the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. Indeed, when he started, I felt that he was on my side. However, he speaks so charmingly and I knew that, ultimately, he would go in the other direction. Despite what the noble Lord said, there will need to he some such body and the Minister seemed to agree with that view. Perhaps the detail in the amendment has been a little overdone.
I am told that until 1947 there was a body which carried out many of the activities mentioned in the amendment; it was known as the "Railway Clearing House". Indeed, the minor, independent and preserved railways have established a similar body. Somehow or other—and the Minister was quite open about this—we will need to have an organisation to cater for transfers and timetabling.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has any experience of bus deregulation. Although Glasgow is a city that I know very well, I do not know which bus goes where. Even if I learned where they were going, because of the way in which they operate and change the routes, I would probably be out of date with my information within a very short period of time. As I said, there will, ultimately, need to be such a body.
I accept the fact that when we were drafting the amendments we were a little over-enthusiastic and, perhaps, made them a little over-elaborate. Perhaps our planning should have been done with other people, rather than just laying down basic guidelines. However, the Minister was more encouraging on this occasion than he has been with regard to other amendments. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 125ZH not moved.]
Clause 81 agreed to.
Clause 82 [Disposals by the Board and its subsidiaries]:
[Amendment No. 125ZJ not moved.]
Clause 82 agreed to.
Clause 83 [Directions to the Board about the exercise of rights conferred by holdings in companies]:
[Amendment No. 125ZK not moved.]
Clause 83 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 125,4 not moved.]
Clause 84 [Transfer schemes: general]:
[Amendment No. 125 AA not moved.]
Clause 84 agreed to.
Clauses 85 and 86 agreed to.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 125AB:
After Clause 86, insert the following new clause:
("Application of Acquired Rights Directive
.—(l) The Secretary of State shall ensure the adoption of measures necessary to protect the interests of employees and of persons no longer employed in the transferor's business at the time of transfer within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC (the Acquired Rights Directive) in respect of rights conferring on them immediate or prospective entitlement to old age benefits, including survivors' benefits, under supplementary schemes referred to in the Acquired Rights Directive.").
The noble Lord said: The above amendment deals with the application of the Acquired Rights Directive of 1977. The transposition of that directive has given rise to a substantial amount of litigation, so much so that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 has come under challenge at quite a considerable level; that is, not merely in this country but also elsewhere. Those regulations have the effect of transposing the 1977 directive into national law.
The substance of the challenge is that the TUPE regulations (as they have become known) do not fully transpose the Acquired Rights Directive in a number of material ways. The challenges have been different, but perhaps I may allude to the basic terms of the directive and some of the challenges which have recently arisen. The basic purpose of the directive is that the terms and conditions of employment cannot be worsened as a result of transferring an undertaking to another organisation. As I said, the 1981 regulations sought to transpose that purpose.
However, the trouble is that the regulations were clearly drawn up far too narrowly. In particular, for example, non-commercial operations should not have been excluded. In the recent case of Watson Rask v ISS the European Court of Justice held that the regulations applied where a canteen's management: was contracted out. The contract parties had wrongly believed that the regulations did not apply as the ownership of the facilities had not been transferred. I believe I am correct in saying that that was a Danish case.
There was another recent case where the court held that the employees could apply, the undertaking in refusing to be transferred, thus enabling them to claim constructive dismissal. Indeed, as I indicated before, a number of new disputes have arisen which, again, challenge the transposition of the directive.
Perhaps the most important element of the matter is that one of the assumptions that have been made up to the present time is that employees with less than two years' employment are not covered by the regulations because they are excluded from British employment protection legislation. Almost certainly that assumption is wrong so far as concerns any interpretation of the regulations. I cannot see anything in the directive which would go as far as justifying that proposition.
We are suggesting that there is a considerable measure of uncertainty affecting the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. Therefore, to enable the litigation to take its course, it would be far better simply to refer in the Bill to the Acquired Rights Directive. There is no doubt that that is the directive that applies. It is the directive that governs the whole situation. If the regulations are shown to be inoperative or wrong in some further material respect, it would help the Government's case to ensure that the purposes of the directive would apply. That would give the Government greater flexibility.
I shall no doubt be accused by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, of, again, being unduly helpful. However. in the light of what I have said, I believe that it is important for the Government not to tie themselves

381
down to the specific regulations. I do not think that I need take the matter any further. I hope that the Minister will respond positively because it is not a particularly controversial issue. I shall listen with interest to what he has to say. I beg to move.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I do not profess to be anything like an expert on such matters as is the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. However, I believe that I have some understanding of the situation as regards TUPE and the Bill. There will be a range of transfers in the Bill—for example, some of them will be on a contractual basis to which TUPE may or may not apply, whereas others may involve a complete transfer of an undertaking to which the directive would apply. I should have thought that it would be inappropriate to include a clause such as that proposed in the amendment.
As a result of legal proceedings, there will have to be a clearer definition of when TUPE applies and when it does not. Indeed, the noble Lord referred to a number of issues now coming forward which will help to clarify the position. However, I should have thought that it would be far better for the situation to be clarified and for each contractual arrangement that emerges from the Bill to be considered in the light of the arrangements made between the various parties as regards where TUPE applies and where it does not apply. T should have thought that that would emerge in the course of the normal commercial arrangements that will be entered into following the passage of the Bill. It is entirely inappropriate to insert a new clause which refers to the directive when the directive will apply to everyone concerned anyway. It does not need to be part of the Bill. I am not the expert on these matters that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is, but I believe the proposed new clause to be inappropriate. I trust that the Government will not accept it.
6 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I agree with my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton that the amendment is inappropriate and that the suggested words should not be put on the face of the Bill. Article 3.3 of the Acquired Rights Directive states clearly that it is not intended that the transferor's obligations in respect of employees' rights to pension and similar benefits shall be transferred to the transferee upon the transfer of an undertaking. That was not the principal purpose of the directive. However, there is a proviso to that paragraph, which provides that,
"Member States shall adopt the measures necessary to protect the interests of employees and of persons no longer employed in a transferor's business at the time of the transfer in respect of rights conferring on their immediate or prospective entitlement to old age benefits, including survivors' benefits under supplementary schemes."
The amendment merely repeats that obligation and imposes on the Secretary of State a duty to adopt the necessary measures. I can assure the Committee that the UK has already adopted those measures. The noble Lord raised the point that that has not gone entirely unchallenged but we believe that we have adopted the measures. Indeed I would go further. The
382
noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will be aware that the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993—I refer the noble Lord in particular to Section 33—amended TUPE so as to apply to all undertakings, not just commercial ones. The words of the directive and the words of TUPE are, it is believed, now consistent with each other. We hope that the measure will be in force on 30th August. I believe that it goes a long way to satisfying the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis.
I was expecting the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to raise a point with regard to pensions. We shall be discussing that important issue in Committee next week. Today we have tabled further amendments to the pension schedule, about which I shall write to the noble Lords concerned, to enhance the protection provisions. Those amendments will, I believe, calm the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. From the expression of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I believe that he, too, is a little calmer than he was a mere 30 seconds ago.
Lord Tordoff: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I do not know whether I am calmer than I was a minute or two ago. I shall not know that until I have read the text of the amendments and the notes which the noble Earl has been good enough to send to us. However, underlying all the points made today on the amendment that has just been moved, and the points that will be made when we discuss pensions next week, is a feeling, certainly on this side of the Committee—I believe this applies to the Back Benches of the noble Earl, too—that Parliament has an obligation to ensure that every possible means are taken of ensuring that rights which are at the moment enshrined are transferred. When Parliament wills that there will be a change of ownership, Parliament must also will the protection for the employees.
The Earl of Caithness: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will be satisfied that what we propose provides the necessary assurances. Everyone in the Chamber is on common ground. I believe that the words of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be a further reassurance.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will my noble friend make clear how he will convey this assurance to noble Lords? Is he proposing to write to us individually or to circulate a memorandum on the subject?
The Earl of Caithness: Amendments have been tabled. When I have tabled government amendments in the past—I know the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will be reassured that there are no government amendments today—I have written to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I shall be only too happy to enclose a copy and a letter to my noble friend, given his interest in the matter.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is helpful. There is no reason why a monopoly of information should be available to those to whom the Minister writes. As this

383
should be the property of all Members of this Chamber, it might even be helpful to place the substance of the letters in the Library.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I wish to reassure him. It has always been my habit to put copies in the Library because, although I write to a specific Member of the Committee, it is difficult to cover every Member of the Committee. That is why I make sure a copy is put in the Library.
Lord Clinton-Davis: That is extremely helpful. The Minister has clarified the whole position, and I am sure that he has fully answered the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Clearly, these are matters that are the property of the whole Chamber. I do not know whether I should now approach this issue, in the light of what the Minister has said, with the measure of serenity which was implied in his observations. However, I shall certainly consider carefully what he said. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, summed up our concerns and the Minister has addressed that point. It is helpful that that should be on the record. If for no other reason than that, the debate is valuable.
There is substance in what the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said and in what the Minister said in accepting those observations. There was no intention ever on our part to push the issue to a vote. We merely wished to extract the assertions that the Minister has made which are extremely helpful. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 87 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 125AC and 125AD not moved.]
Clauses 88 to 90 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 125AE not moved.]
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Sexual Offences Bill
6.8 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 6.20 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 6.9 to 6.20 p.m.]

