Sitting of 21 July 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    PWLLHELI HARBOUR (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Lords amendments agreed to.
    HIGHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL (WESTER BRIDGE) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Norway (Import Ban)
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to ban imports from Norway.
    The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): No.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I am surprised and disappointed by that response from the Government, who clearly do not take the matter seriously. I hope that the Minister has at least done me the courtesy of reading the publication that I sent him about the slaughter of whales by Norway.
    Is the Minister aware that public opinion in this country demands something more positive from the Government? Selective sanctions against Norway would let that country know precisely how strongly people in this country feel. We want the Government to do something, rather than just ignore the subject. Is the Minister aware that Londoners will take action by telling the Norwegians precisely what they can do with their Christmas tree this year—and that we will not be suggesting that it is put in Trafalgar square?
    Mr. Eggar: I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am sure that individual consumers will give Greenpeace's call for a boycott all the support that it deserves.
    Sir Roger Moate: Will my hon. Friend remind the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) of the great bond of friendship that exists between this country and Norway? Will he further remind the hon. Gentleman that we must make due allowances, whatever differences of opinion we might have, for the different cultures and traditions of members and potential members of the EC? Is it not in our interest, and in the interest of the hon. Gentleman's cause, that we promote closer friendship and trade with Norway?
    Mr. Eggar: There is concern about the resumption of commercial whaling in Norway. I am sure that people will listen carefully to what my hon. Friend said.

    Post Office
    Ms Estelle Morris: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the application of European Community regulations and developments to Post Office activities.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): There are at present no European Community regulations which apply specifically to the Post Office, although the European Commission published a range of proposals in its green paper on the development of the single market for postal services in June 1992, which have been subject to widespread consultation. There is also a considerable range of European Community directives which have some bearing on the activities of the Post Office and with which the Post Office seeks to comply.
    Ms Morris: Does the Minister accept that Britain, with the most profitable and efficient postal service in Europe, is well placed to benefit in a single market? Does he agree that the Post Office needs a clear assurance about its future organisation, freedom to invest in and develop services, and a firm commitment to universal delivery? When will the Government come off the fence and give the Post Office the backing it deserves?
    Mr. McLoughlin: There is no question about giving the Post Office the backing that it deserves. Indeed, the Post Office had a good year last year, as its results showed. We have consistently made it clear that the maintenance of a nationwide delivery network with delivery to every address in the United Kingdom is of paramount importance. I agree with the hon. Lady that there are certainly opportunities for the Post Office within the single market.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend renew the assurance that has been given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that pensioners will be able to cash pensions at post offices as well as perhaps through banks, if they wish to do so? Will he join me in deploring the Labour party's continuing campaign to frighten pensioners into believing that they may not be able to cash their pension at a post office?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that reassurance. No pensioner or other benefit recipient will be forced to use automated credit transfer. We have made it clear that those people who wish to collect their benefits from post offices will be able to do so. Indeed, as we have said several times, the amount of business transacted through the post offices on behalf of the Government increased in each of the past three years.
    Mr. Beggs: Is there anything in European Community regulations to prevent the delivery free of charge of talking newspapers to the blind and partially sighted? Will the Minister guarantee today that, if proposals are made to privatise post office services, such a service will continue to be provided free to the blind and partially sighted?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I know of no proposals from the Commission that would put any restrictions on the service that is provided. As I have often said, when we come to

    335
    make our full decisions on the Post Office, the House will be the first to be informed. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the point that he has raised will be dealt with carefully.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Irrespective of what the EC has to say about post offices, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that, in any changes, due regard will be given to the importance of post offices in rural areas? In many rural areas, the post office is the only shop that is there giving a service to rural people. Perhaps, in any future changes to post offices, we could consider widening the services that they can provide to rural people.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right about the provision of post offices in rural areas. Indeed, my constituency is similar to his in some respects. There are many rural post offices. It is worth remembering that most rural post offices are in private hands and have a great deal of flexibility in the services that they can provide.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Minister explain how he can square his claim that the Government back the Post Office with the Government's instruction to the Post Office to treble the pay-out that is clawed back to the Treasury? Does he recognise that the Post Office can achieve such a dramatic increase only if it shoves up the price of stamps? Is he aware of the rumours that that is what the Post Office intends to do next month? Does he appreciate that, if it does so, the Government will have imposed a new stamp tax which will shove up the price of sending a letter for everyone who uses the Post Office?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I shall not go into the details of the price rises that were inflicted by the Post Office between 1974 and 1979. The Post Office is an efficient organisation, and it has made a return to the taxpayer. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman might welcome that.

    Export Statistics
    Mr. Pickles: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the change in total exports from the United Kingdom in the first quarter of 1993 relative to the first quarter of 1992.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton: The volume of United Kingdom exports rose by 6·6 per cent. between the first quarter of 1992 and the first quarter of 1993. Thanks to the efforts of our exporters, exports grew faster than imports over this period, despite poor economic conditions in our main markets. I trust that the whole House will join me in congratulating our exporters on that impressive achievement.
    Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend will be aware that the headquarters of the Ford Motor Company is in my constituency. Is he aware that Ford has played an important part in exports and that, in particular, 37 per cent. of its production of transit vans now goes for export? Does he agree that that is a remarkable achievement, considering that Ford now has half the market for that type of good in Britain? Will he congratulate the work force and the management on clearly demonstrating that if Britain produces the right goods at the right price, they will sell anywhere?
    Mr. Hamilton: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It shows what a good place the United Kingdom is to do business. I certainly congratulate the Ford management and the work force on the shop floor on their contribution to the success of that company, which has recently received a Queen's award for export.
    Mr. Purchase: Is not the Minister aware that, although the Government have recently admitted their long-term lack of interest in manufacturing, and have only just awakened to the real importance of that sector of the economy, our manufacturers in the west midlands and elsewhere have made heroic efforts in an increased export drive? Does not the Minister know that, for finished goods in the high street in the 12 months to May of this year, imports increased by 23 per cent. and exports by 15 per cent? Is that not a case of too little effort too late from the Government? When will they wake up to the question of our manufacturing sector?
    Mr. Hamilton: It is a pity that the Labour party can never welcome good news when it hears it. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that, although exports have gone up by nearly 7 per cent. in the most recent quarter, imports have not increased at all, so the trade gap has narrowed. That shows that the Conservative party recognises the advantage of a competitive industry that exports goods. The Labour party wants to load extra costs on business so that we can export jobs.
    Mr. Dunn: Whatever shape, form or colour the new Government of the Empire of Japan assumes, will the Minister undertake to make the strongest representations to them about the barriers to British goods entering the Japanese market, which are currently in place and ought to be eliminated as soon as possible?
    Mr. Hamilton: I can tell my hon. Friend that there has been significant liberalisation in Japan in recent years, but no doubt there is always scope to do more. I am certainly a vigorous exponent of free trade; if other countries expect access to our markets, they must also expect to give us access to theirs.
    Mr. Fatchett: Has the Minister seen the evidence given to the Scott inquiry by Mark Higson, the former Iraq desk officer at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who told the inquiry that the Government deliberately misled the public and Parliament about their decision to circumvent the arms embargo on Saddam Hussein? Will the Minister confirm the accuracy of that evidence, and is not it clear from Mr. Higson's statement that, yet again, on arms to Iraq and other issues, the Government will deliberately mislead the public and Parliament just to save their own skins?
    Mr. Hamilton: Scaremongering to get a headline in the newspaper may be justifiable to the hon. Gentleman, but that is a matter for the Scott inquiry and I shall leave it to the inquiry.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I welcome the fact that the Minister can report some improvement in our export performance, but will he acknowledge that a short-term adjustment to the balance of payments deficit does not deny the fact that Britain has an underlying inability to compete and overcome our balance of payments deficit, and that that will be achieved only if we have a long-term

    337
    strategy to build up our manufacturing industry? Will the Minister make a positive statement on how the Government propose to achieve that?
    Mr. Hamilton: The Liberal party has had a long-term inability to compete with other political parties, so I can well understand the hon. Gentleman's concern for such an issue. It is a great mistake of Opposition Members to seek to sell Britain short at every opportunity: after all, we have a good story to tell. Manufacturing output is up by 3 per cent., retail sales are up by 3 per cent., exports are up by 7 per cent., for the fifth month in a row unemployment is down, we have the lowest inflation for 30 years. and manufacturing wages costs are down by 3·5 per cent. this year. That is not evidence of an underlying inability to compete, but solid evidence of recovery and the improvement of our economic position.

    Alternative Energy Sources
    Moss: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards alternative sources of energy.
    Mr. Eggar: I propose to make a third order setting a renewables non-fossil fuel obligation for the 12 regional electricity companies in England and Wales, to run for 15 to 20 years as from November 1994 in respect of approximately 300 to 400 MW of new renewables capacity.
    I have today placed a document with further details of the proposed arrangements in the Libraries of both Houses and in the Vote Office.
    Mr. Moss: I thank my hon. Friend for that comprehensive answer, which will be warmly welcomed by all involved in renewal energy production. Can he tell the House when the first bids for the regional electricity companies are expected, and when he expects the first projects to become operational?
    Mr. Eggar: I thank my hon. Friend for his response—it is indeed an important announcement that I have just made. We are hoping that bids will be submitted as from September, with the first projects becoming operational, we expect, within the next two years.
    Mr. Skinner: Until the Government can use this alternative form of energy, instead of using up the small reserves of gas, would it not make more sense to depend more on coal, now that we have heard about the 22 per cent. increase in productivity? The French interconnector link should be stopped, saving six pits, and the rundown of the industry should be halted. The £1·3 billion subsidy should also be taken away from nuclear power. Then we could keep the pits open and keep another 30,000 people in jobs so that they will not have to pick up dole payments.
    Mr. Eggar: If I were the hon. Gentleman, I would be very worried—for once he seems to agree with those on his Front Bench.
    Mr. Stern: Is my hon. Friend aware that his announcement this afternoon will be welcomed by producers and potential producers of energy from renewable sources? Will the new tranches announced today also be available to existing producers of renewable energy or to producers who have been included in previous tranches but have not yet been able to start production?
    Mr. Eggar: I am hoping to announce a fourth order in 1995, and a fifth in 1997. Today I give notice of that.
    As for projects that have not so far proceeded but which could have been covered by the second order: assuming the correct procedure is followed then they may well be able to benefit from the third order.

    Nuclear Power
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current output from United Kingdom nuclear power plants.
    Mr. Eggar: In the first quarter of 1993, nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom supplied 21·8 TWh of electricity.
    Mr. Jones: I thank the Minister for that somewhat delayed reply, which I think shows that the amount of nuclear energy, as a proportion of our total energy requirements, that we are using has not really changed for a number of years. Moreover, the fast breeder reactor programme has been shut down. If I am right, surely it is pointless to go ahead with the THORP facility, as it will only increase the amount of bomb-grade plutonium in the world and will not add to our energy supplies.
    Mr. Eggar: It is right to pay tribute to the nuclear industry, which has increased output from its stations, particularly from the advanced gas-cooled reactors, by a considerable amount.
    There was a debate in the House on THORP, when the House made its view very clear.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Will my hon. Friend gently remind Opposition Members that it was part of Labour's great post-war energy strategy to give in to lobbying by industrial vested interests and boffins, and to reject cheaper, proven technologies in favour of complex, untried advanced gas-cooled reactors—the true cost of which was not even known until privatisation? Compounding that by opting for expensive domestic coal instead of cheaper, cleaner gas from which other countries were benefiting surely shows that, although decisions made by markets may not be perfect, they are a great deal less imperfect than decisions made by politicians and bureaucrats.
    Mr. Eggar: They are undoubtedly much better than those made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that, in the wake of the announcement yesterday about the closure of the Trawsfynydd nuclear power station and the loss of 500 jobs, a positive proposal is being put forward for Trawsfynydd to be adapted as a centre for decommissioning skills, which would enable the technology developed there to be exported to other areas? Will the Minister give a commitment that the Government will do everything they can to facilitate this, in order to provide replacement jobs for those that will be lost from our community?
    Mr. Eggar: I have spoken to the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) about this, and to Nuclear Electric on a contingency basis, not only about potential plans for the use of the station site but more multi-skilling of the existing work force.

    339
    The hon. Gentleman knows that it will be some time before there are any significant job losses, although the details have not yet been released. There will be a phase when considerable numbers of employees will be needed. I know that Nuclear Electric is addressing those issues, and I would urge the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend to enter into discussions with Nuclear Electric's senior management.
    Mr. Dickens: Is it not as sure as night follows day that one day gas, coal and oil will be depleted? It is at that time that we shall thank our engineers and scientists for our reprocessing techniques and dry storage. It is very important for the future that we have a long-term nuclear industry in the United Kingdom, and that we are a long-term player.
    Mr. Eggar: I hear what my hon. Friend says. There is an important role for renewables, and we shall shortly embark on a nuclear review, when we will look at the future role for our nuclear industry.
    Mr. O'Neill: Does the Minister agree that the announcement of the closure of Trawsfynydd is the first occasion on which the nuclear inspectorate has closed a power station on safety grounds? The safety authority is now clearly willing to take such tough decisions. In future, the debate about nuclear power in this country will revolve around economic questions, and the size of the subsidy that the industry should or should not receive.
    Before the Minister starts on the nuclear review, will he say what guidelines he has given to those carrying out the review, so that we can understand how it will proceed? At the moment, as long as the nuclear industry continues to receive its massive subsidy, there will be suspicion about the calculations that are made about its future and economic viability.
    Mr. Eggar: Uncharacteristically, I think that the hon. Gentleman is, by implication, being unfair to the nuclear inspectorate. It is true that this is the first time that a station has been closed because of safety considerations, but the inspectorate has always had rigorous standards, and it is recognised around the world for imposing them. There are a number of issues that have to be considered while we are working towards an announcement on the nuclear review, and the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman are among them.

    Investment (North-West)
    Mr. Brandreth: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to encourage inward investment in the north-west.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: The Government attach high importance to inward investment and have developed, nationally, a quality service to existing and potential investors. As a result, the United Kingdom is now the preferred European location for direct foreign investment.
    In the north-west, my Department provides funding towards Inward, the regional development organisation, which has now achieved more than 150 inward investment successes, representing more than 8,000 associated jobs. Inward works closely alongside local authorities and other organisations in the region, as well as in co-operation with
    340
    the English Unit and the Invest in Britain Bureau. It is carrying forward an extensive programme to promote the north-west in key overseas markets.
    Mr. Brandreth: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the past year alone, three major international companies have come to the city of Chester that might otherwise have gone to Belgium, Malaysia or the United States of America? We very much value the excellent partnership between Chester and the Department of Trade and Industry's Inward team in Manchester. Long may it continue.
    Mr. Hamilton: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. Not least among the attractions of Chester, of course, is its Member of Parliament. I am delighted to receive my hon. Friend's tribute to the work that so many people do in the north-west do to ensure that the rest of the world knows about the attractions it offers for locating industry.
    Ms Eagle: Before the Minister drowns himself in false self-congratulation, what is he going to do, a few days after the closure of Cammell Laird, to ensure that industries which are world leaders are preserved?
    Mr. Hamilton: There was no element of falsity in the self-congratulation. We all know that there are problems in certain parts of the north-west. Structural change is bound to bring disappointments such as that which has been felt in the hon. Lady's constituency with the closure of Cammell Laird. We have a wide-ranging programme, however, that will help to bring more jobs to the region, in particular to the Wirral, as well as to other areas that are affected by the long-term decline of certain industries. We cannot, however, set our faces against economic reality.
    Mr. Sumberg: May I make a practical suggestion to my hon. Friend? If he wants to encourage inward investment, he should confirm that regional assisted status will continue to apply to Bury and Bolton. Will he have a word with our right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry to find out whether an announcement about that can be made before we rise for the summer?
    Mr. Hamilton: I will certainly have a word, as I frequently do, with my right hon. Friend. In fact, he is sitting next but one to me on the Front Bench and I am sure that he has heard for himself what my hon. Friend said.
    Mr. Loyden: The Minister will be aware that the Merseyside economy is based on shipbuilding and the port and has been subject to structural changes. No compensation has been offered, however, for the thousands of jobs that have been lost from Merseyside, not only from the port and shipbuilding but from related industries in the hinterland. When will the Government address that particular problem, so that jobs are created in that part of the world?
    Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman played his full part, as a union militant, in the destruction of Liverpool's reputation as a shipping and port-based economy. He should rejoice in the fact that more traffic is passing through Liverpool port today than in its heyday in the 1950s. Since the abolition of the national dock labour scheme, that port has become competitive again.

    New Car Registrations
    Mr. Alan Howarth: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the figures for new car registrations in the United Kingdom for the first six months of 1993.
    The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I welcome the 9·14 per cent. increase in new car registrations in the first six months of this year as compared with 1992.
    Mr. Howarth: In welcoming those impressive and encouraging figures, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend has noted that virtually every car company has now committed itself to give to charity 30p-plus for every new car registered in the United Kingdom? As a result, more than £250.000 has already been raised for charities by the industry since the start of this year. Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Rover group, Peugeot Talbot, Jaguar and others on this pioneering and admirable example of social responsibility in one of our major industries? Will he commend this model of charitable giving to other industries?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the car industry on what he has described as an admirable example of responsibility and charitable giving by companies. I hope that he accepts, however, that I believe that it is best to leave each company to decide how best to discharge its responsibilities in that respect.
    Mr. Olner: I welcome the increase in car registrations. Would the Minister care to comment, however, on the plight of workers at the Peugeot Talbot plant in Coventry in my constituency, where 300 will be made redundant this summer because the company is taking work away from the United Kingdom and giving it to French factories? Would he care to comment on the fact that the French already enjoy the benefits flowing from the social chapter, yet they are denied to our workers?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has discussed with the management of the factory its relative competitiveness as opposed to that of the French factories. I f he were to do so, I believe that he would discover that the factory's ability to compete is much improved—
    Mr. Olner: What about the social chapter?
    Mr. Sainsbury: If the hon. Gentleman asks a question, he might have the courtesy to listen to the answer.
    If the hon. Gentleman asked the management about the social chapter, I think that he would discover that, because of the great improvements in productivity that it has achieved in the past few years, it is able to compete with its French fellow producers of Peugeot cars. If that factory were saddled with the social chapter, there is absolutely no doubt that its costs would go up and it would become less competitive. That seems to he a splendid way in which to destroy jobs in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

    KONVER Programme
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if lie will make a statement on the Konver programme and its application to areas without assisted area status.
    Mr. Sainsbury: The Foreign Affairs Council this week adopted new regulations allowing areas not designated for objectives 1, 2 or 5(b) to receive under Konver not only European social fund grants but limited European regional development fund grants. The Government intend to make use of that new flexibility in the United Kingdom's 1993 Konver programme.
    Mr. Bruce: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on getting that agreement out of the European Commission, as we in Dorset have been asking for that for a long time. I know that he is seeing a delegation from Dorset who will, I am sure, say what we need for Weymouth, Portland and Christchurch in the way of money that results from other than assisted area status. Will he tell us where we can pick up the forms to apply for the new money?
    Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend has campaigned vigorously for a fairer basis for the allocation of Konver funds. I have been happy to act on his behalf with the Commission and I am glad that we have succeeded in getting recognition of the merit of the case that he made so energetically. We are working out the basis of regions' dependence on defence industries, as that will be one of the factors for allocating funds. I look forward to receiving an application from my hon. Friend's constituency, as I look forward also to receiving him and the delegation next Monday.

    Assisted Areas
    Miss Lestor: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer on 23 June to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), Official Report, column 226, if he is now in a position to announce his review of regional policy in relation to the assisted areas map.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I hope to announce a new assisted areas map before the House rises for the summer recess.
    Miss Lestor: Is not the Minister aware that that is exactly the same answer that he gave last month when the question was put to him, and that we are now in a position of promises, promises, promises? Is he aware that the announcement should be made at a time when the House can properly debate it? Is not he aware of the conjecture and the leaks that have taken place, which mean that local authorities and those wanting to get involved in economic development are finding that difficult? I, for one, think that the delay is nothing short of a disgrace.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am glad that the hon. Lady has appreciated the consistency in my answers. I have to tell her that we are still awaiting the approval of the European' Commission, which I hope to receive shortly. I am well aware of the points that she has made. That is why I gave the answer I did—I hope to announce the outcome of our review before the House rises for the summer recess.
    Mr. Marland: May I add to what has already been said, as my constituents in the Ross-on-Wye Cinderford travel-to-work area are also impatiently awaiting the revision of the assisted area map? May I urge that their case is carefully considered before any final announcement is made, because they, too, will be immensely disappointed if there is any change in status in their area?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I assure my hon. Friend that I will take careful note of what he has said. The case made by that travel-to-work area, as, indeed, every other, has been carefully considered in our review.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Minister recognise the deep unease caused by the rumours that he proposes to extend less help to towns that have more unemployment than they had before? How can he justify asking the Commission to cut regional aid to Darlington, Cardiff and Corby now that they all have more unemployment than they had three years ago? Has not regional aid been cut to the extent that it is now only one third of its level a decade ago? Is not it time that the right hon. Gentleman admitted that he cannot solve a bigger problem on a smaller budget?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that the hon. Gentleman would expect that the new map will reflect an assessment of structural problems as they are today and not as they were in 1984. That is surely the only fair and honest way of putting forward the map. It is on that basis that we put our proposals to the European Commission.

    Competitiveness
    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about Britain's international competitiveness.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Productivity has risen by 8·7 per cent. over the past year. Inflation is at its lowest level for 30 years and manufacturing output has shown the largest increase for four years. Those are all signs that Britain's industrial competitiveness is steadily improving.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: As competitiveness is a race among nations and as that race is getting tougher, will my right hon. Friend outline the particular steps that he proposes to take to reduce the burden on business of regulation from Brussels?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that one of the ways to help British business to be even more competitive is to reduce the burden of regulation. That is why I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs is taking such energetic action in pursuit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's deregulation initiative. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister presided yesterday over a meeting at which we discussed further progress on deregulation. I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to give deregulation and lifting the burden of bureaucracy from business, particularly from small businesses, the highest possible priority.
    Dr. Berry: If the Minister is so satisfied with Britain's international competitiveness, will he please explain why last year we had a record trade deficit in the midst of the worst recession since the 1930s? The Government have presided over the worst growth rate of any Government since the war.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want anyone to be satisfied with our competitiveness because, whatever stage we may have reached, we can be sure that our international competitors will not be resting. They are also looking at their competitiveness. We find that Britain did particularly badly in the 1960s and 1970s when, for too much of that
    344
    time, we followed the kind of subsidy policies that are still so energetically supported by the Opposition Front Bench. The interesting thing about the 1980s is that we did markedly better and. in terms of productivity, we did better than all our major competitors. We caught up a lot of ground, but we still have further to go. That is why the Government will continue to give priority to improving the competitiveness of British industry.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In fully supporting the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) and in supporting my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's initiative on deregulation, will my right hon. Friend give me and the House an assurance that, prior to the Government introducing any legislation in future, the implications for our international competitiveness will feature as part of the consideration of that legislation and its implementation?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am delighted to give my hon. Friend just that assurance. That assessment of the impact on companies, particularly small companies, will precede any further regulations. It is perhaps because I am able to give my hon. Friend that assurance that I was interested to note that the Engineering Employers Federation's industrial strategy interim report says of my Department that we
    "are supportive, positive and helpful and we"
    the EEF—
    "are happy to acknowledge this".
    Mr. Bell: The House will welcome the Minister's statement that our competitiveness is steadily improving. The Opposition accept and welcome that, as we also welcome the attack on regulation. However, most of the regulations on the statute book are a consequence of 13 years of Conservative Government, and not the consequence of Brussels. If the Department of Trade and Industry's competitiveness unit uses gross domestic product per head as a measure of competitiveness, in accordance with the Department's leagues, we are 18th out of 24 in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development league. How does the Minister propose to improve that record with improved investment and improved skills in our work force when we have a shortage of skills and investment?
    Mr. Sainsbury: Of course, skills in the work force are an important part of the input into the competitiveness of United Kingdom industry. That is one reason why we have already taken so many measures to raise skills in our work force. Almost all those measures have been opposed by the Labour party; they include the national curriculum, testing, training and enterprise councils, national vocational qualifications, investors in people, national education and training targets and training credits. Those measures have been consistently opposed by the Labour party.