British Nationality (Hong Kong) (Selection Scheme) (Amendment) Order 1993
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th June be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft British Nationality (Hong Kong) (Selection. Scheme) (Amendment) Order 1993 be approved. In moving the order I shall also speak to the draft Hong Kong (British Nationality) (Amendment) Order 1993.
In addition to the two orders which are in my name on the Order Paper we have an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and a Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I thought that it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if I said how, as a matter of procedure, I thought that we might deal with these matters.
I suggest that after I have made my speech and moved these orders the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, should then move his amendment and after that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, should speak to his Motion. Then we can have a general debate on the whole subject.
After I have made my concluding speech at the end of the debate, in which I shall try to answer some of the points which have been raised, I shall move the first order. Before that is put to the House the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will move his amendment. When that amendment has been decided on, the original order, as amended or unamended, will be put and decided on. Then the second order will be put and decided on. The Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, will then be put and decided on.
I hope that this advice on how we might proceed will meet with the approval of your Lordships.
To return to the orders which are in my name on the Order Paper, subject: to the approval of your Lordships, the selection scheme order will come into force on 3rd January 1994 and the Hong Kong (British Nationality) (Amendment) Order will come into force on 21st July 1993.
Detailed arrangements governing the selection scheme were introduced by the British Nationality (Hong Kong) (Selection Scheme) Order 1990. These allowed applications for British citizenship to be made in tranches. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that quotas were set for four classes of applicant. They were: the general occupational class, the disciplined services class, the sensitive service class, and the entrepreneurs class. The British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990 provided for up to 50,000 places to be made available to British nationals in those four classes and the various groups of which they were comprised.
The selection scheme allows for points to be given for various attributes such as age, education, experience and so forth. Citizenship is given to those who score the most points.
Of the 50,000 places, 38,000 were assigned for distribution under the first tranche, which started in December 1990 and finishes on 1st January 1994. We are well on target to complete the first tranche by the end of the year. As at 3rd July, we had registered 31,568 principal beneficiaries together with 52,876 dependants.
The next phase of the scheme will be the last. Nearly four-fifths of the places will have been

385
allocated by then. The second and last phase will begin on 3rd January 1994 and will last until 30th June 1997 —at which point the Chinese assume the sovereignty of Hong Kong.
The new order makes some relatively minor adjustments to the selection scheme in the light of the experience which we obtained in the first tranche. At first sight your Lordships may find the detail of the order rather daunting —with a little algebra inserted to remind your Lordships of your schooldays. It may be helpful, therefore, if I were to explain its main provisions.
The 1990 order has been found to be somewhat rigid, and the main aim of the new order is to modify certain provisions of the scheme so as to make it easier to allocate the remaining places. The order will allow us to allocate the remaining places in such a way that more places can be provided to those areas where the demand has been strongest.
The orders which are before your Lordships this evening do not, however, make any separate provision for non-Chinese ethnic minorities to acquire British citizenship. Non-Chinese ethnic minorities can, of course, participate in the scheme in the same way as everybody else. The Motion which appears on the Order Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and which he will move shortly, urges the Government to give British citizenship to the members of that community. We wait with interest to hear what the noble Lord says.
In the first tranche of the selection scheme there are one or two categories in which fewer people than expected have applied for citizenship. That has occurred mostly among private sector managers and administrators. There has been a shortfall of applicants in that category of some 4,250, and among the police there has been a shortfall of about 150 applicants. It also appears that the number of potentially successful candidates in both the sensitive service class and the entrepreneurs class may turn out to be less than that for which provision had been made in the quota. The order provides, therefore, for places to be transferred from those categories to groups where they will be used.
It is anticipated that any transfers between groups and classes will take place on a date to be specified by the Governor. That will probably be before the processing of applications in the relevant group or class has been completed, but not until the Hong Kong Government have established the size of the unused quota.
Places in the second tranche will be allocated to individual groups on the basis of the same attributes as those which were used in the first tranche, but places will also be allocated in relation to the strength of demand from individual groups who applied in the first tranche. A few adjustments have been made to the scheme, but they are all technical.
So much for the selection scheme order. The second order—the Hong Kong (British Nationality) (Amendment) Order—sets out a number of deadlines by which British Dependent Territory citizens need to register as British nationals (overseas) if they wish to
386
have this status. The purpose of this order is to ensure that those who wish to acquire British dependent territory citizenship and British national (overseas) status can acquire those statuses—or more properly, I think, "stati"—before Hong Kong reverts to China in 1997. British dependent territory citizenship expires at that point.
The Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order 1986 provides that all British dependent territory citizens can acquire British national (overseas) status and passports before that date.
Under the terms of the United Kingdom Memorandum which is attached to the Joint Declaration, and Article 4(2) of the Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order 1986, we cannot process applications for British national (overseas) status after 30th June 1997 when the Chinese assume the sovereignty of Hong Kong.
It is estimated that there are some 3.3 million British dependent territory citizens who are, or who will be, eligible for British national (overseas) status and in fact only half a million of them have so far obtained British national (overseas) passports.
Unless we act now, the fear is that many of those 3.3 million people who are eligible will apply very close to 1997, and the Hong Kong Immigration Department will not physically be able to process so many applications before the 30th June deadline.
There would clearly be a serious problem if large numbers of applications were to remain unprocessed after the deadline had been reached. We are therefore anxious to institute a phased programme of British national (overseas) registrations so as to encourage an orderly flow of applications and to avoid an overwhelming last minute rush.
We think that cut-off dates for the acquisition of both Hong Kong British dependent territory citizens and British national (overseas) status are the only way to ensure that the people who are eligible for British national (overseas) status can acquire it if they so wish. Without any deadlines, there are no incentives for people to apply in good time.
The order therefore makes cut-off dates for different age groups, at three to five month intervals. The first cut-off date will come into place in October this year for 22 to 26 year-olds. The last one will come into place in September 1997 for children who were born in the last six months prior to hand-over.
The Governor will have discretion to accept late applications in certain cases. Those would be in respect of people who will not have fulfilled the time requirement for them to have British dependent territory citizenship before their British national (overseas) citizen cut-off date had passed. The governor will also have discretion for applicants who may have some other good reason for not having applied before.
The Governor has proposed that an appeal panel should be set up to deal with any late cases which the Immigration Department may refuse, and that is being discussed with the Hong Kong Legislative Council.
In order to ensure that there will be sufficient time to naturalise those who wish to become British

387
dependent territory citizens—and subsequently British nationals (overseas)—the order states that 31st March 1996 will be the cut-off date for the acquisition of British dependent territory citizenship.
Those proposals have caused some concern in Hong Kong, especially among members of the Legislative Council who were unhappy about the removal of the right to become a British national (overseas) at any time up to 30th June 1997. In their view. it was important that applicants should be able to retain their British dependent territory citizen status right up to the 1997 deadline.
There was never any question of applicants losing British dependent territory citizenship, and they will, therefore, be allowed to retain evidence of the fact that they are British dependent territory citizens by retaining their British dependent territory citizen passport when they register as British nationals (overseas) and when the acquire British national (overseas) passports. They will therefore have two passports: the British dependent territory citizen passport, which will last up to 30th June 1997; and the British national (overseas) passport which will be valid from the moment it is issued until and after 30th June 1997. On that basis I understand that the legislative councillors have withdrawn their objections to the order.
The orders have been produced in order that the transitional arrangements should proceed as smoothly as possible for the benefit of Hong Kong. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th June be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
6.34 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert ("but that this House regrets that the opportunity was lost to improve the future security of the Hong Kong disciplined services.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Minister has presented the orders with his usual courtesy and clarity. I hope that he will forgive me if I say that he has presented them as being somewhat technical and administrative orders. They are more than that. These are people to whom we in this country owe a debt of honour stretching back over many years. They are people for whom provision has been made in the 1985 and 1990 Acts which, as your Lordships will recall, caused a great deal of controversy at the time. I remember in particular the interventions of my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos when the Acts were first placed before Parliament.
However, the orders have never been simply administrative or technical. The orders now presented to the House appear to assume that the issues of principle have been resolved and that all we need to do is to proceed to the next, second and final stage of the implementation of the Acts. I wish to suggest to your Lordships that that is riot the case; that in all the administrative actions that this country takes we must retain still our consciousness all the time of the needs —they are often changing needs—of the people who
388
live in Hong Kong, whatever passport they hold. After all, as we have been reminded by the debates on citizenship during consideration of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, there is a comparable situation between Hong Kong and Macao. Portugal has taken a different point of view with regard to Macao which could well result in people in Macao acquiring European citizenship—citizenship of the European Union, and citizenship of Portugal —which would enable those people to come to this country while citizens of Hong Kong would not be able to do so. We have to bear that in mind. not as a primary consideration, but as a reminder of the nature of the obligation that we have to fulfil.
The amendment in my name, and the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter., are being debated together with the two orders. It would clearly be improper for me to anticipate in detail the debate on the Motion to be introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. Therefore, I merely wish to say that we fully support his Motion. The Minister will reply before either the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, or I make up our minds what to do about the amendment and Motion standing in our names. We expect the Minister's reply to recognise the strength of feeling which exists about the issues and the need for a more flexible and humanitarian approach.
I have put down my amendment in consultation with my noble friend Lord Shackleton, Unfortunately, he did not meet the 12 noon deadline to have his name on the list of speakers. With the leave of the House, he will seek to speak in the gap. He will expand with far more authority and knowledge than I can on the needs of members of the disciplined services in Hong Kong.
In effect, the issues are the same: are we to be controlled by administrative procedures, or are we to ensure that we are in control of administrative procedures? When speaking to the second order, the Minister described a series of deadlines, of cut off dates, which will apply to people of different ages. That was not the expectation when the Bill was before Parliament. It was expected that there would be an opportunity for those concerned to acquire British national (overseas) status right up to the deadline of 30th June 1997. There was no suggestion that those aged 22 to 26 would suddenly become ineligible after October 1993. The suggestions are made by those who are not prepared to ensure that we have the manpower and resources to deal with major humanitarian issues at the time when people need them to be dealt with between now and 1997. The provisions are made by people who put administrative convenience above the interests of the people of Hong Kong.
Similarly, on the first order, the Minister started by saying that we were well on target to complete the first tranche. But then he admitted in detail the extent to which there has been a shortfall until now in certain of the categories. He has admitted that there is the possibility of a shortfall of at least 4,000 people which, even if we confine ourselves to the figure of a total of 50,000, could be used for other purposes. Can it ever be anything other than administrative convenience