    British Telecom
    Mr. Bates: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from those wishing to renationalise British Telecom.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I know of no such representations to renationalise British Telecom, even from the Opposition Benches—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] I am sorry. We still have some people who would like to see that. The Government

    345
    are convinced that the privatisation of British Telecom and the introduction of competition into the telecommunications market has been largely responsible for British Telecom's transformation into a highly successful and internationally competitive telecommunications operator.
    Mr. Bates: Does my hon. Friend think that that almost complete silence is due to the fact that a three-minute cheap rate telephone call is now half the price in real terms that it was 10 years ago? Is not it due to the fact that there are now 96,000 telephone boxes, of which 95 per cent. are operational, as opposed to 50 per cent. 10 years ago? Does my hon. Friend think that those improving statistics, of which we are all aware, may have been of benefit to people sceptical of the benefits of privatising the rest of the Post Office at the earliest opportunity?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that I have made the Government's position on the Post Office fairly clear in my answers to earlier questions, but he is right. There have been dramatic improvements in the performance of British Telecom, in spite of all the scare stories that we consistently hear from Opposition Members at times of privatisation. There were scare stories that telephone boxes would go. My hon. Friend is right to say that more boxes are in operation; what is more, they are working, which is quite a change from the position 10 years ago. There has been an improvement to the customer and to the country.
    Mr. Barnes: What were the costs of the advertisements to encourage people to register for British Telecom shares? Will the Minister have a word with a Home Office Minister to find out how that compares with the money that was spent on encouraging people to put their names on the electoral register? For instance, last year nothing was spent on the latter in Northern Ireland, although a considerable sum was spent there on encouraging people to register for British Telecom shares. Does not that display the Government's incorrect balance of values? They push ahead with privatisation, when people try to grab what they can, rather than being involved in the democratic process.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I was not sure from that question whether the hon. Gentleman was telling us that he favoured renationalisation. Since privatisation, the service provided by British Telecom has dramatically improved, and we even see occasional signs of approval from Opposition Members.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the risk from the Labour party is not simply of renationalisation but of other idiocies, such as a windfall tax on profits to cover up its overspending in other areas? Will he draw the attention of the millions of shareholders who subscribed to the successful share offer to the fact that they are likely to be savaged if there is another Labour Government?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I agree with my hon. Friend that the supposed windfall tax that the Opposition were talking about would do great damage to British Telecom's future investment. Opposition Members speak with different tongues, however, because only yesterday the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) issued a press release which ended by saying:
    "These twin reforms, taken together, will benefit every industry, every citizen and every BT shareholder."
    346
    I have yet to understand how their proposed windfall tax would benefit shareholders.
    Mr. Cousins: Surely the Minister recognises that after many millions of pounds were spent pushing the BT share sale, a few weeks ago a prospectus finally emerged in which BT mentioned six major issues of fair competition and fair regulation, including one on which it is taking the Government to court? In the light of that, does the Minister advise new shareholders to hang on to their shares?
    Mr. McLoughlin: Here they go again, totally criticising our intention to create wider share ownership and trying to undermine what has been a very successful share offer. We are proud of the fact that we have returned British Telecom totally to the private sector and we are amazed at the turnaround by the Opposition Members. We are proud of our wider share ownership. We will not do anything to destroy it. The Labour party would.
    Mr. Maginnis: Although one welcomes and supports competition in the telecommunications industry, is the Minister content with the fact that Mercury is creaming off the best business while British Telecom continues to meet the need to invest in and service the more remote rural areas, such as my constituency?
    Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman raises a particular point. Many representations are made to the director general of the Office of Telecommunications. The director general will obviously consider the representations that are made to him. That is a very effective way of doing so. We should welcome competition in the telecommunications industry; it is beneficial to the consumer. Obviously, the director general of Oftel will judge all those matters when he makes his decision.

    Deregulation
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a further statement on progress in lifting the burden of unnecessary regulation on business.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: At the Prime Minister's progress meeting on deregulation held yesterday, Ministers welcomed progress on specific deregulation measures to reduce the burden on business and agreed to introduce an important deregulation Bill as soon as possible. Ministers also agreed to publish a document called "Working with Business: A Code for Enforcement Agencies" and a report on the operation of EC law in the United Kingdom; to review how duplication between enforcement agencies might be eliminated; to require a small business litmus test of the impact on them of any new regulations; and to set up an eighth task force focusing on charities and voluntary organisations.
    Mr. Arnold: I welcome the progress that is being made with the campaign to hack at red tape. Does not it contrast with the legislation, bureaucracy and interference that would follow from the adoption of the social chapter which is supported by two Opposition parties?
    Mr. Hamilton: I know that dinosaurs have become much more popular recently as a result of films, but Opposition Members really must get rid of their neanderthal attitudes to the competitiveness of British

    347
    industry. It is only by continuing to reduce the burdens on industry that we can take full advantage of international competitiveness, which will ultimately be reflected in increased employment opportunities.
    Mr. Turner: Does the Minister accept that millions of people would welcome more regulations, particularly when dealing with companies such as Ever Ready, which has closed a factory in Wolverhampton, with the loss of 80 jobs? A constituent of mine visited Woolworths in Wolverhampton and found on sale Ever Ready batteries that were manufactured in China.
    Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman must accept that bureaucracy and red tape do not do business in this country any good at all. The consequence of imposing extra legislative burdens on companies to increase their operating costs would simply make us less competitive. What we should be concerened about in the European Community is not what Mr. Delors called social dumping in moving jobs from France to Scotland, but moving jobs outside the European Community altogether to the deregulated economies of the far east and elsewhere.
    Sir Michael Grylls: When my hon. Friend considers deregulation measures, will he consider abolishing the statutory audit? In particular, will he listen to the views of business organisations, especially the Small Business Bureau, which have made it perfectly clear that there is no reason why there should not be total abolition of the statutory audit for all privately owned companies? It serves no purpose to any outside trader dealing with privately owned companies; therefore, let us get rid of it.I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to to do so very soon.
    Mr. Hamilton: I am confident that we will be able to announce in due course a relaxation of the current audit requirements on small companies. The results of the consultation exercise in which we have been engaged for some time will be evaluated shortly. I am delighted that my hon. Friend and the Small Business Bureau have made representations to me as part of that consultation process.I hope that we shall he able to announce a radical change, to the benefit of business, in due course.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: As the Minister has had a year to study the Institute of Directors' proposals to abolish 50 licences, including licences in respect of driving instruction, the retail sale of alcohol, the running of theatres and cinemas, and minicabs, will he repudiate the proposals to leave the public without proper protection and ensure that they are not included in his Bill?
    Mr. Hamilton: I shall repudiate the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party. They have done nothing constructive to contribute to the debate. There are many ways in which we can ensure effective regulation to preserve the interests of the wider public which do not involve licensing. As part of the deregulation review, we shall be reconsidering all the legislative burdens on business of any kind to ensure that they are proportionate to the benefits that are claimed to flow from them. It can never be in the interests of business or of the people whom business employs to impose unnecessary costs on them.
    Mrs. Lait: Does my hon. Friend accept that many Conservative Members are pleased to hear about the new initiatives to consult small businesses about the regulations
    348
    that bear so heavily on the people who run those businesses? Is he happy with the means of consulting all small businesses? Has he any proposals to improve the consultation process?
    Mr. Hamilton: We agreed yesterday that, in future, when we consult before legislation is put before the House, we will first view our proposals from the perspective of small business. Too often in the past, the Government have listened to what big business has had to say and to business organisations, which may not in themselves be wholly representative of all the small businesses that are active in their economic sectors. It is important that small businesses are encouraged because it is from small businesses that big businesses and future jobs will grow.

    Domestic Gas Appliances
    Mr. Connarty: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to reduce the number of deaths caused by carbon monoxide poisoning in the home from unsafe gas appliances.
    Mr. McLoughlin: The number of deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning from gas appliances is a matter of concern. That is why I welcome the introduction of the EC gas appliances directive, which sets new safety requirements for gas appliances.
    Mr. Connarty: I am grateful to the Minister for that response, but it seems highly inadequate given the estimate that each year there are 200 deaths in the home from carbon monoxide poisoning caused by badly installed and poorly maintained gas appliances. Does the Minister share with me and the Council of Registered Gas Installers the concern that there are 40,000 cowboys installing gas appliances, yet CORGI members are the only people legally entitled to do so?
    Will the hon. Gentleman bring some influence to bear on the Health and Safety Executive to chase and prosecute the cowboys in what is basically a trade in death, rather than pursuing householders and landlords, which seems inadequate action in the face of such a threat?
    Mr. McLoughlin: Any death from carbon monoxide poisoning is tragic. We do hear of a number of such cases, although I do not recognise the number quoted by the hon. Gentleman. My information is that there are between 30 and 40 such deaths a year. However, arguing about the figures does not help. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Health and Safety Executive takes its responsibilities very seriously.

    Pit Closures
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what funding he will provide for British Coal to enable it to prevent pollution of the River Wear caused by the closure of pits in Durham.
    Mr. Eggar: It is for British Coal and the National Rivers Authority, in the first instance, to decide what action may be necessary in respect of any threat of water pollution which may be related to any proposed pit closure.
    Mr. Mullin: Is the Minister aware that the NRA is saying that if British Coal were to turn off the pumps at Easington when the pit closes, the River Wear—which

    349
    supplies 20 per cent. of the water for the city of Sunderland—would be devastated by pollution? Is he further aware that British Coal is flatly refusing to accept any responsibility for the consequences of turning off the pumps, other than giving 14 days' notice? What is he doing to ensure that British Coal lives up to its responsibilities?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman is not entirely accurate.
    Mr. Mullin: Oh yes, I am.
    Mr. Eggar: No, the hon. Gentleman is not entirely correct. If he had read the letter to him from the NRA, he would know that he had misquoted it. As I understand it, the problem relates to pumping issues at pits above Easington that have been long abandoned. It is clear that there would be an issue were pumping and production at Easington to cease. There has been a careful examination of the matter, both by the NRA and by British Coal. There is no question of any rapid decision being taken to cease pumping in that section of the Durham coal mines.
    I assure the hon. Gentleman, as he was assured by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment last night, that full consultation is being carried out and there will be appropriate levels of co-operation between British Coal and the NRA.

    Research and Development
    Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his policies to encourage United Kingdom manufacturing companies to increase their investment in research and development.
    Mr. McLoughlin: The best encouragement that the Government can provide is a stable economic environment with low inflation, low interest rates and low corporation tax, together with selective assistance, such as that provided by the Department in appropriate cases.
    Dr. Jones: Are not United Kingdom manufacturing tools twice as old as German tools and three times as old as Japanese tools? Do not British companies spend twice as much on dividends as they spend on research and development? It is no wonder that we have such a massive trade deficit, which is unprecedented in a recession. When will the Government shake themselves out of the complacency shown by Ministers' answers this afternoon and learn from the Japanese and other Pacific rim countries, which are investing massively in research and development? Why do they not start by transferring savings from defence research and development to civil research? If they did, at least the Minister could boast that his Department's budget was somewhat larger than that of the Department of National Heritage.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am not sure whether the hon. Lady was trying to talk her question out. The fact remains that industry-funded research and development rose 28 per cent. in real terms between 1981 and 1991. Of the companies questioned by the Confederation of British Industry in an innovation trends survey, 50 per cent. planned to increase their research and development expenditure in 1993, which is very encouraging.