389
that has led Ministers, in full knowledge of the shortfall in some categories, to refuse to use that shortfall for the benefit of those who are not included? I am conscious that I should not intrude too far on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, but he understands the difficulty in which I find myself.
The difficulty which we all have is that we are talking about a place many thousands of miles away, but we behave as though we were legislating for our own home territory. We are not taking the views of the people of Hong Kong into account in the administrative arrangements that we make in the orders. We are not fully qualified to do so; we do not know what is going on. In this debate we have the benefit not only of the valued presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, but of many noble Lords who have direct experience of the situation in Hong Kong. They have a direct contribution to make, for which we are grateful. I suggest that it is slightly absurd that we should legislate in this detailed way for a country which has been encouraged by its present GovernorGeneral—and good luck to him—to seek more democratic institutions in the time since he has been there.
Until I hear the Minister's reply, I am not certain what action I propose to take on my amendment to the order, but I know that the Minister should take seriously the view from these Benches, and I know that he will wish also to take seriously the view of other noble Lords participating in the debate. We are not satisfied with the provision being made. We do not believe that it should be the final decision between now and June 1997. We wish the Government to recognise the strength of anxiety which is being expressed both in Hong Kong and here. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, in rising to speak to the Government's Motion, I shall address the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I say straightaway that I am most grateful for the support given to my Motion by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I fully reciprocate by supporting the amendment which he moved so convincingly and powerfully. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will take into account the fact that the amendment is endorsed by no less a person than the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, whose birthday it is today. The noble Earl could easily give him a good birthday present. I wish to associate myself also with the statement by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about our continuing duties and obligations to the people of Hong Kong and most particularly to the two groups we are discussing.
The whole thrust of British policy since negotiations with China about the handover of Hong Kong in 1997 began has been that we have tried, in the Joint Declaration and in the Basic Law, to do everything in our power to defend the rights, freedoms, prosperity and security of the people of Hong Kong after the transfer of power. That has been the thrust of our policy, and quite rightly so.
390
However, in addition to the group to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred, there is one small group of, at the most, 7,000 people, but probably less, and that is the group to which my Motion refers—the non-Chinese ethnic minority groups, who are particularly vulnerable. I do not believe that that can be denied.
Under the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, after the transfer of power in 1997 members of that group will have a right of abode in Hong Kong. But they do not have the right to acquire Chinese nationality, although they have been told that they can apply for a "special Chinese passport". They may or may not receive it, and it will not give them Chinese nationality. They will also have the right to have the status of a British national (overseas) which is, in effect, not much more than a travel document. It gives the holder of the status no right of abode anywhere except in Hong Kong.
According to Justice, the rights which the BNO confers are slim. British national (overseas) citizenship provides for consular protection abroad, except in China of which Hong Kong will become a part after 1997. It is precisely there that one would have thought there was most need for consular protection which will not exist. Moreover, the status of BNO runs out in the third generation.
In the view of Justice—I quote it because it has considerable legalqualifications—those people are being "rendered effectively stateless". That view is shared by the International Commission of Jurists, as it will be by most people on the grounds of common sense. After all, what is the point or the meaning of belonging to a state if one cannot live there and does not have its protection? Those are the two rights which people who belong to a state expect to receive —the right of abode and the right to protection when one is not living there. As I understand it, neither of those rights will be available to that group of citizens.
In addition, it is probable that the United Kingdom will be in breach of its obligations under the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness 1961 which obliges signatories on the transfer of territory to ensure that,
"no person shall become stateless as a result".
That is not a matter that we can lightly set aside. It should be taken seriously. I hope that the noble Earl will deal with it in his reply.
In another place on 9th July, Mr. Wardle, Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, correctly identified the nature of the problem. He said:
"The question at the heart of the debate is whether special measures should be taken for that section of the Hong Kong community,"
the section to which I refer—
"or whether they should compete, like everybody else, for the 50,000 British citizenship places".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/7/93; col. 650.]
The mistake that he makes is that this group is not like everybody else. It is precisely because they are not like everybody else that they feel vulnerable, are vulnerable and deserve protection. If they were like everyone else, that is, Chinese, ethnically, they would automatically receive Chinese nationality after 1997. It is because they are not Chinese ethnically, and are

391
not like everybody else in Hong Kong, that they require special treatment. The protection that we can offer them, and for which they ask, is full British citizenship.
The numbers are small, and the situation is unique. If their fears prove to be without foundation, they will not come here. They want to stay in Hong Kong. Therefore, we are not risking very much if, as the Government say, their fears are groundless. If, on the other hand, their fears are justified, we have given an undertaking which can only be interpreted as meaning that we will take them in. It therefore seems to me that we both behave badly and do not protect ourselves against what the Government fear will happen. That seems to me the worst of all worlds.
Nor am I alone in my belief of what is the right thing for us to do in the circumstances. The House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs advocates that course. So does Justice; so does the International Commission of Jurists; so does the Governor, Christopher Patten; and so, unanimously, does the Legislative Council (LEGCO), about which no doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, will speak. We greatly look forward to hearing what she has to say on the subject.
The Government have so far refused to reconsider their position. That refusal is based on the assertion that the fears of the ethnic minorities are groundless. I hope that I dealt with that proposition. In refusing, the Government appear to regard the figure of 50,000 as in some sense sacred and unchangeable. But there is nothing sacred about 50,000. It might just as well have been 45,000, or 65,000, or even more, as some of us at the time greatly wished. It is a purely arbitrary figure. If the Government so wish, they can change it. Even if it means legislation, so be it. There is nothing magical about the figure of 50,000. I urge noble Lords to put the utmost pressure on the Government so that we can carry out our obligations properly.
Mr. Wardle also said, at col. 652:
"We see the ethnic minorities in the same way as all other British nationals in Hong Kong".
But they are not the same as all other British nationals in Hong Kong. Unless that point is grasped, one cannot understand the case that is being made. I hope that the noble Earl will tell us how we can possibly pretend that this group of people are exactly the same as the other inhabitants of Hong Kong. It is a mistake so to think. And from that mistake flows the mistaken, and, I believe, rather shameful, position in which we are. Those people came to Hong Kong because it is British. Many of them were brought there at our instigation. They have served the colony well. Their only nationality is British. They deserve our protection, and we owe it to them to give it by making them British citizens.
6.55 p.m.
Baroness Dunn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving this Motion. I have travelled from Hong Kong to be here to support it. As we have come to expect from the noble Lord, he raises an important issue of principle that I know troubles the conscience of many Members of this House. It is one
392
that affects the future of a small number of non-Chinese British nationals who face statelessness after 1997.
Today, they are the Queen's subjects. They settled in a British colony to enjoy British governance and to give allegiance and loyal service to the Crown. They have contributed to Hong Kong's wealth and diversity. Many fought in defence of British territory. Their ties with the countries from which their families came have long since lapsed. They are now British dependent territory citizens, but will lose that status in 1997. They have no other sovereign but Her Majesty the Queen. Soon they will have none.
Ministers have argued against granting full British citizenship to members of this group on two main grounds: first, that the provisions in the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Chinese Basic Law give them sufficient protection; secondly, that this is not a special case for setting a precedent.
As to the first of those grounds, under the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, after 1997 this group can have a right of abode in the Chinese special administrative region of Hong Kong; but they have no right to Chinese nationality. They can travel on a form of British travel document; but they have no right of abode in Britain. they can chance their luck and apply for Chinese nationality; but Chinese nationality laws are based on race, and they have no affinity with Chinese culture.
Ministers may argue that these improvised arrangements are good enough, but no one could argue that they are an honourable solution. Many eminent authorities have given their opinions that these people will be rendered stateless. The Times puts it more vividly: they will find themselves in "a legal no-man's land".
As to the second argument, this is a uniquely special case, as noble Lords well know. No other citizens of Britain face statelessness. What is to take place in Hong Kong has no precedent in British colonial history. Hong Kong is not offered independence: sovereignty is to be transferred to another state where these British nationals will have no right to become citizens.
For years now the ethnic minority has pressed its case with dignity. Like all of us, those people want to continue to live and work in Hong Kong. But they are apprehensive that after 1997 there will be no sovereign obliged to protect them if and when, in the turbulence of time, they have to face the unpalatable fact that they are nobody's nationals and citizens of nowhere.
Last week, in another place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, replying for the Government, assured the non-Chinese ethnic minority in Hong Kong that if they ever came under pressure to leave Hong Kong and had nowhere else to go, the British Government of the day would be expected to consider sympathetically their case for admission to the United Kingdom.
That is simply not good enough to discharge the constitutional obligations that go with sovereignty. Furthermore, it only echoes firm pledges made before on behalf of Her Majesty's Government—in 1985 by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and in 1986 by the

393
then Home Secretary in another place—pledges that were made to all British dependent territory citizens in Hong Kong, not just the small ethnic minority. Hong Kong British dependent territory citizens attached great importance to those undertakings, as I did. Today, there is alarm and resentment that not only is there no solution to the problem of the ethnic minority but that Her Majesty's Government are backtracking on undertakings given to all British dependent territory citizens.
But we have not yet despaired of the enduring values on which Britain prides itself. We still hope for an honourable and just solution. We expect fair treatment by the British Crown for British subjects. It is a tribute to the way in which British values have taken root in Hong Kong's soil that the predominantly Chinese population do not begrudge special treatment for the ethnic minority. Successive legislatures have been united in pressing their case.
By granting full British citizenship to that small group of vulnerable and deserving British nationals, there can be no clearer signal given to the people of Hong Kong that Britain understands the unique complexities of Hong Kong's situation. There can be no better example that Britain takes the moral stance not only on large matters but on small ones, too. There can be no firmer commitment that Britain has the will and the determination to do right by its subjects in Hong Kong.
Yesterday in this House I listened to impassioned speeches about the right of people to choose their future and the duty of elected representatives of the people to exercise their judgment in the best interests of the people. It was a poignant reminder to me that the people of Hong Kong had neither the right to choose their future nor the right to elect those who decide their destiny. Their fate on so many important issues affecting their fundamental rights and freedoms has been decided without their say.
I am privileged to be able to plead in this House the case of the minority. This House is renowned for its compassion and humanity, its independence and fairness. My Lords, do not deny their trust. I urge your Lordships to support their case.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, my main reason for wishing to take part in this debate this evening is that the current commitment by Her Majesty's Government to non-ethnic Chinese British dependent territory citizens and their admission to this country was written in words drafted by me and given to your Lordships on 16th May 1986 when I moved that the Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order 1986 be agreed to.
In those days I was at least in part in the shoes that my noble friend Lord Ferrers finds himself wearing this evening. Subsequently I had to live with that commitment, as the Minister responsible for Hong Kong. Indeed, as I am sure both the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, and the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, will recall, those words were played back to me at fairly regular intervals. I have to say that my
394
experience of Hong Kong both over the period in which I had that responsibility and subsequently has somewhat coloured my opinion. What I said on that occasion in 1986 was that I would go further than assurances given before. I said that I would:
"go further than the assurances so far given to the community"—
that is the community of non-ethnic Chinese BDTCs—
"by this Government by saying that we should consider it an obligation upon any future government to treat with very considerable and particular sympathy the case for admission to the United Kingdom of any individual British national who, against all our present expectations, came under pressure to leave Hong Kong".—[Official Report, 16/5/86; col. 1437.]
I well understand and appreciate the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. But the commitment that I gave, in the face of considerable pressure, as some of your Lordships will recall, to do something of that kind from all sides of the House to meet similar, if not precisely the same, concerns as those expressed this evening, was a considerable one.
It was a commitment of unusual proportions. To place an obligation on future governments of any party and have it accepted, is going a great deal further than usually can be thought of as satisfactory or mutually agreed. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, to whom the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred, expressed concern at the original 1986 order. He went so far as to say at that time that the word "obligation" was crucial. He said that his party would honour it and would consider taking other steps as well.
I accept that the mood in Hong Kong has changed since 1986. Tiananmen Square, the slow progress of the JLG talks, about which in 1986 I was able to be quite bullish, the delays in agreeing infrastructural developments and Chinese concerns about the Hong Kong democracy proposals have all changed the climate of opinion in Hong Kong. The 30th June 1997 is less than four years away.
I have to say that I found the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, this evening extremely convincing. Despite the change in the mood in Hong Kong, there is a case to say that the potential circumstances of non-ethnic Chinese British dependent territory citizens has not, at least yet, altered as much as some would claim. Her Majesty's Government have gone a long way toward meeting legitimate concerns about BN(O) passport holders, British dependent territory citizens and others, including Crown servants and ex-servicemen as well as those BDTCs who are not ethnically Chinese and who, as has been explained so well this evening, have no other form of citizenship.
However, we must still consider whether what is proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, would be fair in relation to others; would be effective; would benefit subsequent generations and would secure people's confidence let alone encourage their continual abode in Hong Kong after 1997.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, make very real points when they say that those concerned would effectively

395
ultimately become stateless. There are many aspects in regard to our handling of Hong Kong over recent months which have troubled me. I am on record in that regard and shall not repeat them this evening. I am encouraged that matters are now beginning to move more positively. I hope that the momentum, generated following my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary's recent visit to Peking, can be maintained.
On the substance of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, while the assurances that I was able to give for the Government in 1986 were honourable, far-reaching and a substantial commitment and were right for that moment, they may not necessarily have stood the test of time. The time may well come when the Government will have to give in to the demands legitimately being made by the community in Hong Kong and address more starkly the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn. I suspect that Her Majesty's Government will gain considerable credit for accepting that fact now rather than being pushed by circumstances into later acceptance, when the force of so doing will not have such a positive effect on confidence for all concerned as it may have now.
I cannot go so far as to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. What I have heard this evening makes me feel more in tune with the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. However, I hope that a Division on either Motion will not take place. I hope also that my noble friend Lord Ferrers will be much more forthcoming when he winds up and can give an indication that the Government are prepared to think again on the matter. My view is that my earlier commitment, given on behalf of the Government, was sufficient for its time. But in the light of current circumstances it does not go far enough nor as far as 1 should like to see in 1993.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for not being in my place at the start of the debate. Having been here last night, together with a cast of hundreds, I had to chair a meeting in Scotland in the earlier part of this afternoon. A combination of this debate starting early, the aircraft being late and the traffic being more than usually heavy led me to the discourtesy of not being present at the beginning. I apologise particularly to the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for not being here when they spoke. However, I was particularly pleased to be present for the speech of my noble friend Lady Dunn, who had come a great deal further than the shuttle flight from Edinburgh. She spoke with all the authority and feeling which one would expect, and I have a great deal of sympathy with her views.
The question of nationality is always an emotional one. It affects people's sense of belonging and security. Indeed, it affects several generations in the future because on this issue people think not only of themselves, but also of their children and their
396
children's children. One can see people in Hong Kong planning their lives in that sense—for the sake of their children and their grandchildren. That is why these issues must be handled with particular care and sensitivity.
On that score the Government have reacted to the Hong Kong (British Nationality) (Amendment) Order with sensitivity. The Legislative Council sent a delegation to express concern about some of the effects of what was written into the order, reflecting concern felt in Hong Kong that if people had to go through a process of applying now for new passports, and lost their BDTC passports, in some way they may be deprived of some right. It would have been easy for the Government to be bureaucratic on such an issue. It would have been easy for them to brush aside those concerns. It is greatly to their credit that they did neither and instead came up with a pragmatic, sensible, flexible solution by which people, when they obtain their new passports, can also keep their old BDTC passports until 1997.
There is another issue on which similar sensitivity and flexibility is required; that is, the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter of the non-Chinese ethnic minorities. The Joint Declaration and the documents associated with it went to great trouble to deal with the difficult issue of nationality, passports and right of abode. It came up with a pretty good solution. Since then there has been the British nationality package. It may not have allowed for as many UK passports as some, including myself, argued for at the time. But given the political circumstances it was a brave and forward act by Her Majesty's Government. It had the required effect of encouraging people crucial to the economic success of Hong Kong to stay in that territory.
However, one group was left out of those moves, and that is the ethnic minorities. As has already been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, the numbers are small. We were given a figure of 7,000; I have heard the figure of 5,000) mentioned; the number is diminishing rather than becoming greater. It is a community which came to Hong Kong because Hong Kong was under British administration. Many came to serve the Hong Kong Government or joined the disciplined forces. It is a community which contributed enormously to the success of Hong Kong, economically and in terms of its administration. It is a community which deserves our sympathy.
It could be argued that to do something special for that group would be divisive. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, was implying that at one time that had been the thinking—and indeed it was—and justifiably so. It can no longer be looked at in that light. After all, we had a delegation from the Legislative Council with the unanimous support of that council (the Legislative Council is not noted for being unanimous on many things but on that issue it was unanimous) pressing the British Government to take action. Therefore the argument that it would be divisive to do something special no longer holds good.
It may be argued that those people will be able to obtain BNO passports; that their children will be able to obtain BOC passports after 1997; that their

397
grandchildren in certain circumstances will be able to obtain BOC passports and so they will be covered. But that is the end of the line. After those grandchildren there is no passport; there is no form of nationality. Anyhow, as has been argued before, those documents will be seen as travel documents rather than any form of citizenship. Therefore we have a unique group of people. We are pressed by the Legislative Council of Hong Kong to treat them in a unique way. We must respond accordingly and with sympathy.
Perhaps I can mention one point which I was asked to raise by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, who has taken a great interest in these matters. He regrets that he cannot be here this evening. He has taken an interest in this matter since 1981 and has great sympathy for the Motion spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter.
I mention briefly the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I have sympathy for anything that helps the work of the disciplined services in Hong Kong. Both the disciplined services of the Hong Kong Government and the Hong Kong people who have served in the United Kingdom forces in Hong Kong make a notable contribution. However, I find it hard to believe that we should distort the very careful arrangements that have been made for the British nationality package. As the order makes clear, they are complicated but very carefully worked out. It has been said that one needs a degree in computer science before one knows how the points will work out, but the essential matter is that those arrangements have been made with great care. I do not think that it would be right to distort them.
But I believe that it would be right to look sympathetically at the position of the non-Chinese ethnic minorities. I hope that when the Minister comes to sum up he will be able to tell us that the Government recognise that this is a group with special concerns which the Government will look at and try to meet.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, the last time I was debating with the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter (which was on the subject of cricket) I found myself on the opposite side, although I greatly respected his views which subsequently turned out to be more appropriate than mine. I am glad to say that this time we are on the same side. I support most strongly what he and other noble Lords have said about proper citizenship for the non-ethnic Chinese minority of Hong Kong, largely of Indian origin.
I know that other noble Lords can do this so much better than I can. In particular, we have heard the speeches of my noble friend Baroness Dunn and my noble friend Lord Wilson of Tillyorn based on their great experience. I add my voice to theirs. In all this we would be backing only what the Hong Kong people themselves, through their Legislative Council, had carefully considered to be fair and just. We would all hope that in Hong Kong, where we have such a deep and binding obligation, Government action in respect
398
of those people would still have a large moral and ethical content and would not be influenced purely by expediency. I believe that it is morally completely wrong to have a group of people who after 1997 will have no proper guarantee of citizenship but only travel documents and British national (overseas) status, and certainly no guaranteed long-term right of abode, so that they will be virtually stateless, whereas in a generation or so their descendants will become completely stateless and lose their passports. That will be so unless they take Chinese citizenship, which will be given automatically to those of Chinese origin. They may not want that, and indeed may not be offered it. The same applies to a return to their country of origin with which they have long since cut any ties or connections.
I know that in the statement great play has been made of the fact that if after 1997 any of these people are, for whatever reason, forced to leave Hong Kong and their position becomes untenable, successive governments here will give sympathetic consideration to granting them right of entry and abode in the United Kingdom. That statement purportedly committing all subsequent administrations (though I do not know how) is so vague and contains so many loopholes that it can hardly be expected to give this deeply and rightly worried group of people any confidence that they will not be abandoned in the near future, as they certainly will be abandoned in the longer term.
This comparatively small group of people, adding up with dependants to no more than 7,000 (some of whom I came to know well and worked with when I served under my noble friend Lord MacLehose of Beoch when he was Governor), went to Hong Kong a number of years ago. Many went there before the great influx from Shanghai at the end of the 1940s and early 1950s. They went there not because of any particular links with China but because the British were there and they wanted to serve them and work under their protection. This they have done in many capacities: frontier police, security guards, government clerks and so on. They have done that with great loyalty, pride and a sense of duty as servants of the Crown. They look upon themselves as British and have a right to be treated as such, just as the citizens of Gibraltar, who went to the rock to support the British garrison, have done and as a result have been rewarded with full British citizenship and right of abode.
As has been said by noble Lords, the great majority of those 7,000 would wish to continue to live in Hong Kong and serve the local administration, if they were allowed to do so. I do not think that there need be any fear of a mass exodus all at once. But I believe that the least we can honourably do, if we are to live up to our unique responsibility to this small group of loyal servants to the Crown, is offer them proper British citizenship and right of abode now or at least immediately after 1997. I believe that those who have been closer to the problem more recently than I have will agree with me that if this is to be done it must be