Complaint of Privilege
3.30 pm
Madam Speaker: The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) raised with me, as a possible breach of privilege, the willingness of a court on Tuesday of this week to hear an application based on allegations related to a Bill then before Parliament. The Bill was the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which is now an Act.
The right hon. Gentleman complained that proceedings in Parliament were, on that occasion, being questioned in a manner contrary to article 9 of the Bill of Rights. He asked me to give precedence to a motion tomorrow relating to the action of the court in agreeing to entertain Lord Rees-Mogg's application, and referring the matter to the Committee of Privileges.
I have decided that it would not be appropriate for me to grant precedence to a motion based on this complaint, not least because, at the time to which the complaint relates, the Bill had been passed by this House but was proceeding in another place. It would therefore primarily be a matter for that House to pursue.
I do, however, take with great seriousness any potential questioning of our proceedings in the courts, which is why I have chosen to deliver my decision on the complaint in this way, as the rules entitle me to do, rather than to write privately to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, as would normally be the case.
The House will be aware that, following a recent decision by the House of Lords in the case of Pepper v. Hart, the courts now allow themselves to assess the significance of words spoken in this House during the passage of Bills in order to assist in the interpretation of statutes. That has exposed our proceedings to possible questioning in a way that was previously thought to be impossible.
There has of course been no amendment of the Bill of Rights, and that Act places a statutory prohibition on the questioning of our proceedings. Article 9 of the Act reads:
352
"that the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament."
I am sure that the House is entitled to expect, when the case referred to by the right hon. Gentleman begins to be heard on Monday, that the Bill of Rights will be required to be fully respected by all those appearing before the Court.
Mr. Tony Benn: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for your statement in response to the letter that I sent you, which was much better than a reference to the Committee of Privileges. You will recall that I expressed my concern explicitly that Lord Justice Watkins and Mr. Justice Auld would be in breach of article 9 of the Bill of Rights were they to hear the case.
Whatever the merits of the Maastricht treaty, you, Madam Speaker, have reaffirmed the historic view that it is not in order for the courts or anybody else to question our proceedings. You have told the courts today, in language that I am sure they will understand, that we do not interfere with their jurisdiction and they do not interfere with our jurisdiction and that the question of judicial review cannot be used as an encroachment of the rights of the House of Commons.
You referred to the Pepper v. Hart case, which purported to give the judges the right to review our proceedings. If this practice is not stopped, it will be open to anyone to seek a court injunction preventing Members of Parliament from doing the work for which they were elected by their own people.
I hope that the gravity of your statement is understood, and that the judges concerned, who are appointed rather than elected—appointed, I might add, by the royal prerogative—will drop the case brought by Lord Rees-Mogg. To proceed after what you have said would possibly constitute a breach of privilege. I believe that your statement of the primacy of the House of Commons—which I would rank with the statement of Mr. Speaker Lenthall—will be a warning to any other person, whether that person is responsible for using the royal prerogative or for using any other powers, that the House is determined to protect the rights of those we represent.

Arts Council (Review)
3.35 pm
The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Arts Council.
Last December I told the House that I would commission consultants to review the structure of the Arts Council. I subsequently commissioned Price Waterhouse to undertake that review, and I made available to the House on 4 June copies of the working papers that they presented. Their study was a thorough and professional undertaking, which has informed my consideration of the future of the Arts Council, following the transfer of responsibilities for the Scottish and Welsh Arts Councils from next April. I have now also had the benefit of advice from the Arts Council itself, and the wider arts community has made known its views.
For the purposes of this statement I should like to concentrate on five main areas in turn: the arm's-length principle; the size and composition of the council; relations between the council, its clients and the regional arts boards; the core functions of the Arts Council; and the structure of the organisation. I am writing separately to Lord Palumbo on a number of detailed issues, and I am arranging for a copy of my letter to be made available in the Library.
I reaffirm my commitment to the arm's length principle, and agree that this should be stated clearly so that the respective roles of my Department and the council can be clearly understood. Put simply, I see the primary role of Ministers as setting the council's legal, financial and institutional framework, including appointments to the council and the structure of arts funding and management. Within that framework, the role of the council is to steer the general direction of artistic policy and decide the allocation of funding in line with the exercise of its artistic judgment. It is not for the Government to seek to intervene in matters of artistic judgment, although there can be occasions when Ministers can properly act as a conduit for public and political opinion.
With that degree of independence for the Arts Council in the use of the taxpayer's money comes also the responsibility for explaining its decisions fully and clearly, not least to this House; and I shall be exploring with the chairman ways in which current levels of accountability might be improved. But this analysis of our different roles should not obscure the fact that these are objectives that the council and Ministers share and to which each should contribute for example, in encouraging the widest possible access to the arts. In this connection I should like to stress the importance I attach to the council's role in promoting touring to ensure that the best of our arts reaches the widest possible audience.
As to the size and composition of the council, Price Waterhouse recommended a reduction from its present membership of 20 to 12. I welcome a streamlining of membership. However, I am not finally convinced that a council of 12 members will sufficiently represent all those interests which should be part of the decision-making process. With the Arts Council's endorsement, I therefore intend to move to a council of 16 members, including the chairman and vice-chairman. This will allow the inclusion of five regional representatives, each of the seven art form panel chairman and four independents.
354
The Arts Council's relationship with regional arts boards and directly funded clients is most important, and the integrated planning system should underpin this; but it is not yet working as it should. I endorse Price Waterhouse's view that all involved should make its success a high priority, and I am glad that the council confirms that it will seek to do so. I am also glad that the council has accepted that the planning and finance functions should come more closely together, and that arrangements for contractual funding should be developed. I am making clear in my letter to Lord Palumbo what my Department requires from the planning process, and the need to develop better performance measures.
That brings me to the core functions of the Arts Council. As I told the House in December, the council has three main functions: providing a strategic policy framework for the arts at national level; managing grant-in-aid; and the monitoring and appraisal of arts organisations. Those were endorsed by the Price Waterhouse report, and I am pleased to restate them today. Price Waterhouse also stressed the council's role as an advocate for the arts. I readily endorse advocacy as a natural component of all the council's work, but I do not see it as a free-standing function. It arises naturally out of the responsibilities of members and senior management.
Price Waterhouse questioned whether the Arts Council's activities are sufficiently focused within its core functions. As public money is involved in supporting the Arts Council's activities, it is important that there should be a clearly identified need for them. I have therefore asked Lord Palumbo over the next two or three months to conduct an analysis of the entire range of activities undertaken by the Arts Council, and to report to me on how they fit in with its core functions. That work will need to reflect the need for market testing, and the specific ideas for streamlining put forward by Price Waterhouse. It will, I hope, focus attention on providing services for which there is a real demand. It must also, of course, reflect the new responsibilities that the national lottery imposes on the council as distributor.
Much of the public interest in the report has been in the three structural options put forward by Price Waterhouse. I do not intend to press for the adoption of a specific option but, as part of the planned activity review, I think that it is helpful to set the Arts Council a benchmark for the level of savings that it might achieve. So I am asking the council to assume an illustrative 10 per cent. reduction in administrative costs, and as part of the activity analysis to make the case for restoring it incrementally in tranches. That will not be an easy process, but it is important for all of us to ensure that overheads are kept to a minimum and as many as possible of the available resources are passed directly to the funding of artistic activity.
The process of change is never easy, but I hope that what I have said today will help to reduce uncertainty by giving those working in the arts community a clearer framework within which to operate. The debate on structures has been prolonged. It should soon be concluded, so that we can all concentrate on the wider issues of the quality and accessibility of the arts themselves.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: These are difficult times for the arts. Does not the Secretary of State realise that his statement will have done nothing to reassure our deeply troubled arts organisations? Once again, he has

355
offered further delay and procrastination. Is his Department not giving us yet more delay and paralysis, caused by yet more analysis?
All the ideas for restructuring the Arts Council suggested in the Price Waterhouse report are nominally about reducing waste and inefficiency and redirecting resources to arts organisations. The Opposition are wholly in favour of reducing waste and inefficiency and of maximising the sum spent directly on the arts. To that extent, we welcomed the setting up of the Price Waterhouse review, with its remit to examine the structural organisation and staffing of the council. However, the fact that the right hon. Gentleman, having spent about £60,000 on.the report, has opted for even more consultation will cause some disbelief. Does his decision mean that he accepts the charge made by some commentators that the review is partial, ill informed and littered with errors?
We have argued for some time that there is a case for reform of the Arts Council. Nevertheless, it would be wrong, out of enthusiasm for the report, to throw the baby out with the bath water. We believe that the Arts Council has done a notable job over the past 50 years. Its structure has been copied all over the world, and its slow death by a thousand cuts would not be welcomed.
Our real concern about the review is the motive for instigating it. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the reforms represent further cost savings for the Treasury and not any commitment to make more resources available to the arts? Will he further acknowledge that, whatever savings these reforms may produce, they will in no way offset the cut of £5 million from next year's arts budget?
Is it not the case that, merely to stand still, the arts need an increase of £10 million on the current spending plans for 1993–94, and if administrative savings are made, will the Secretary of State pledge that the resources released will be actually spent on the arts?
The Labour party has traditionally believed that the Arts Council has an important part to play in the artistic life of the nations of Britain. Has the Secretary of State read the view of the artistic director of the Royal Court theatre, who said last week:
"We have an Arts Council that is collaborating in its own suicide and a Government that is not committed to supporting the cultural life of this country".
We note the points made by the Secretary of State about improving accountability. He has promised to consult widely, and hopefully it will be more widely than merely consulting Lord Palumbo.
The Labour party is strongly committed to an enhanced role for regional arts boards which have an important element of local democratic accountability. Does the Secretary of State agree that, if more powers are to be devolved to the RABs, sufficient resources must be available to them to fulfil their enlarged responsibilities? Will he also promise to consult the regions on the appointment of five regional representatives to the Arts Council?
Does the Secretary of State now accept that the meddling interference of the Government and the resulting subservience of the Arts Council have destroyed the last vestiges of any claim to respect the arm's-length principle? As Lord Rix put it after his resignation,
356
"the Arts Council has been viewed with barely concealed contempt by successive Arts Ministers and their Departments … We have had to creep and crawl every year for our funds … When magnanimity has been displayed, we have gobbled up the crumbs with unseemly haste, raising fawning voices in praise of the Minister concerned."
Perhaps that is precisely what the Government want.
The Government have a long history of political appointments and the Arts Council has not been exempt. Property tycoon Lord Palumbo has already brought the worst features of the Government's ideology to the Arts Council. Will the Secretary of State deny this afternoon press reports that Jocelyn Stevens, the well-known custodian of England's heritage, may be appointed to replace Lord Palumbo next year?
The Arts Council allocation decisions announced on 8 July involved a long list of losers: Agenda, the Poetry Society, the London City Ballet, Millstream and Glyndbourne Touring Opera were all chosen for cuts, as were London orchestras. Is the Secretary of State content to see the closure of one and possibly two of London's four orchestras?
Why cannot the Secretary of State get the Arts Council to do its own dirty work instead of appointing a High Court judge to make the decision for it? Can he also tell us why regional theatres appear to have been singled out to be the sacrificial victims of Arts Council cuts? Will he confirm that there is a hit list of 10 regional theatres from which the Arts Council is intent on withdrawing funding with a real threat of closures? Is it by coincidence or design that almost all those theatres are extremely well supported by their Labour local authorities? Does he realise that, if the closures go ahead, it will leave only one major theatre in the whole of the south-west, the Northcote theatre in Exeter?
Has the Secretary of State no sense of shame that this could mean the virtual dismemberment of the system of regional theatres? Is he aware that regional theatres are the backbone of what has made British theatre among the best in the world? Does he know that all the great British actors and actresses, from Gielgud, Olivier and Albert Finney to Antony Sher, Ian McKellen, Julie Walters, Judy Dench and Glenda Jackson, came up through the regional theatre movement? [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Andrew Faulds?"] And, of course, Andrew Faulds.
Is the Secretary of State aware of the extent of opposition to the proposed withdrawal of funding from the 10 regional theatres? Does he know that, at the press conference of the Arts Council on 8 July, 10 of the 11 members of the drama board threatened to resign if the Arts Council announced that it and the regional arts boards supported the policy?
Is it not evident that the Government's arts strategy is in complete disarray? Was not The Independent right last week when it said:
"Mr. Brooke should realise that chipping away at a few Arts Council posts here or selling off a bit of property there is neglecting the real problem—the Government's failure to give the arts sufficient funds to enable them to plan with stability"?
The Government, who were elected on a commitment to defend arts spending, have ratted on that promise and now propose a savage cut of £5 million from the arts budget. Perhaps the Secretary of State should take time off from predicting a by-election defeat in Christchurch and spend some time sticking up for the arts. If he does not have the will or the clout to do so, he should make way for someone who has.
Mr. Brooke: The hon. Lady asked me at least two dozen questions. I know that she will forgive me if I say that they were variable in quality. I shall resist the temptation to say 17 yeses and seven noes.
The hon. Lady started by referring to what she described as "delay and procrastination". It may be a difference of opinion between Labour Members and Conservative Members, but given that it is the Arts Council that will be affected by the changes, it is much better that the council should be involved in the changes that will be made rather than that it should be imposed by fiat from the Secretary of State.
The hon. Lady referred to some scepticism about the report and suggested that it might contain some errors. I acknowledge that, in the nature of the report that was made—time was of the, essence—some factual corrections need to be made in the working papers. However, none of them will affect the final analysis conducted by Price Waterhouse.
I join the hon. Lady in her praise for the Arts Council over the past 50 years. I disagree with her suggestion that we are involved in the death of the Arts Council. We are involved in its renewal and its future over the next 50 years. The hon. Lady said that the whole exercise was engaged in cost savings. If it had been engaged in cost savings, one would have taken the simple step of telling the Arts Council that it had to make the following savings in its administrative costs. But that is not what we have done.
In terms of the cut in funding of £5 million, it is a fact that the policy that the Arts Council brings to its decisions affects the use of the money. Indeed, the reactions that have already occurred in terms of some of the council's decisions show that other hon. Members share that view. I can give the hon. Lady an assurance that the savings will go to the arts. I am glad that she joins us in our preoccupation with accountability. As she knows, the matter will receive further debate.
In terms of the regional arts boards and the extra responsibilities that will be devolved to them which I announced in December 1992, the Arts Council will be engaged in a review of the ability of the regional arts boards to carry its new responsibilities during the balance of this year. In terms of consulting the regions on their choice of who should represent them—which chairmen of the regional arts boards should sit on the Arts Council —the number that we have selected is such that it will be possible for there to be a rotation on a national basis with reasonable regularity.
One of the profoundest services of the Price Waterhouse report was, by the nature of the people it consulted, both in the Arts Council and in the artistic community, to show that there were misgivings about the way in which the arm's length principle was working. To reassert it, as I have done, is the right step forward. As always, actions speak louder than words.
The hon. Lady quoted the remarks of Lord Rix. All I can say at a personal level in response is that the Minister is not seeking praise for his decisions; he is hoping that history will judge that the decisions were well exercised during his time of office.
I repudiate utterly the hon. Lady's remarks about Lord Palumbo's chairmanship. He has given distinguished service, not only to the council, but to the state. We have not yet begun the process of choosing the next candidate
358
for the chairmanship of the Arts Council. Therefore, it would not be useful to have a series of questions about future candidates in our remaining time.
On the financial planning decisions for next year that the Arts Council announced on 8 July, the hon. Lady is not fully informed about the orchestras. The function of Lord Justice Hoffman to make recommendations to the music panel of the Arts Council, which will make the decision.
The hon. Lady made a series pf references to regional theatres. I am sure that, as at Question Time last week, they will have been heard outside this House. It is for the Arts Council to make those decisions. The Arts Council made its decisions at Woodstock. It is right that it should stand up and defend and explain them. If I may say so, the hon. Lady is threatening an immediate invasion of the arm's-length principle if she wishes me to substitute my judgment for that of the Arts Council.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The initial exchanges have taken some time and gone rather wide of the statement, so I hope that questions and answers will be brisk.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Is not the hon. Lady a misery? Britain is the arts capital of the world and spreads tremendous happiness. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, for the arm's-length principle to remain acceptable, it is essential for Arts Council decisions to remain broadly consistent with the public will? That is why it is welcome that my right hon. Friend said that the Arts Council should be made fully and clearly answerable to Parliament for its decisions. Far from death by a thousand cuts, this should have a tonic effect.
Mr. Brooke: It would be wrong for me to judge whether the hon. Lady is a misery. That is a judgment from which I should certainly resile. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reassertion of the importance of the arm's-length principle.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I am glad that I can give a broad welcome to the Secretary of State's statement. It amounts to a suspension of final judgment on the present Arts Council, at least until its activities analysis has been presented, as the right hon. Gentleman has asked, by the end of October.
There has been some risk that analysis will lead to paralysis. Many in the arts world have felt that they have been living in the twilight of the Arts Council as it took some of its, apparently, more bizarre decisions, not least putting out to tender the job of judging the future of London's orchestras. The Arts Council appears to have been threatened externally by cuts and internally by a certain loss of direction.
Following the Secretary of State's decision, will he ensure that the council's survival is dependent on the sharpness of its focus in answering the questions that he put to it, and that the accessibility and quality of the arts are not put at risk by further delay and dither?
Mr. Brooke: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's implication that uncertainty is bad both for the Arts Council and for the artistic community, which is why I seek to bring matters to a conclusion. I take the opposite view from the hon. Gentleman: I think that, if we bring matters to a successful conclusion, we can avoid paralysis and secure something much more constructive.