399
a separate arrangement and not come out of the existing quota of 50,000 to be granted to those from elsewhere in Hong Kong and for other reasons.
Finally, I emphasise that in granting this we would only be doing what the people of Hong Kong themselves feel is a fair and just solution.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, earlier this afternoon I was told that 18 speakers had to be fitted into an hour. According to my calculation, each would have 3.3 minutes if we all had the same amount of time. I knew that would not be the case, so I prepared a speech that would last 30 seconds. As the position now appears to be slightly different I ask your Lordships' indulgence if I multiply that by a small figure.
I am afraid that I do not rise to speak in favour of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Having listened as carefully to his speech as I was able to, frankly I could not understand what he was getting at, but I am sure that that was my failure. However, I rise to support strongly the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. It was almost exactly 30 years ago that The Times contained a leading article—probably one of the most influential leaders that it ever had—under the title, "It is a moral issue". I suggest that that is the theme of this debate. Having listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, and the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, it is clear to me that there is a very real obligation to this small number of people.
I make two or three rather obvious points. First, I do not believe that China has any obligation to those people in comparison with Britain's obligation. Secondly, they are not, and we should not see them as, economic migrants. Indeed, if they were economic migrants Hong Kong of all places would fully understand why we were not prepared for that reason to admit them. That does not mean I do not believe that if they come to this country—probably not many of the 7,000 will do so—they will make a very considerable economic contribution, because practically everybody who comes to Britain from Hong Kong does this country nothing but good.
What I say to my noble friend who is to answer this debate is that I for one will not be happy if the House is told that under the arrangements to be made for these people they will get passports that give them the right to come to Britain and that if they are here for a sufficient length of time they will then qualify for British nationality. I am not prepared to accept an undertaking that in the unforeseeable circumstances of three or four years' time there would necessarily be —under the administrative procedures which could well then be in force—agreement for them to stay for long enough to get that right of British citizenship.
Therefore, I must say to my noble friend that unless we get a firm and watertight commitment to fulfil an obligation which is a very small one—when I say "a very small one" I suggest a perhaps fanciful analogy: that somehow there is something worse about someone who robs an old lady for a few pennies than someone who robs a bank manager for several thousand pounds; both are wrong but the first is, in
400
my view, worse than the second—I would be prepared to support the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, should he choose to divide the House.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I am not quite sure of the implications of the somewhat convoluted procedures of the Motions and the amendment, but if it is in order I should like to support both the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and the Motion introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred to The Times leader which was headed "It is a moral issue". Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that that leader was in fact about what was then called the Profumo affair. Nevertheless, I agree with him entirely that this also is a moral issue.
Speaking generally, before addressing the terms of the Motion and the amendment, I have had experience of Hong Kong for around 40 years since I first went there as a British Army officer. I have been on many occasions since in various incarnations. I have grown to have an enormous admiration for the people of that island. They are industrious, ingenious and attractive people. I have to say that the arrangements that have been made for them after 1997 when the island is quite understandably handed over to the Chinese have been somewhat less than generous.
A comparison was made in the debate with Portugal and Macao. Perhaps it may seem to your Lordships somewhat extreme but I should have thought it quite acceptable that all the citizens of Hong Kong should have been given the right of abode in this country if they so wished it. They are, as I have said, industrious and ingenious, and as has already been suggested, if they all descended upon us—not a likely eventuality—I cannot help thinking that they would have an enormously beneficial effect upon the somewhat battered economy of this country. They would not, of course, exercise that right because there is reason to believe that after 1997 most of the citizens of Hong Kong of all ethnic categories will want to stay there. But they may not, and it is for that reason I believe that we have been less than generous and less than imaginative in our treatment of them.
I have a special reason for speaking about the discipline forces—and especially the armed forces—in Hong Kong, many of whom will have special difficulties when the Chinese take over in 1997. I know that some special arrangements have been made, especially for people who have been working in sensitive appointments and areas, but I still think that we have not done enough. For example, there is a military unit in Hong Kong which is in the order of battle of the British Army. It is a unit of the British Army. When I visited the unit recently at its base in Stonecutters Island I discovered that the men were perplexed and surprised that they, who are serving Her Majesty's Government not as mercenaries or as attached personnel but as a unit of the British Army, were not being given the right of citizenship or of abode in this country after 1997. I believe that they have a quota. A certain number of them may apply for

401
and may get a British passport. But it is to me a source of some surprise that not all—members and families of a British Army unit—have the right of abode in this country if they should so wish when the handover takes place in 1997.
However, the discussion tonight is not entirely about them. It specifically relates to the maximum of 7,000 non-Chinese—most of the unit about which I was speaking are Hong Kong Chinese—who have, as the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, told us so movingly and so vividly, no right to acquire Chinese citizenship, no right of abode anywhere else and who will in fact have been rendered stateless. We owe that ethnic minority group special consideration. I very much hope that the noble Earl will be able to assure us that, whatever other real and sensible considerations and factors have to be applied to this situation, those people will be borne very much in mind as a unique group.
Before I conclude, I would like to say that, unlike some other noble Lords, I have grave doubts about the wisdom of the line of action being taken by the present Governor of Hong Kong. I am extremely worried about some of the things that are happening in Hong Kong at the moment. I shall go no further than to say that I think that some of them owe more to political point scoring than to diplomatic vision or sensitivity. It is, after all, a people who after 1997 will be handed over to the People's Republic of China. It seems to me that perhaps we ought to think very hard before taking action which will so offend and upset the Government of the People's Republic of China that those actions may rebound upon the people of Hong Kong after 1997. If, as some noble Lords have said, the position of the non-Chinese ethnic minority group in Hong Kong is unique, so is the position of the people of Hong Kong as a whole. This is not comparable with any other political situation in our recent knowledge. Here is a territory and a people who will be handed over completely in 1997 to another sovereignty—to another nation.
I know that the Chinese have a reputation for sticking to their undertakings. They have a reputation —and a deserved reputation—for integrity in international affairs. But things can change. We have seen how things can change. The events of Tiananmen Square have been mentioned already in your Lordships' House this evening. I happen to believe that some of the reporting of Tiananmen Square by the British media was distorted and exaggerated. Nonetheless, it took place. I ask your Lordships, and especially the noble Earl when he speaks on behalf of the Government, to bear in mind that whatever undertaking may be given about the future of Hong Kong after 1997, things can change in China and Peking just as they can change anywhere else—and they can change for the worse as well as for the better.
I repeat a comment which I believe was made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Like many others, I am simply not satisfied with the safeguards and the attitude that have been taken to the granting of nationality to the people of Hong Kong, and especially to the armed forces—the disciplined forces
402
—in Hong Kong, and especially to that single unit of the British Army which still remains in Hong Kong but which has been given no special treatment in the arrangements that have been made. I am concerned about the people of Hong Kong as a whole. I can only say that if, as I think is probably unlikely, either the Motion or the amendment were to be pressed to a Division in your Lordships' House this evening, I would support them both.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I rise to express my strong support and great sympathy for the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I should like to say at the outset how delighted I am to find the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, in our midst. I appreciate what a distance she has travelled in order to speak to us. She made the case movingly for the ethnic minority—the 7,000 or so people—many of whom I have had the privilege of meeting over the years in travelling to Hong Kong and to whom I believe that we owe a very great debt of honour. That phrase has been used, and it is right to use it.
I am conscious that I am in the presence of two former governors of Hong Kong who have done much for the colony over the years that I have been going there. I was privileged to work on the University Grants Committee for the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, and I am proud to think that I was involved in establishing a medical school and a dental school. The noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, helped us to get the dental school started. I have been proud to work also under the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, for two foundations. One is the Croucher Foundation, which was much helped in its initial stages by a Member of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Todd, and which is much supported by another Member of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Lewis. I have also worked for the Jardine Foundation. I am sad that the former mistress of Somerville College, Lady Park, is not in her place this evening because I know how strongly she feels in favour of the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that a good infusion of Hong Kong's people and citizens—they need not be Chinese citizens only —would not do this country any harm.
As a chairman of those trusts, I have spent quite a lot of time face to face with young Chinese people. If there is anxiety in this House—and I hope that there is not—about a flood of immigrants from China (from the particular group mentioned tonight or from the Chinese people as a whole), I can advise your Lordships from my conversations during the past 10 years when interviewing people across the table for the Croucher Foundation and the Jardine Educational Trust, that I have recognised quite a considerable shift in feeling among those young people. Whereas they used to want to come to the UK or perhaps go to Canada for their period of residence so that they could take out citizenship either here or elsewhere in the world, that feeling has now been replaced by a great growth in confidence. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has encountered the same thing. When one says to those young people, "What