359
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the sharpness of focus that needs to be directed from now on. The process of inviting the Arts Council to look at its tasks on an incremental basis is the same process to which it subjects its clients and therefore one with which it will be familiar.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that by far the most eloquent plea against the £5 million cut has come from the chairman of the Arts Council? Will he heed that plea?
When my right hon. Friend reconstitutes the Arts Council, will he bear in mind that it is wrong to preclude people from the position of chairman because they cannot afford to do the job?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the hon. Gentleman looking for the job?
Mr. Cormack: No, I am not.
There would be a wide welcome in the arts world if the job were made a paid appointment so that people could afford to take it on.
Mr. Brooke: I wholly concur with my hon. Friend that, in his open letter to me, the noble Lord Palumbo was demonstrating the advocacy recommended by Price Waterhouse. On the second half of my hon. Friend's question, the Arts Council charter will require revision because of the transfer of responsibilities to Scotland and Wales. Therefore, the issue whether the chairman should be paid can be considered within that revision.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman:.I thank the Minister for his courtesy in allowing me to see a copy of his statement in advance.
I hope that the restructuring will be successful, not only in terms of administration but in empowering the Arts Council to carry out its principal duty, which is to deliver artistic opportunity and artistic experiences to people throughout the country.
The Minister has again properly supported the Arts Council's arm's-length role, but he expressed a view about which I hope he will think again. He stressed the importance that he attached to the council's role in promoting touring. Although touring companies give people in the regions a pleasant opportunity, they are no substitute for firmly based and rooted regional companies delivering arts to their areas. The loss of companies such as the Bolton Octagon and the Oldham Coliseum would be sad. The company that operated at the Forum theatre in Wythenshawe, which has now sadly closed due to lack of funding, was such a centre of excellence that it made possible the performance of Sondheim musicals in the west end of London. The same can be said of the Haymarket theatre in Leicester.
It is not touring that is most important to us in the regions, but having our own companies rooted in our communities to provide experiences for us where we live.
Mr. Brooke: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his observations about the delivery of artistic opportunities and experiences. We shall continually return to that subject as it should be the guiding light of the Arts Council's activities. I do not seek to make touring a substitute for activity on the ground all round the country.
360
I hope that the decision that I announced last December about the transfer of 42 artistic organisations from the Arts Council to the regional arts boards is testimony to my concern that the arts should be served on the ground in the regions.
Mr. Terry Dicks: The House is never as bad as when it sits here pompously considering the future of the arty-farty world. It is ridiculous that we are wasting parliamentary and ministerial time on these matters. If my right hon. Friend really wants to contribute to cost cutting, why does he not close the Arts Council, and his Department with it? The sooner he does so the better so that we can utilise the money for something worthwhile.
Mr. Brooke: When my hon. Friend reads the report of today's exchanges, I do not think that he will necessarily take the view that we are all conducting ourselves pompously. There is a particular character part which he plays, and he plays it to perfection.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: The right hon. Gentleman failed to comment on the project "Arts through education". What are the implications of the review on "Arts through education", an immensely important project? Does he agree with me that the introduction of the national lottery into this whole area of arts funding is simply a means of getting the Government off the hook of their funding responsibilities, and will inevitably lead to a lack of proper provision for all the arts functions throughout the country?
Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman seeks to widen the debate with a general question on the issue of education. I know that he will have been encouraged by the fact that, in the statements which it made on 8 July, subsequent to its meeting at Woodstock, the Arts Council said that education was one sector in which it wished to see its role expanded.
One can take a variety of views on the lottery. In the context of the arts, where the emphasis will be on capital funding and there is a series of problems of capital deficiency which are crying out to be resolved, I do not think that the lottery will interfere with the basic function of the Arts Council, which will distribute the money for capital purposes.
Mr. Alan Howarth: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reaffirmation of the arm's-length principle. Does he accept that moves to strengthen the accountability of the Arts Council to himself and the House sit delicately with that principle? Does he agree that the arts are a spendid investment for this country, generating jobs, tax revenues and benefits for the balance of payments? That fact must have something to do with the past ministrations of the Arts Council. Therefore, I welcome my right hon. Friend's cautious and pragmatic approach to reform of the Arts Council.
Will my right hon. Friend assure us that, in his conversations with the Treasury during the summer, he will vigorously stress the fact that the Government's role is to provide a stable, secure and generous contribution to the arts?
Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend has articulated very well the role which Governments of all colours have played in the arts world. When he reads my statement, I do not think

361
that my hon. Friend will think that I was asking for accountability to myself. I was concerned that there should be accountability to Parliament. I might serve as a conduit through which some of that accountability could be exercised.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: I also welcome the arm's-length relationship between the Secretary of State and the Arts Council. Surely the most important aspect of the right hon. Gentleman's analysis of the activities will be the way in which it brings light to bear on some of the mysteries about the way in which the Arts Council has conducted itself.
The success of the right hon. Gentleman's analysis will be judged on how much light it sheds on some of the Arts Council's peculiar decisions, particularly its decision to transfer its responsibility to a judge. I know that that responsibility will go back to the Arts Council, but that was an extraordinary decision. I want to know more about how such decisions are made. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's analysis will bring some of the decisions to light.
Mr. Brooke: My analysis may have the virtue of restressing the arm's-length principle and subsequently, by actions which are louder than words, upholding it. In that way we shall give the Arts Council the confidence of knowing that it will not suffer interference from Ministers but will retain accountability to the nation through the House. The Arts Council will then feel so empowered as to make it clear why it makes its decisions and, if necessary, defend them.
Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the central purpose of his statement is to ensure that more of the funding is-spent at the sharp end, delivering arts, rather than on the machinery by which the money reaches those who pro vide the arts? Is he aware that, among the people at the sharp end, there has been concern about both the openness and the accountability of the Arts Council? There was particular anxiety that, given the extra funding that will come to the Arts Council through the national lottery, we need to be assured that the Arts Council is acting in an open and accountable way to improve the quality and range of arts available to the general public whom it seeks to serve.
Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend follows a similar question asked by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) a moment ago. The House will join my hon. Friend in wishing that the funding that goes to what he described as the "sharp end" is not diluted on the way.
Ms Glenda Jackson: If the Minister will not intervene in matters of artistic judgment, will he intervene in matters of artistic misjudgment? How can the stated aim of the Government to present the best of our arts to most of our people possibly be carried out if the Arts' Council pursues its proposition of closing 10 regional theatres?
If that proposition is due to underfunding, the Minister should argue vehemently with the Treasury that cuts in the arts budget should be expunged. If it is a serious proposition, the Arts Council should be called to account by the Minister. Does he agree that, if we do not have regional theatres, we may not have London theatres in the future?
Mr. Brooke: The hon. Lady is seductive in her suggestion that I should in fact abjure the arm's-length principle as soon as I have stated it.
It may be helpful if I remind the House that the first of the Arts Council's three charter objectives is to develop and improve the knowledge, understanding and practice of the arts. The second is to increase the accessibility of the arts to the public throughout the United Kingdom. The hon. Lady might have received more support in the House if she had implied that the second objective would need to be explained by the Arts Council if the widespread regional provision was to be removed.
Mr. Bryan Davies: Does the Minister accept that his somewhat delphic statement on the future of the Arts Council has done nothing to improve the demoralised state of the arts world that has resulted from two decisions? The first, for which the Minister is directly responsible, concerns the future cuts in Arts Council funding. The second concerns the deplorable situation regarding regional theatres, such as the Oldham Coliseum, which are on a hit list. While nothing has yet been defined, does the Minister agree that such a list would represent a threat to theatre in the regions and that that would have a detrimental effect on everyone?
Mr. Brooke: I do not know the. precise circumstances under which the Arts Council has decided not to be specific about the list of theatres about which it might be making decisions. Enough has happened to enable hon. Members to air the subject, so the Arts Council may listen to the debate without having put its proposals forward.
The hon. Gentleman said that I had been "somewhat delphic". I do not know about the Labour party, but it is said in my party that morale starts in the Chamber and spreads across the nation. My preoccupation is that morale is restored within the Arts Council and that that morale then spreads across the nation.
Mr. Bob Cryer: The Arts Council is facing clear difficulties in reorganisation and in cuts in administration, personnel and finance. Would it not be prudent of the Minister to re-examine the allocation of the administration of the national lottery funds through the Arts Council?
The Minister must be aware of the widespread dissatisfaction in the film industry and, for example, the British Film Institute at the decision to award the administration of the national lottery funds to that body. Those in the industry feel that the Arts Council has neither the enthusiasm nor the expertise to deal with the film industry.
Philistines see the film industry only as some kind of machinery. Successful British films have an enormous cascading effect on British industry. They indicate standards of excellence and manufacturing in many ways. Does the Minister agree that it is essential to encourage the British film industry so that that important element is maintained and improved?
Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman and I share an affection for the game of cricket, and we have latterly discovered a mutual enthusiasm for film and the film industry. I therefore support his interests in the subject.
However, criticism was made in a debate on the Bill that I, as Secretary of State, was reserving for myself powers concerning the distribution of funds. The ability to

363
ensure that appropriate care and attention is given to film is one such power which I would exercise through the Act. I think, however, that the hon. Gentleman's question went a little wide of my original statement.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I take this opportunity to refer to John Bute, who died this morning. He generously lent many of the most beautiful pictures by British artists and rendered great service to the arts in Scotland in many different capacities.
The Secretary of State said that integrated planning was not working as it should. What analysis has been done as to why it was not working?
Mr. Brooke: I join the hon. Gentleman in his tribute to the late Lord Bute, whom I had the privilege of meeting in connection with some of the work that I do in my Department.
Integrated planning is a process that embraces the combined activity of the regional arts boards with the Arts Council at the centre. The conduct of integrated planning is necessarily somewhat new, because the transfer of substantial responsibility to the regional arts boards is itself new; but I believe that everyone who has so far been involved in integrated planning would agree that it is working less than perfectly. That is why Price Waterhouse flagged it up, and it is one of the reasons why all of us —I as Secretary of State, the Arts Council and the regional arts boards—will seek to make it work a great deal better.
Mr. Mark Fisher: Does not the Secretary of State understand that the crucial question which faces the arts is not the structure or composition of the Arts Council but the appalling lack of funding by the Government? Arts funding in Britain is one of the lowest in Europe at 0·3 per cent. of public expenditure. Is not that the issue?
Is not the consequence of that and of the further £5 million cut that he has announced for next year's Arts Council grant only too clear? The consequence is the loss of two major international and national orchestras and of 10 regional theatres. If those theatres close, they will not reopen, just as the 10 pits will not reopen, and the damage will be not only to theatre throughout the country but to the communities and town centres which, particularly at night, depend on those theatres to be a live focus for the community.
Will the Secretary of State deal with the issue of funding and, before it is too late, start fighting in Cabinet for more investment?
Mr. Brooke: I know that the hon. Gentleman was not a Member of Parliament during the period of office of the Labour Government from 1974 to 1979 when his distinguished father was a Member, but the funding which this administration provide for the arts exceeds by 44 per cent. in real terms the figure which the Labour Government bestowed in 1979. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to say that 44 per cent. is not enough, but the fact remains that his Government regarded a much lower figure as desirable for the arts in those days.
In answer to the second half of the hon. Gentleman's question, of course I give him the assurance that we are anxious to see as much money made available for the arts as the nation can afford.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that he had received a copy of the statement. I happen to think that it is perfectly sensible and courteous of the Secretary of State to give a copy to my right hon. Friend, who is the Chairman of the Select Committee. However, if the Chairman of the National Heritage Select Committee receives one, why does not the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee—[Interruption.]—and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and the hon. Member for Linlithgow—receive a copy?
There is an argument for putting copies of statements in the Vote Office at 3 pm. The result would be that questions would be a little more informed. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander—sauce for Gorton and sauce for Bolsover.
Madam Speaker: It was courteous of the Secretary of State to make the statement available to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), but it was a private arrangement which had nothing whatever to do with the Speaker.

BILL PRESENTED
  LIMITATION (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. David Hinchliffe, supported by Ms Dawn Primarolo, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Ms Angela Eagle, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Keith Bradley, Mr. Eric Martlew, Mr. Kevin Hughes, Mr. John Gunnell, Mr. Malcolm Wicks and Mrs. Llin Golding, presented a Bill to amend the provisions of the Limitation Act 1980 so far as they relate to time limits for actions in respect of personal injuries and to the circumstances in which a person is to be treated as under a disability for the purposes of that Act; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 July, and to be printed. [Bill 245.]

Broadcasting (Amendment)
4.19 pm
Mr. Bruce Grocott: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Broadcasting Act 1990 so as to require the transmission of a major evening news bulletin at ten o'clock; to make provision for centres of excellence of television production in the regions; to enforce strict compliance by franchisees with the terms of their franchise applications; to provide safeguards to support a United Kingdom-based television industry comparable to the safeguards protecting national television industries in other European countries; and for connected purposes.
My Bill would amend the appalling Broadcasting Act 1990. I should declare an interest as a member of the Broadcasting, Entertainment and Cinematograph Technicians Union and a member of the National Union of Journalists, and also as someone who worked for a while for Central Independent Television, although I emphasise that I have no financial interest in the matter.
I am deeply concerned about what is happening to broadcasting. Much of what is wrong with it is attributable to the workings of the Broadcasting Act. Broadcasting, for those of us who care about it, is at the crossroads of either becoming American-style, advertising-led broadcasting or having a chance to remain as it is—a public broadcasting service that is properly and democratically regulated and that, up till now, has been admired throughout the world. Like so many other institutions in Britain, however, I fear that it is under threat from the Government's legislation.
Broadcasting is not like any other industry, because it is central to our way of life and certainly central to our recreational activity. On average, we spend 25 hours a week watching television. Televisions are in 98 per cent. of households. Massive audiences watch British television —20 million people regularly watch Coronation Street, and at peak viewing time on Christmas Day, as many as 30 million people watch television. It is something worth caring about and doing well, but, sadly, if present trends continue it will not be done well for much longer.
Television is vital for the dissemination of news and information. Public opinion shows that far more people trust broadcasters, and especially television, in the transmission of news and current affairs than trust any other medium. In a recent poll, 72 per cent. of people said that they trusted television, while only 11 per cent. trusted newspapers. I am surprised that it is as high as 11 per cent. for newspapers, but the message is crystal clear: broadcasting is essential for the transmission of news and current affairs.
We are currently facing a massive increase in the number of channels. Most of us are used to one, two, three or perhaps four channels, but by the turn of the century there could easily be as many as 130. It is no use having dozens of channels if they are transmitting tripe, which is the case in many other countries where there is a totally unregulated system.
Despite all the importance of broadcasting and the increase in the number of channels, morale among the people who make programmes is at an all-time low. The comments of Mark Tully, in his lecture in the past week, were representative of many people who work in the industry.
Not all the ills of broadcasting are directly attributable to the Broadcasting Act 1990, but many are. I shall point
366
out some of the damage that has been done to the broadcasting industry that is directly attributable to the Act.
First, there has been tremendous pressure on the budgets of programme makers. That is partly due to the absurd lottery of the Act, which means that Yorkshire Television, for example, pays £38 million a year, whereas other television companies such as Central Television—I am delighted to say that it beat the system—and Scottish Television pay £2,000 a year. Why should the viewer have to suffer and the amount of money available for programme budgets be decreased on the basis of that silly system of allocating franchises, which has been described as poker?
There has also been tremendous pressure on budgets because of the predictable and unfair competition from cable and satellite television. It makes no sense at all that there are good and strict requirements on home-based production, which apply to the BBC and to ITV, but not on satellite and cable. The figures for the home-based production programme content of television programme hours are quite horrifying.
In 1985, 56 per cent. of transmitted television programme hours were produced in the United Kingdom. Because of the proliferation of channels, that had fallen to 19 per cent. by 1992, and it is estimated that the figure will be 13 per cent. by the year 2000. That is not surprising: it is much cheaper to bring in material from, say, the United States market, where drama can be produced for about £30,000 an hour, whereas home-produced drama, which has to make all its profits in the United Kingdom, can cost as much as £400,000 an hour or more.
It is therefore no wonder that the unregulated sections of the television industry buy in programmes from abroad. It is no wonder either that our balance of payments—it does not always seem to worry everyone in this House—in television programme production, which was in surplus to the tune of £24 million in 1985, was in deficit to the tune of £100 million by 1991—and the deficit is worsening.
I cannot see why the Independent Television Commission does not have the same powers over programme content and quality in cable television as it has over the independent television sector. When "News at Ten" was threatened with being moved to another time, pressure was rightly brought to bear to stop that happening, and the ITC intervened. But cable and satellite can do what they like with programmes. They can take them off the air or close down channels, because they are not subject to regulation or control.
Another predictable result of the Act was a drift of programming southwards, and a weakening of television in the regions. That should be a matter for concern to all who value local production facilities. The closure of studios and the drift to independents inevitably mean a drift to the south.
Another issue that will assume dramatic importance next year is the threat of the takeover of British television companies by foreign companies—which will inevitably happen if we do not apply the same rules to our industry as other countries do to theirs. Most Governments have the sense to give their national television industries some protection and do not want them owned or controlled from abroad purely for profit.
The final sickness in the system to which I shall refer was shown up in the ITC's quarterly report, published last

367
week. It says that the commercial pressures on programme makers to reduce their budgets have forced them to cut corners in a way that I never thought would happen in British broadcasting. Products are being displayed in programmes in prominent positions as a form of advertising. That is the thin end of the wedge; it deeply damages our system and the integrity of broadcasting.
People ask what I would do. I believe in a good old-fashioned dose of democratic regulation and control of the industry. That idea has been out of fashion—at least it was in the 1980s, when the prevailing madness was that everything could be governed by so-called free market forces. They simply do not deliver. With the progressive release of these market forces in broadcasting, the advertisers and the accountants have taken control. People no longer ask how good a programme is; they ask how much money it will make. Programme makers and viewers have lost out.
I am proud to say that what is required is a look back to find out what made our system the best in the world. The answer is: democratic regulation and control, to ensure standards, to provide the money properly to pay for jobs in the industry, to see that people are properly employed, and to make certain that there is none of the endless short-termism and lack of training that characterise industries not subject to democratic control.
Those who care about broadcasting—that includes almost all of us, as we spend 25 hours a week watching television—may agree with me that it is too important and too precious to be left to the whims of advertisers and accountants. It is time that we instituted democratic control, through this House, and made the system once again one to be proud of.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bruce Grocott, Ms Diane Abbott, Mr. David Clelland, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Don Dixon, Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. Ken Purchase, Mr. Terry Rooney, Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. Dennis Turner.