403
are you going to do when you have your PhD or degree and have finished school or university here?", there is the immediate reaction, "I shall come back to Hong Kong". They say that the Pacific Rim is the place to be. It is therefore my opinion that there will not be any great invasion by these 7,000 people. They find life very exciting in Hong Kong. They are conscious that their economy is a strong one. They are conscious that they are beside an enormous and fascinating market. They are surrounded by very intelligent people. I agree with that view wherever it is expressed.
I hope very much that the noble Earl will do whatever he can within government and through the authorities to ensure that the people mentioned in the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, get fair play. I hope that they will be given the chance to come here. As I said, I do not believe that many of the 7,000 will do so. Of course, some will, and we shall be pleased to have them. I can assure the House that the parents and children of this so-called "minority", to whom I have given scholarships, will not do us any harm at all. They will do us good. I hope that whatever can be done by those present in the Chamber to encourage the Government to have the generosity to see that these people are special and to help them with their citizenship will be done. As the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, pointed out, it is important that we consider also the citizenship of the children and grandchildren of the people in that group. If we can do that, I hope that it will be carried forward as a debt of honour.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, when I was about to be sacked from my first job, which was that of Assistant Chaplain at St. John's Cathedral, Hong Kong, an imaginative bishop stepped in and made me, at an inconceivably early age, vicar of Christ Church, Kowloon Tong. I say "an imaginative bishop" and not just a helpful one because R.O. Hall, as many of your Lordships will know, was also the first Anglican bishop (by about 30 years) to ordain a woman priest, and thereby proved that his promotion of myself was not an isolated stroke of genius.
My new parishioners were to a large extent the English-speaking Anglicans of the New Territories beyond Boundary Road, and a majority of them were Eurasians. Quite a number of them were members of the ethnic minorities about whom we are talking this evening. I thought of them even then as the heart and strength of the colony. They did not belong to the somewhat frenetic society of expatriates, living on the Peak, whom I knew reasonably well from my time at the cathedral; nor did they belong to the Chinese, looking for the most part towards Peking or Taiwan. They were true Hong Kong people, many of them products of schools such as the Diocesan Boys' School and the Diocesan Girls' School, although many had their own non-Christian religions. Their home was British Hong Kong—not just as a place, but as a concept.
These people must not be left without right of nationality and abode. They must not merely be
404
promised, "Things will not go wrong; but if they do, we will bail you out if we can, and we still happen to feel like it; and"—as has been mentioned—"if we are still able to". They must not be subject to a points system which favours the strong and the rich at the expense of the poor and the weak.
The Government of this country, under any of the parties which has been in power since the decline of the Empire, have a bad record in looking after those who are loyal to them. I cut my teeth in your Lordships' House on the Kenyan Asians legislation—and I know. These days I am involved with the people of St. Helena who are not being treated as well as they might be. But here we are talking about a measurable and manageable number—not about the enormous numbers with which we were scared in relation to the Kenyan Asians. It will put no strain on this country to give them right of abode and nationality; and, as has been pointed out by almost every speaker, we shall benefit from that.
I go to Hong Kong in August with a delegation of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I hope to see those who were my people. I speak tonight because I could not face them without having spoken. But I also hope to speak to them of the good news which I believe the Government will have to give them sooner or later, and which they would do much better to give them now rather than later.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, I apologise for not being here at the start of the debate which took place rather earlier than I thought it would. Unfortunately, I missed some of the speech of my noble friend Lady Dunn, who brings with her the unquenchable spirit of Hong Kong. I should like also to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who, when she was Prime Minister, fought harder than anyone to ensure that the Hong Kong people obtained some passports—but perhaps not as many as she or I would have liked. At the time. she faced great opposition from within her own departments of government. Hong Kong should know that it is due to her that they received the passports that they in the end received.
On 29th June 1990, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said:
"It would not have been sensible to write the details of the scheme into the Bill. They have to be kept flexible so that Parliament can, if necessary, be asked to approve changes later on in response to changing circumstances in Hong Kong".—[Official Report, 29/6/90; col. 1824.]
I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, took that to mean, as I did, that should circumstances change, there would be a look to see whether extra passports could be given, if necessary. I am glad to see that she nods her head in agreement.
The situation has changed, in some ways quite remarkably. After the Tiananmen Square affair, opinion in Peking hardened against the students and supporters of the Tiananmen students in Hong Kong. It hardened also against the students in Peking. Many of them were sent to political prisoner camps where they have been treated with the utmost cruelty and violence to "rehabilitate" them, as the famous

405
communist term goes. Some of them are still there. I am afraid that that may happen to any Chinese person who served with the British Armed Forces during our period in Hong Kong. The number of passports necessary, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, is small; and, if nothing else can be done, they must be protected against any form of reprisal which might be taken against them if Peking felt so disposed. I should not like to think of them put into political prisoner camps in mainland China for rehabilitation.
We need not be afraid of upsetting unduly the Peking authorities by changing a little the provisions relating to passports for Hong Kong Chinese or members of the non-Chinese ethnic minorities. We should remember that China is a strange and great country. In the end, she looks after her own interests first. There are three things that she wants at the moment. She wants to be a member of the GATT, as Hong Kong is; she wants the Olympics 2000 rather than have them held in Manchester; and she wants most favoured nation status with the United States. Peking is not likely to show anger, cause fear or take reprisals as a result of us giving a few more passports to the people in Hong Kong, 3 million of whom were deprived wantonly of those passports by the first British Nationality Act. It was enacted because people in Brixton did not like being mugged by people from Jamaica. As a result of that Act, many people except those from Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, were excluded from having the passports to which they had been entitled all their lives.
I shall support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has a kind heart. I am sure that he has been pondering with some anxiety the possible avenues that may be open to many of the people who feel they might be put in a dangerous position after we have left Hong Kong. I am sure that he will do all he can with the Government, because various parts of Whitehall can be stubborn, to ensure that everything possible is done to increase the number of passports issued.
7.55 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, in my brief contribution I do not want to discuss the impact of the two amendment orders which the Minister so clearly outlined. They provide an element of flexibility to the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1980, a fair allocation for the second tranche of applications for British citizenship and a timetable for the orderly registration of those applying for British national ordinary status. However, the orders do not provide for proper nationality status for the non-Chinese ethnic minorities who are British dependent territory citizens of Hong Kong. It is to that end, as have most other noble Lords who have spoken this evening, that I wish to address my remarks and, in so doing, to support the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter.
The subject was debated in the other place on 9th July. It is well known that a central objective of Her
406
Majesty's Government in her negotiations on Hong Kong with China has been the desire to protect the rights, freedoms and prosperity of the peoples they will hand over to Chinese rule in July 1997. One of the basic rights is the right to nationality.
Most noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lady Dunn in a most moving and convincing speech, have drawn attention to the plight of the non-Chinese ethnic minorities post-1997. It is seen by many as an embarrassing loose end to the Sino-British agreement. The history of the involvement in Hong Kong of the non-Chinese ethnic minorities is well documented. They have established a community that is highly respected for its social and economic contribution to the colony's development. Many have lived in Hong Kong for generations and have few or no ties elsewhere. They include major employers and senior figures in finance and government. I understand that until recently the Indian population, which makes up a minuscule percentage of the colony's population, contributed almost 10 per cent. towards the colony's wealth.
Because those minorities are not ethnic Chinese, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, China's race-based law gives them no automatic right to Chinese nationality, even if they wished to take it, although the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department gave assurances in another place in the debate on 9th July that,
"The Joint Declaration and article 24(6) of the Basic Law guarantee the ethnic minorities the right of abode in Hong Kong … The Peking authorities have said that people in Hong Kong who are not ethnically Chinese are welcome to remain and that it is open to them to apply for Chinese citizenship". —[Official Report, Commons, 9/7/93; col. 651.]
However, as I understand it, there is a real fear that the Chinese government will, at best, grant second class citizenship to those people, and could effectively exclude them from becoming chief executives of their own companies or from filling senior civil service and police posts. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has already mentioned that the Chinese authorities consider the British national (overseas) documents to be of no more value than travel documents. Although these minorities have been offered the token status of British overseas citizenship it has been mentioned by many noble Lords that it does not confer the right of abode in Britain nor British consular protection in Hong Kong, and that will expire with the first generation.
While the Home Secretary has said that these ethnic minorities in Hong Kong can apply for British citizenship under the selection scheme established by the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990, presumably under the section relating to key entrepreneurs, I would argue that this is a touch elitist, in particular as the points allocated to the criteria of experience, education, training and special circumstances could favour the more affluent and successful applicants over those who are less privileged.
It has been argued that for Her Majesty's Government to refuse the non-Chinese minorities in Hong Kong the right to British citizenship could be a violation of their obligations under the 1961

407
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Article 10 obliges any state involved in the transfer of territory,
"to secure that no person shall become stateless as a result".
A concern has been raised that it would set a dangerous precedent if these non-Chinese minorities were to be given British citizenship. Many noble Lords have raised that point tonight. Miss Emily Lau, who led the recent delegation from the Hong Kong Legislative Council was emphatic that LEGCO did not believe that giving these people British citizenship would create a precedent. She said:
"We think they stand in a rather unique and precarious situation".
So, in conclusion, it is my hope that the Government will take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and take a more flexible arid humanitarian approach to the plight of the non-Chinese ethnic minorities. As a leading article in The Times of 1lth June put it:
"If Britain does not offer them passports they will find themselves in a legal no-man's land, with no nation, no passport, no home and no rights".
It is for those reasons that I support the Motion.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, as the last speaker on the list before the winding-up speeches, I shall be brief. I hope that I shall eclipse the record of 30 seconds set by my noble friend Lord Marlesford. The case has been well put by all noble Lords who have spoken, and I have little to add. I wish to underline only two points. The first was made by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn. It is that the success of the British nationality package in 1990 was in anchoring people in Hong Kong. I believe that the same reasoning should apply to the 7,000 non-ethnic Chinese who will not come here but who will wish to stay in Hong Kong. After all, they were born there —some are second generation—and they will wish to stay where their lives and friends are and will not wish to come to this country. My honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State in another place recognised that the nationality package would not meet their requirements. He admitted that candidly in the debate on 9th July.
Secondly, I wish to contrast the position of the citizens of Macao. Other noble Lords have made the point and it is worth underlining. One hundred thousand citizens of Macao could come into this country and have the right of abode. Perhaps we may contrast that with the unhappy position of the mere 5,000 to 7,000 individuals who, although born in Hong Kong and some of whose parents were born in Hong Kong and who owe allegiance to the Queen, will not enjoy that advantage. That is grossly unfair and misplaced.
The case for sympathetic consideration has been most eloquently and persuasively made. There is every good reason to support the Motion and no good reason to oppose it. Like my noble friend Lord Glenarthur. I hope that there will not be a Division, but if there is I shall support the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, it may disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, to find that he is not the last speaker in the debate. Nor, since the House has been so kind to me, is it a birthday treat that I should be allowed to speak at this point. The procedure is a little complicated, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I query the propriety of the Motions. In procedural terms I prefer the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. That is not a criticism of the contents. I support entirely the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. But the situation is tricky. I suggest that the Select Committee on Procedure should decide the best way to deal with the matter. I believe that the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, is suitable, but I prefer an amendment to the main Motion.
It is also rather tricky that there is a time limit for putting down one's name to speak. I was unaware of the number of names, and I did not know that there would be many. After 12 o'clock it was too late for me to put my name down on the list of speakers.
I wish to speak mainly about the position of the locally employed personnel, who are Chinese Hong Kong. They are greatly at risk. For many years they have been immensely loyal to the Crown. Their future, which will be in the hands of the Chinese, who are not always kind to their own people, is by no means certain. I have in mind in particular those in the Navy. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, gave examples of the British Army unit. What will happen if there are repercussions of the kind that we know occur in China? Will their Chinese origin be arty protection to them? We should provide them with an opportunity to come to this country or at least to obtain British citizenship.
This is not the only time such events have happened in our history. I know of areas, in particular in the Middle East, where we have undoubtedly betrayed people who have been very loyal to us. I could give examples. This is a difficult moral question.
I have in mind in particular the locally employed personnel of the Royal Navy. That naval uniform has been worn for the past 80 years or more. Those personnel serve in every rank in the Royal Navy. I should like to believe that there will be art opportunity for them. There is scope, I believe, which was not apparent when the Minister replied to my Question. He gave a rather rigid picture. I gather, however, that the Government have a great deal more scope for providing opportunities for people who have not yet been successful in coming to this country.
Many people who have applied have been turned down. I wonder whether those cases can be examined. Some noble Lords have said that, because the people involved are Chinese, they are not in favour of that arrangement. However, we owe a special debt of loyalty to those people. We are very worried about them.
I support entirely the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. It was admirably moved, and it is splendid that so many good people support

409
him. Nonetheless, I feel badly about the services. People who have loyally served the Crown may find themselves in grievous difficulties in the future.
8.10 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, it is normal for those who wind up a debate to devote their time to answering the criticisms of the Motion before your Lordships which have been made during the debate. The difficulty for me is that there have been no criticisms. Every speaker without exception has supported the Motion tabled by my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter.
In his opening speech, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, indicated that there are objections based on the fact that it is said that there is nothing special about the position of the non-Chinese ethnic minorities in Hong Kong. That argument has been completely disposed of in the course of the debate. There is no doubt that their position is different and is special.
It has also been said—and the noble Earl has said this on previous occasions—that there is something sacrosanct about the number of people who it was agreed should be allowed to have passports to come to this country from Hong Kong. At the time many of us thought that to fix such a number was a mistake because if those people had the right to come here, a great many of them, secure in the knowledge that they had a place to which they could retreat if necessary, would continue to stay in Hong Kong. Indeed, it was suggested that bearing in mind the rate at which the economy in East Asia is progressing at present, those people would be sensible to remain there. I have no doubt that a great many of the people about whom we are speaking today would, if they were secure in the knowledge that they could come here if events turned hostile towards them, prefer to stay and continue their excellent and successful careers in Hong Kong.
It has also been suggested that in 1986 we gave those people a kind of guarantee that if things became very difficult, we should look favourably upon them when considering their cases. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, spoke with considerable honour and courage because it was he who addressed us and informed us about that in 1986. He has said that although the statement was made in good faith at the time at which it was made, times have changed and we have since seen the difficulties which have arisen. We have seen the events of Tiananmen Square and we know the difficulties that those people may encounter. We know that that guarantee given then is not adequate now.
Therefore, I do not quite know what I am supposed to be doing in winding up this debate. In order to say something, I have tried to anticipate what the noble Earl will say. That is all that I have to deal with by way of opposition.
I should like to re-emphasise briefly what has already been said. The particular needs of that special group are different from those of anybody else. There is complete support from the Legislative Council in Hong Kong, and there is no division about this matter. The people of Hong Kong are in a very
410
dangerous position and the documents which they have been offered give them no right of abode. Should anybody want a travel document which will not allow him to put down his baggage and settle in this country? The non-Chinese ethnic minorities in Hong Kong are threatened with statelessness, and what they are offered is no guarantee against that. That is a position which no one would willingly contemplate.
I am sure that your Lordships' House will agree with me as to how convincing was the presentation of the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn. The mere fact that she has undertaken that appalling journey (I did it once) all the way from Hong Kong in order to speak to your Lordships' House this evening, and to speak with such eloquence and so convincingly must carry great weight with your Lordships.
I was privileged to meet some of the people who came here representing those minorities. I cannot imagine that they will ever be a burden upon the Exchequer of this country. They struck me as being the kind of people who, after being here for five years, will be buying up most of us, so able and competent are they.
I have never supported the party opposite, but I recognise that there is a tradition in the Conservative Party, if sometimes muted, which recognises honour and moral obligations. Let it do so this evening.
8.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there was a nice sting in that tail of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, which I could certainly have done without. But I know that she says those things rather tongue-in-cheek.
This has been a remarkable debate. It is with a considerable amount of humility that I rise to try to answer some of the points which have been made by your Lordships. We have heard from two ex-Governors of Hong Kong. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, who is the senior member of the Hong Kong Legislative Council. She said that she has flown here from Hong Kong especially to participate in this debate. We have heard from a previous incumbent of St. John's Cathedral. That is an extremely important position but not quite as elevated as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn. We have heard from a "birthday boy" who regrettably appears to be no longer in his place. Perhaps he has gone to celebrate his birthday. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that it was no birthday treat for him to address your Lordships; but it was certainly a birthday treat for us to hear from him today. We have heard from a previous Minister of State at the Home Office, my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, who was very much involved with this issue. Therefore, it is with a considerable degree of humility that I try to address some of the questions that have been raised.
The speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, was extremely impressive. She brought with her her total knowledge of Hong Kong and all the problems which exist there. Of course there are problems and anxieties; and she knows about them. She was able to tell the House about them, and I am grateful for that.
Hong Kong is a special problem and it has always been recognised as such. We always knew that these

411
difficulties would arise in 1997, and that is why great efforts were made to try to find routes through the problems when making arrangements with China and when making the arrangements as regards immigration and passport problems. We agonised over those matters.
The British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act was the result. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, said that he thought that it would be wrong—and I paraphrase—to try to tinker about with the provisions made in that Act. A number of noble Lords are anxious about that matter. In many ways, they have tried to revisit the Act and say that we should change the numbers. It has been laid down in statute that the numbers to be allowed into the country will be 50,000. At the time that the figure was arrived at, we tried to strike the right balance between maintaining confidence in Hong Kong and limiting potential immigration into the United Kingdom. It was a controversial figure and some people may say that it is the wrong figure. But the problems of immigration cannot be under-estimated. All countries must place restrictions on the numbers of immigrants coming not merely from one country but from all countries. Your Lordships will know well the problems which can arise in that regard. That was the reason why the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act set the figure at 50,000 applications. It is also right to say that we cannot alter that figure without altering the Act and, of course, that means producing more primary legislation.
My noble friend Lord Glenarthur has great knowledge on the subject. I am most grateful for what he said. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who said that he made a most courageous speech. He said that when he was in this position he gave certain commitments, but now he finds that times have changed and that he, for one, would like to see the commitments adjusted. Of course, it is fine for him to say that from the Back-Benches, although it is not so easy for someone else who happens to be responsible from this Dispatch Box. We are limited to those numbers and have tried to address the problem by allocating them to certain categories. That in itself was quite complicated, but it was done.
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, chivied me a little by asking why all such matters were not put in the original Act. He also chivied me the other day by suggesting that I had said that they had been put in an order so as to make them more flexible. That is precisely what the orders are: they are an indication of the flexibility that we are trying to use to show that, where certain classes of people have been undersubscribed in their applications, those undersubscribed places can be reallocated to those that have been oversubscribed. That is the point of one of the orders that is before the House this evening.
I know that noble Lords are all concerned about the matter. I also share that concern. I can only hope that we can avoid calling a Division; but of course, it is up to your Lordships to decide what to do. However, I think that it would be a pity if it were to appear that there is some division of concern within the House on the matter. We are all concerned to try to reach the right solution.
412
I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has now returned to his place. Perhaps I may reiterate what I said earlier when he had momentarily absented himself from the Chamber. I said that we were glad that he came to the House to make a speech on his birthday. I also said that although he may have found it to be no birthday treat, it was indeed a treat for us. However, the noble Lord was concerned about the services. The whole purpose of the order is to try to meet the point that he made; namely, to reallocate those places of underdemand to those places which have shown greater demand.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that the issues of principle are still at stake. I can only say that they were decided as such at the time of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act. That is how we try to deal with those provisions. The noble Lord said that people were expected to apply up to the 30th June 1997 and that administrative convenience had been put above the interests of the people of Hong Kong. That is not in fact true. Of course, people have the right to apply up to the 30th June but the practical effect is that if vast numbers apply on 1st June or on 28th June they simply cannot be processed in time. That is why we have introduced the second order; to try and phase in the applications in the full knowledge that everyone who is entitled to it will be able to obtain citizenship.
Many speakers referred to Macao., among them I believe were the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Chalfont and my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke. In fact, the matter was mentioned only recently during Question Time. It is not the case that Portugal is granting citizenship to all residents of Macao. People from Hong Kong cannot simply travel and acquire Portuguese citizenship. Residence in Macao does not lead automatically to acquisition of Portuguese citizenship. Naturalisation requires six years' residence with good character, economic independence and the ability to speak Portuguese. It is also discretionary and given sparingly on a case-by-case basis. It is only children who are born in Macao to Portuguese citizens who automatically acquire Portuguese citizenship. It is only Portuguese nationals (there are about 100,000 of them in Macao) who have the right of abode in Portugal and who are able, thereby, to exercise the European Community treaties' rights and travel throughout the Community.
The arguments that have been of most concern to your Lordships this evening are those about. the non-ethnic Chinese minorities. They tend to be mostly people of Indian or Pakistani origin. The arguments fall into about four categories: first, that those people will not have a proper nationality and passport; secondly, that they will not have the right of abode in Hong Kong; thirdly, that they will be stateless; and, fourthly, that they will not be able to transmit their nationality to future generations.
Perhaps I may take those arguments in turn. I shall start first with the question of proper nationality and passport. It has been said that after 1997 those people will not have proper nationalities or proper passports. That refers to what they see as the inferior status of a British national (overseas) or British overseas citizen