BROADCASTING (AMENDMENT)
Mr. Bruce Grocott accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Broadcasting Act 1990 so as to require the transmission of a major evening news bulletin at ten o'clock; to make provision for centres of excellence of television production in the regions; to enforce strict compliance by franchisees with the terms of their franchise applications; to provide safeguards to support a United Kingdom-based television industry comparable to the safeguards protecting national television industries in other European countries; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 July, and to be printed. [Bill 246.]
ESTIMATES DAY
[1ST ALLOTTED DAY, 2ND PART]
ESTIMATES DAY
  ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1993–94
    Class VIII, Vote 1
      Home Office

        Domestic Violence
        [Relevant documents: The Third Report from the Home Affairs Committee of Session 1992–93 on Domestic Violence (House of Commons Paper No. 245-I) and the Government Response thereto (Cm. 2269.)]
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        That a further sum, not exceeding £1,807,298,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Home Office on compensation for criminal injuries, probation, police and superannuation payments for police and fire services.—[Mr. Maclean.]
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I understand that with this it will be convenient also to discuss the next three motions relating to estimates:
        That a further sum, not exceeding £745,493,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Home Office on police, the forensic science service, emergency planning, fire, the Fire Service College, court services, other services related to crime, probation and after-care, miscellaneous services, prevention of drug abuse, control of immigration and nationality, issue of passports etc., community services; and on administration (excluding the provision made for prisons administration carried on Class VIII, Vote 2).
        That a further sum, not exceeding £427,760,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Lord Chancellor's Department on the court service, magistrates' courts, legal aid administration, tribunals, the court building programme, certain other legal services and a payment to the Land Registry Trading Fund.
        That a further sum, not exceeding £135,693,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Crown Prosecution Service on administrative costs including the hire of private prosecuting agents.
        4.29 pm
        Sir Ivan Lawrence: It is not always appreciated by our constituents that Parliament—and particularly this House—often pauses in its headlong rush to get laws on to the statute book to consider general issues of national and social concern. Hon. Members do so without drama and frenzy, and without the harangue, diatribe and vitriol of party politics. One example of that vital work will be debated this afternoon as we consider the subject of domestic violence.
        I am sorry that so many of our colleagues are not present at this important debate. I hope that they are at home—repairing the ravages of this Maastricht-ridden life that we have been pursuing—and that there is domestic tranquillity back at their roots.

        369
        The Home Affairs Select Committee, consisting of six Conservative Members and five Labour Members and of which I am privileged to have been elected as Chairman, decided a year ago to look in some depth at the devastating social problem of domestic violence. The evidence that we received from interested groups and individuals was prodigious, and the witnesses who gave evidence in person were many. Our report is comparatively long and we have made 42 specific recommendations for improving the way in which we tackle the problem in society.
        I warmly thank my hard-working colleagues on the Committee, our dedicated Clerk, Paul Silk, and his staff, those who took the trouble to give evidence to us and those whom we met on our visits in London—the police, social workers and the victims. Finally, I thank my colleagues on the Liaison Select Committee for choosing this subject for debate today.
        Our inquiries left us with no illusions about the prevalence of domestic violence in society today, or its enormous cost in financial as well as, more importantly, human terms. Paragraph 136 of our conclusions defines
        "that most basic of a citizen's rights: the one of living a life where violence is not feared and individual dignity is respected."
        That is simply not possible when the menace of violence lurks where there ought to exist a haven of peace and tranquillity—the home.
        In paragraph 6 of our report, we stress that men as well as women are affected by domestic violence, perhaps more frequently than many realise. All our recommendations therefore apply equally to men and to women.
        There are many forms of domestic violence: adult children may abuse their parents and grandparents; fathers, uncles and other relatives may abuse their daughters, sons, nieces, and so on. We have had to concentrate our attention on violence between partners and ex-partners in order to keep our inquiry within manageable proportions. I hope that the House will understand and accept that.
        We do not pretend that we are the first to address the subject. Our report supplements and complements the work recently done by Victim Support and the Law Commission in particular. Eighteen years ago, the Parliamentary Select Committee on Violence in the Family reported, and much has been achieved since then. There have been changes in legislation, in the way that agencies such as the police, the judiciary, social workers and the churches approach the problem, and in the attitude of Government.
        The more attention has been focused on the problem, the more its full extent has been realised and the more the problem has been seen to grow. The general achievement of the attention has been to ensure that domestic violence is now treated as a serious crime by the police, prosecutors and the courts.
        As the problem seems to be getting worse, either because more abuse is coming to light, or because our society is less stable and its citizens more intolerant. and less tranquil, a great deal remains to be done to improve things. Most of our recommendations are for specific action which we believe needs to be taken. In our view, there is a need for better facts and statistics, to monitor arrest rates, make police domestic violence units a more central part of police work, for the Crown Prosecution
        370
        Service to monitor police performance in that area and for the courts and prosecutors to adopt more victim-friendly procedures and practices.
        We believe that victims should be further helped by making more child contact and victim access centres available through the establishment of a central co-ordinated policy for the provision of refuges throughout the country. Furthermore, we believe that such provision, far from increasing costs, could well be the single greatest cost-saving measure that could be taken.
        We make recommendations for the perpetrators of domestic violence. Taking such attacks more seriously and punishing the perpetrators through the courts will help to increase deterrence. We recommend programmes in prison that encourage men to recognise their violent behaviour towards women and then try to change it. We recommend a variety of schemes in the community that are designed also to make perpetrators confront the iniquity of their behaviour and stop it. We address, too, the particular problems that the black and ethnic minority communities can face and the need for sensitivity in dealings between them and the criminal justice agencies.
        We highlight the role of Government in addressing domestic violence. We welcome the establishment of a ministerial group on domestic violence and recommend that priority is given to tackling the problem by all Departments. We believe that the Treasury in particular should participate in the consideration of domestic violence issues, and that encouragement should be given by the Government to local inter-agency co-operation.
        One of the most important aspects of our Select Committee system is that, when a Committee has reported, the Government must make a response. Such reports focus Government attention on the subject of the inquiry, as the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department have clearly and carefully done with our report.
        The Government's report has been measured, detailed and positive, and we would like to place on record our appreciation of the attention that has been given by the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department. In the spirit of the courts charter, they have taken on board many of our recommendations, particularly in respect of proposals for the police, Crown Prosecution Service, court procedure and the support and protection of witnesses and victims, which justifies our raising the matter substantially under the estimates programme.
        During the inquiry, a number of issues of particular interest and importance emerged, but as so many colleagues wish to speak I shall confine myself to mentioning just three of them briefly.
        So much of the problem of violence in the home arose quite simply out of inadequate housing provision. Some issues were outside the remit of our Select Committee, which scrutinises only the work of the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department and their agencies. However, that did not stop us—particularly after having seen something of the work of Chiswick Family Rescue, now renamed Refuge—making recommendations about the need for refuges, for more sympathetic housing allocation for victims and for welcoming interdepartmental co-ordination by the Government which, of course, involves the Department of the Environment.
        Another matter that emerged was the importance not only of criminal law but of civil law. We found that to be in a rather confused state and, as such, not so helpful as it

        371
        might be in protecting the interests of victims of domestic violence. As long ago as 1984, Lord Scarman, giving judgment in the case of Richards v. Richards and speaking of the proliferation of powers and remedies for dealing with violent cohabitees, said:
        "The sooner the range, scope and effect of these powers are rationalised into a coherent body of statute law, the better."
        Since then, the frustration of the legal profession in dealing with such cases has grown.
        We have therefore welcomed the Law Commission's initiative and we urge the Government to introduce legislation along the lines of the Law Commission's draft Bill which would deal more sensibly with the plethora of exclusion orders, non-molestation orders, occupation orders, ousters, property rights, attachment of powers of arrest and who should be entitled to exercise those powers.
        We believe that those matters are too urgent to gather dust on library shelves like so many other Law Commission reports, and we are saddened to hear the Government's response that the timing of legislation would depend, in that old phrase, on the availability of parliamentary time.
        We dissented with the Law Commission on only one proposal—the proposal to give the police third party rights in civil domestic violence actions. As a Committee, we believed that the police should concentrate on normal policing, in respect of which they are already overstretched. For the rest, we believe that the Bill should be included in next Session's programme because it is essential that a more coherent structure be introduced into the civil law in this area—and without delay, if much unnecessary suffering is to be avoided.
        The third area that I want to deal with, and which during our inquiries seemed to stir public and media interest following controversial cases in which husbands and wives had killed their spouses or cohabitees after long periods of domestic violence, relates to the law of homicide, which we dealt with in paragraphs 85 to 99.
        It is a defence to a murder charge—reducing the killing to manslaughter—if the killer was provoked to retaliate. At present the law states that retaliation must take place in the heat of the moment and must be in response to provocation that would have led a reasonable man to lose his self-control and to retaliate as the killer did. Cumulative provocation does not justify the defence, although the triggering act of provocation can be relatively minor.
        The women's groups who gave evidence to us, in particular, told us that provocation had been used more successfully by men who killed their partners than by women and that a nagging wife might be enough justification in some cases. The crux of the dissatisfaction was that the provocation had to be sudden, when women's resentments were often cumulative. There has been some softening of that approach in recent cases in the Court of Appeal.
        While feeling sympathy towards defendants who have suffered prolonged abuse at the hands of the persons they had killed, the Committee did not want to see revenge killings committed while defendants were fully in control of their emotions and that being used to reduce murder to manslaughter.
        However, we feel that there is a need for more clarity in the definition, and we endorsed the Law Commission's
        372
        recommendation that one condition of the defence should be that the provocation should, in all the circumstances —including any of the defendant's personal characteristics that affect its gravity—be considered by the jury to be sufficient ground for the loss of self-control.
        More generally, we propose that the Law Commission should produce a consultation document on the law of homicide and that the Government should bring forward proposals on the law in that area in the light of that consultation exercise. Unfortuantely, in their response, the Government do not believe that the Law Commission's proposals would result in more clarity and certainty. We do not share their view.
        This is an estimateds day, and estimates debates are about the financing of improvements in our society. In our report on what has been a fascinating, important and urgent matter, we have proposed a variety of new measures which will undoubtedly cost money. If we were asked, we could not say precisely how much our recommendations would cost. It would be impossible to estimate such a figure. It should be obvious that it is also impossible to estimate the costs of inaction—costs which will inevitably be very substantial.
        I am satisfied, and I believe that the Committee is satisfied, that the costs of domestic violence in financial and human terms far outweigh the costs of our recommendations. Spending money on reducing the scale of domestic violence at its earliest stages will undoubtedly save money which is now being spent on housing, health, education, social services and justice in an effort to remedy the misery caused by violence in the home.
        As we conclude in our report in paragraph 137, we look now for a
        "wide vision of what can be achieved and an ambitious programme for action."
        If that does not happen, we have little doubt that it will be the victims of domestic violence who will suffer most—and no one in the House wants that to happen.
        4.45 pm
        Mrs. Barbara Roche: I want first to congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) on his speech and I would like to thank my colleagues on the Select Committee who spent so much time on this very important subject.
        I am delighted that this was the first subject to be considered by the Home Affairs Select Committee in this Parliament. That demonstrates the importance of the subject, about which very many people, particularly women, feel very strongly, and the Select Committee considered the matter very seriously. I also pay tribute to the Clerks and to the witnesses.
        We heard from our witnesses, and in written evidence, tragic and horrific tales of brutality against women and children and of huge public costs in terms of policing, courts and the national health service. However, we also heard of the greatly improved quality of policing of domestic violence.
        As a London Member, I am aware of the excellence of my domestic violence unit which serves Hornsey and Wood Green. That improvement is not true simply in respect of my constituency: it is true throughout the Metropolitan police area. The Met deserve to be congratulated on the improvements, and particularly on the domestic violence units which have been established.