413
and their related passports. I do not think that those nationality statuses—or "stati"—are in any way inferior to British dependent territory citizenship. There are over a million people in the world who have British overseas citizenship and the British overseas citizenship passport is well established. Holders of those passports and of British national (overseas) passports do not need entry clearance for visits to the United Kingdom; although, like anyone else, they do need entry clearance if they wish to come here on a more permanent basis. Both the British national (overseas) and British overseas citizen passports give the holders an entitlement to register as British citizens, provided that they have completed five years' residence in the United Kingdom and that they have achieved settled status.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford was concerned about the latter. Such people do not need entry clearance. They can stay for six months, but, like everyone else who wants to stay longer, they have to apply under the immigration rules for settlement in the United Kingdom. Thereafter, after they have been here for five years, they are entitled to British citizenship.
Those passports also confer British consular protection anywhere in the world, and will do so in the Hong Kong special administrative region after 1997, provided that the holders are not Chinese nationals as well. The ethnic minorities who at present hold British dependent territory citizenship will, therefore, be in no worse position in those respects after becoming British national (overseas) or British overseas citizens than they are now.
I turn now to the right of abode, which is a matter to which many speakers referred. The Joint Declaration and Article 24(6) of the Basic Law guarantee the ethnic minorities the right of abode in Hong Kong if they do not have a right of abode elsewhere. The Chinese authorities have made it quite clear that those people are welcome to remain and that, if they so wish, they can apply for Chinese citizenship. Their right of abode position will, therefore, be exactly the same after 1997 as it was before.
I shall now deal with the condition of statelessness. I believe that many speakers referred to it, including the noble Lord, Lord Wilson. People claim that those ethnic minorities, their children and their grandchildren will be left stateless. If I may say so, that is not strictly accurate. Specific provision was made in Article 6 of the Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order 1986 in order to deal with that problem. I should perhaps remind your Lordships that the Article says:
"Where a person ceases on the 1st July 1997 by virtue of Article 3 to be a British Dependent Territory Citizen and would, but for this paragraph, thereby be rendered stateless, he shall become on that date a British Overseas Citizen".
They are not in fact being rendered stateless. People who have British nationality—that is, British dependent territory citizens, British nationals (overseas) or British overseas citizens—before 1997 will
414
retain British nationality after 1997. They will have the status of either British nationals (overseas) or British overseas citizens.
The children of those who become British overseas citizens or British nationals (overseas) under the 1986 order will automatically become British overseas citizens if they would otherwise be stateless. Their grandchildren will have an entitlement to acquire British overseas citizenship by registration, if they would otherwise be stateless. They will not in fact be stateless. This is all provided for under Article 6. Then we come to the problem of passing nationality to future generations. There is concern that people would be unable to pass that on to future generations. That is perfectly true, but these people are in no way unique in that.
No form of British nationality will be transmissible indefinitely in Hong Kong. The British Government cannot give indefinite rights to transmit nationality from one generation to the next, especially where the territory in question will then be non-British. These limitations with regard to future generations would apply even to those who had been given British citizenship but who had decided to continue to live in Hong Kong.
I accept that these are delicate and sensitive matters. I know that your Lordships are concerned. We have tried to meet the anxieties in the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act. We have tried to make these arrangements so that everyone in their different categories would be able to take advantage of them. It would be difficult to make a special provision to give the ethnic minorities British citizenship. They are, of course, free to apply, like everyone else, under the selection scheme which was set up under the Act. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, said that the ethnic minorities had been left out. I do not believe that that is the case. They can apply under the scheme. Some hundreds have done so, and there is about a 60 per cent. success rate. It is expected that hundreds will have been successful by the end of the exercise. Records for the selection scheme are not maintained on the basis of ethnic origin, but I understand that a check was made on the basis of surnames which indicated that the ethnic minorities who have applied have been successful in the same proportion as other applicants.
I do not think the selection scheme itself could give preference to ethnic minorities. It is designed on an impartial and objective basis with points awarded according to certain criteria. We have been prepared to give an assurance to the ethnic minorities relating to their admission to the United Kingdom in the event of their coming under pressure to leave Hong Kong. I, like other noble Lords, agree that these people have given great service to Hong Kong. I believe that they should be adequately looked after in so far as we reasonably can do so. But that applies also to other people in Hong Kong. We have tried to be fair with all of them.
We have, however, given an assurance to the ethnic minorities. We do not expect that any members of the non-Chinese ethnic minority will be forced to leave Hong Kong after 1997. Their right of abode in the

415
special administrative region of Hong Kong is explicitly protected in the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. There is no reason to think that the Chinese will not honour their commitments in that regard. We have, though, over the years regularly assured the non-Chinese ethnic minority in Hong Kong that if, against all expectation, members of that group were to come under pressure to leave Hong Kong and had nowhere else to go, the government of the day would be expected to consider, with considerable and particular sympathy, their case for admission to the United Kingdom. I can repeat that assurance today.
I come back to where I started when I said I felt these were sensitive issues. They are matters about which any government would feel acutely concerned. We are bound under these orders by the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act. We have tried to be flexible and that is the reason why we have brought forward these orders today. I hope your Lordships will realise that we are doing our best to deal with this problem as sympathetically as possible. I hope your Lordships will find it appropriate not to try to call a Division which would create the impression that there is discord among your Lordships as regards how to solve this problem which is of great importance.
8.35 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rise to respond on my amendment. I am grateful to those noble Lords who have expressed support for the amendment. I note in particular the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont, Lord Wyatt and Lord St. John of Bletso, and of course my noble friend Lord Shackleton who, I suggest, knows more about these issues than almost anyone in the House. I say that with some diffidence bearing in mind the distinguished speeches we have heard this evening.
I am not convinced by the arguments of the Government. I do not think it is true that the Government needed to be limited in the way the Minister described. I do not think the orders show the flexibility that is required. I believe that in many cases they impose new bureaucratic structures rather than creating flexibility. The Minister said that it was possible through the order to re-allocate places in under-used categories to those in the disciplined services. I believe that that matter is probably better dealt with by future negotiation rather than by seeking the opinion of the House at this time. Although I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, will not follow my example, If beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Cox): My Lords, the Question is that the original Motion be agreed to?
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hong Kong (British Nationality) (Amendment) Order 1993
8.37 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd June be approved [35th Report ,from the joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hong Kong: British Citizenship
8.38 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter rose to move to resolve, That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to give full British citizenship to members of the non-Chinese ethnic minorities in Hong Kong who will be without a right of abode elsewhere after 1997.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my first duty is to thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have spoken for the extraordinary unanimity with which they have spoken and for their eloquence, experience and conviction. I particularly wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, who has made a journey to be here and who made such a magnificent speech. I congratulate also the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, on his shuttle from Scotland to England arid back again. I join with others in saying how much I respected the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. I was particularly pleased to note that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was in her place throughout the debate. That added greatly to our proceedings. I wish to include in my thanks the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who had an absolutely impossible task to fulfil. For once he did not succeed in fulfilling that task.
The noble Earl will not recognise that the ethnic minorities are a special case. He will not recognise what is a unique case. He regards 50,000 as in some way a sacred, magical number which cannot possibly be changed. It can be changed even if it means primary legislation. He did not tackle the questions which were raised by the speakers in the debate.
Although I do not want to embarrass anyone, it seems to me that to say that to have a Division would be a sign of discord is nonsense. What we have seen is real disagreement. I believe that that real disagreement has to be tested. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House on this Motion.
8.40 p.m.
On Question, whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 48.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Bramall, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.[Teller.]

Butterfield, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Beloff, L.

Chalfont, L.

Bethell, L.

Cox, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

417

David, B.

Meston, L.

Donoughue, L.

Morris, L.

Dunn, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Falkland, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Geraint, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rennell, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller.]

Richard, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Russell, E.

Grey, E.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Halsbury, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Harmsworth, L.

Seear, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Selborne, E.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Howell, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Waverley, V.

Kilbracken, L.

White, B.

Kitchener, E.

Wigoder, L.

Lawrence, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

McNair, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Marlesford, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Astor, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Blatch, B.

418

Blyth, L.

Long, V.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Mackay of Clashfem, L.[Lord Chancellor.]

Caithness, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Milverton, L.

Carnock, L.

Mountevans, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Moyne, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cranborne, V.

Renton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

St. Davids, V.

Downshire, M.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Faithfull, B.

Seccombe, B.

Ferrers, E.

Stewartby, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Goschen, V.

Strathmore and Kinghome, E.[Teller.]

Hemphill, L.

Henley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hesketh, L.[Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

Howe, E.

Ullswater, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wakeham, L.[Lord Privy Seal.]

Leigh, L.

Lindsay. E.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before nine o'clock.

  MARKET TESTING: HIGH COURT RULING ON EC DIRECTIVE
  MARKET TESTING: HIGH COURT RULING ON EC DIRECTIVE
  FIREARMS CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE: REPORT
  FIREARMS CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE: REPORT
  MR. FRANKIE TERENZIO: CORONER'S LETTER
  MR. FRANKIE TERENZIO: CORONER'S LETTER
  MANCHESTER PRISON (STRANGEWAYS): MANAGEMENT
  MANCHESTER PRISON (STRANGEWAYS): MANAGEMENT
  FUNKE, CREMIEUX AND MIAILHE v. FRANCE JUDGMENTS
  FUNKE, CREMIEUX AND MIAILHE v. FRANCE JUDGMENTS
  LAND USE AND TRANSPORT: POLICY
  LAND USE AND TRANSPORT: POLICY
  ROAD PROGRAMME: EFFECTS
  ROAD PROGRAMME: EFFECTS
  ROAD DEVELOPMENT PLANS: REGIONAL GUIDANCE
  ROAD DEVELOPMENT PLANS: REGIONAL GUIDANCE
  SINGLE MOTHERS: REPORT
  SINGLE MOTHERS: REPORT
  DTI TRANSCRIPTS: USE IN CRIMINAL TRIALS
  DTI TRANSCRIPTS: USE IN CRIMINAL TRIALS
  MINIS 1993 RETURNS
  MINIS 1993 RETURNS
  WEST BANK AND GAZA: EXPORTS
  WEST BANK AND GAZA: EXPORTS
  JERUSALEM: STATUS
  JERUSALEM: STATUS
  EC AID: EFFECTIVENESS
  EC AID: EFFECTIVENESS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: HUMAN RIGHTS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: HUMAN RIGHTS