        373
        However, that is not just a unique feature of policing in London and policing. There are many other examples of good policing elsewhere in the country. One of the strong recommendations of our report is that those examples of good practice should be reproduced in the rest of the country.
        The Government have given us a comprehensive response to our report. However, I believe that there are many areas where much more needs to be done and where there could have been a much better response. The first of those areas, with which I wish to deal, relates to refuge provision.
        One of the strongest recommendations of the report is:
        "the first priority for Government action on domestic violence should be the establishment of a central, co-ordinated policy for refuge provision throughout the country. We believe that this could well be the single greatest cost-saving measure that could be taken."
        As the report points out, and as has already been said, the present number of refuge places is less than one third of the number, recommended as an initial target by the Select Committee on Violence in the Family which reported in 1975, of one family place per 10,000 of the population.
        Witnesses from a variety of backgrounds—women's aid groups, police organisations, social worker representatives, local authority associations and others—emphasised the lack of provision and its consequences: crime cannot be prevented as easily, women may be deterred from following prosecutions through, and community-based sentences for offenders can cause danger to victims if refuges and refuge provision are riot in place.
        A crisis is taking place in refuges. I know, for example, that Refuge—an organisation that has done a tremendous amount of work—has a funding crisis. Many refuges affiliated to the Women's Aid Federation, face similar crises. The federation has made a large contribution to the debate and has done a great deal of valuable work. Haringey Women's Aid, an excellent organisation in my constituency, has to spend too much of its time raising funds every year.
        Look at what has happened to child care workers in refuges. It is often forgotten that children are victims of domestic violence, but child care workers are almost an endangered species in refuges simply because there is not enough money to pay for them. We need a much greater and better Government response to that problem.
        Let me quote the statement of the noble Baroness Cumberlege in another place on 29 April. When asked whether the Government had any plans to encourage the provision and funding of women's refuges, she replied only:
        "the provision of funding for women's refuges is primarily a matter for local agencies."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 April 1993, c. 433.]
        I strongly reject that view. What happens if a woman is the victim of domestic violence? Quite understandably, she does not want to go to the local refuge. Why? Because, when she walks down the street she might see the man who has subjected her to violence. The refuge might be round the corner from where the violence took place.
        She might therefore go to a refuge in another borough, which will ask why it is funding refuge provision for women from elsewhere. All that emphasises the need for a national co-ordinated strategy, and that funding for refuges has to be put on a proper national footing.
        374
        What will be the Government's response to the interdepartmental working group on domestic violence? The Home Office should be the lead group, and it is good that there is an official working group on domestic violence, chaired by the Home Office. I gather from answers to parliamentary questions that I have recently tabled that that organisation has met twice. However, it is in the interests of open government that a variety of Government Departments should be involved.
        In answer to my question about the frequency of meetings, the Minister of State said of the group:
        "It will continue to meet as and when appropriate".—(Official Report, 9 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 300.)
        When the Minister makes his contribution to the debate, will he agree that, in the interests of open government and in the spirit of working together to alleviate the problems of the victims of domestic violence, it will be useful to know more about the workings of the group? Exactly what is its remit, how and when is it intended to meet, and how will the results of its deliberations be disseminated? Perhaps publication of its recommendations could be considered.
        We also considered court procedure. Welsh Women's Aid, in its written evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, gave graphic accounts of women's experiences in court. In one case, a woman called
        "Elisabeth had to sit in close proximity with the man who had abused her physically, sexually and emotionally. There was absolutely nowhere else for her to wait."
        Another woman
        "was waiting in the waiting area of the court when she was punched in the mouth by her violent ex-partner. He also threatened the barrister"
        who represented her
        "and was abusive to the judge. He was threatened with 'contempt' but this was not followed through".
        Another victim said:
        "I went to a magistrates court for a protection order. It was awful, I wanted to run away but I needed that order. The entrance hall was full of men mostly in handcuffs. I was afraid of them but there was nowhere else to go; they all stared at me."
        With cases like that, it is a miracle that women ever press charges.
        Of course, not all court experiences are as bad as that: there is some excellent practice. I hope that the House will forgive me for mentioning my constituency again, but Wood Green Crown court, which I visited on Friday, is one of the pioneers of witness services. I met the volunteers who staff the service on Friday. They are well trained, committed and courteous and, while being careful not to interfere with the details of the case, provide support in the form of a comfortable waiting area, explanation of court procedure and a tour of an empty court. They also give emotional support and practical help with childminding, liaison with employers and transport to court.
        All the people I spoke to at the court, from the clerks to the Crown Prosecution Service, spoke highly of that witness service. It is important that more such services are introduced, because 38 out of 74 Crown courts do not have them. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what will happen in those courts.
        The victims charter says that the latest design standards for new Crown court buildings provide for ample witness waiting rooms per courtroom, with separate doors leading directly to the witness box in the courtroom. What is happening to courts which are not new build and have not been specially designed? What provisions will be made there?

        375
        Perhaps more importantly, what is happening in the magistrates courts? Magistrates courts are frequently in very old buildings and—as a member of the Bar who has practised in the courts, frequently on this type of case—I know at first hand that the accounts that I quoted are accurate, because women have to go through quite an ordeal in magistrates courts before their case starts. That is a high priority if we want more women to come to court and more proceedings to take place.
        I also want to mention organisations that help women who are members of the black and ethnic minority communities. I pay tribute to the work of Asian Women's Aid in my constituency, and I recently had the pleasure of helping to launch Jewish Women's Aid. Perhaps the most famous organisation is Southall Black Sisters, which has done impressive work with black and ethnic minority women. It gave excellent evidence to our Committee and was able to describe the plight of women who come into the country to join husbands, or whose husbands have refugee status, and who have no rights of their own. Under our immigration rules they come in for an initial 12 months.
        What happens to those women if they are the subject of domestic violence during that time? They cannot call on public funds. The rule is that they must have no recourse to public funds during that period, which often makes them totally dependent on their husband and his family. If they leave the family, the Home Office often wrongly assumes that the marriage was only one of convenience.
        As Southall Black Sisters said in a submission to Amnesty International's hearing on human rights on 8 June this year:
        "We come across many cases of women and children who have experienced violence and abuse and are unable to seek help for fear of being deported. This double bind can become life threatening. The choice is stark—on the one hand, women risk their lives, and those of their children, if they stay in violent situations, on the other hand, they risk being deported to their countries of origin, where they face open hostility, intense discrimination and risk to their health and lives".
        I emphasise that only a few women are involved, but the cost to those women's lives is absolutely vital.
        It is an important omission—again, I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments—that the ministerial working group on domestic violence does not include the immigration and nationality department, given the serious problems for women whose immigration status is not secure. Will the Minister ensure that that section is included in future? It is a very important issue.
        I would be extremely interested to know how many women are deported each year after leaving their violent husbands. The Government, in their response to the Select Committee, assert that the immigration and nationality department is alert to the difficulties faced by some women who have insecure immigration status and a violent partner, but the experience of groups campaigning for women contradicts that.
        My own view is that no woman should be deported when there is even a possibility that she is suffering at the hands of a violent partner. Unless something is done about the problem, such women will continue to die or face a living death.
        Hon. Members will wish to comment on provocation. It is a great pity that the Government could not agree with the Select Committee and the Law Commission. We
        376
        believe that the law should be changed and clarified. We also await the Government's response to the Select Committee's report on legal aid—a vital matter. If women are to obtain injunctions and have the protection of civil remedies, they need a proper legal aid system.
        In our report we say that we wish to return to the subject of domestic violence. I was extremely glad that the Government agree with the Select Committee on the importance of increasing public awareness of domestic violence. The Metropolitan police referred to Canada. Sandra Horley, a witness who appeared before the Committee, has made a great study of the system in Canada, where, because of publicity campaigns, there is heightened awareness of domestic violence.
        Domestic violence is a crime—it is that message that we have to get across. We have to change the culture of our society from an early stage. A properly funded and directed campaign of public education would bring together the other recommendations in our report. I hope that, by the time the Select Committee returns to the subject, such a campaign will have been undertaken and will have lessened the incidence of such a shocking, tragic and brutal crime for so many women.
        5.2 pm
        Mr. John Greenway: I have had the privilege of serving on the Home Affairs Select Committee for six years. In terms of seniority in this House, a period of six years does not count for very much, but such has been the changing membership of the Select Committee that I am now one of its longest-serving members.
        I am not sure whether six years is long enough to show the validity of my point, but no Committee produces more reports than ours—seven or eight each Session. I have never known the Select Committee to spend so much time carefully discussing the issues in our report and coming to our conclusions. That was not difficult, because often there was a party political dispute between the two sides of the Committee.
        We very carefully considered all the evidence that we received, which was carefully prepared and painstakingly given. Some issues in our report need great consideration, and answers to them are not easily found. That is particularly true about whether there should be a change in the law on murder.
        The Select Committee often sat until almost midnight, even though the House had adjourned some hours before, and long before 10 o'clock. It is fortunate that hon. Members have understanding families.
        I welcome the opportunity for another debate on the Floor of the House. We have published our recommendations. The Government's swift, detailed response is also available to hon. Members. In this debate, we need merely to draw attention to some key issues.
        We must consider how big a problem domestic violence is. It is very difficult to provide precise statistics, but, at the end of our inquiry, I was left with the clear impression that the incidence of domestic violence in Britain today is infinitely worse than the figures show.
        Hon. Members who visited the domestic violence unit at Islington will recall that the staff in the little office there seemed to be doing a tremendous job for the local community. They appeared to have a record of a domestic violence incident in one out of every 30 families in the borough of Islington. We were told that that was by no

        377
        means extraordinary in that inner-London Metropolitan police district. That is a staggering figure, and it shows the huge social cost which domestic violence represents for society today.
        As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) pointed out, although our inquiry concentrated on assaults on women by men, it became increasingly clear that, in many families in which domestic violence is prevalent, it is the children who suffer greatly. Hon. Members see the effects of abuse of and violence to children in our constituencies, even in some of the more affluent parts of Britain. It is right and proper to pay tribute to the work not only of refuges that support some of the women who have been on the receiving end—the victims of domestic violence—but of some child support agencies.
        The next issue is to what extent we should treat domestic violence differently from other forms of violence. Violence is violence, and as such is unacceptable. Murder is murder, and serious assault is serious assault. Whether violence occurs in the home or in the world at large should not affect the seriousness with which we treat it.
        Another problem is that, unless we can identify violence in families throughout Britain, we cannot possibly hope to begin to deal with it. To that extent, we need different solutions and programmes to remedy what is going wrong. One is challenged by the thought that the circumstances of violence could be a mitigating factor or could make the violence much more serious and less acceptable.
        As our inquiry unfolded, and as we visited refuges in London, it became apparent that some women have been the victims of violence but have retaliated against it—only to find themselves in court charged with assault and, in one tragic case, with murder.
        What response should the police make to incidents of domestic violence? Should it be different from their response to violence in other circumstances? Over recent years, the police have made great strides in the way that they deal with the problem. As the House knows, during the 1960s I served for five years as a policeman in London's west end. The police culture then was that domestic disorder was not a matter for the police service. If I remember correctly—it was 28 years ago—some of our training pointed us in that direction.
        Of course, that attitude is no longer acceptable. It should reassure hon. Members to know that Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, and chief constables throughout the country, have made considerable progress in ensuring that the police give a more appropriate response to incidents of domestic violence.
        What should the police do when they are called to such incidents? Should they arrest the husband who has beaten his wife? What happens when that man is released from the police station, where he may have been for some hours? Where does he go? Obviously, he goes home. Discussion of these matters throws up challenging issues. There is a need for the highest possible standard of training and the dissemination of best practice throughout the police service, so that an appropriate response is made in each case.
        In the Metropolitan police area, priority has been given to the creation of domestic violence units. Parts of my constituency, especially the rural areas, are often 20 or 30 miles from the nearest police station, which is not necessarily manned 24 hours a day, as many of them close
        378
        at night. Therefore, it would not be easy for the North Yorkshire police force to set up special units similar to those in Islington and other parts of London.
        My constituency may be more sparsely populated than inner-city areas, but we should not ignore the fact that domestic violence occurs throughout the country. It does not occur just in inner cities, albeit that, because of the concentration of population, they have more incidents. We must remember that when we respond to the Government's White Paper on the structure of the police service, and when we decide what to do about the Sheehy report.
        Police in rural areas have to be jacks of all trades, with the training, skill and professionalism to deal with all possible incidents. There is not enough manpower, and never could be, to staff the specialist units enjoyed by the Metropolitan police.
        Best practice and training does not stop with the police service—it extends to the Crown Prosecution Service in the processing of cases. I am pleased that the Government's response to our report included the republishing of the CPS guidelines on how domestic violence cases should be treated. Just as the police have a difficult decision to make on whether or not to arrest, so the CPS has a difficult decision to make on whether or not to prosecute a husband or partner still living in the same house as the woman. Prosecution might make the position worse. Despite that, the Committee felt that prosecutions were not brought often enough.
        One reason for that view is that, if someone is prosecuted and pleads guilty or is found guilty by magistrates or a jury, the court then has some influence over his punishment, and may direct that he has some treatment. If the treatment were voluntary, the offender could quickly give up, but with the compulsion of the court order as part of his sentence, there is a better chance that the treatment will continue and eventually produce a statisfactory result. Another benefit of bringing such a case before the courts is that agencies that can support the family can be brought into play more easily.
        Recommendation No. 5 in the report says that resource limitation should not be an excuse for inaction. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton, the Chairman of our Committee, mentioned that. The truth is that refuge provision is inadequate. Those of us who visited the refuges and met some of the women living in them found vivid examples of the ludicrous problems caused by a lack of flexibility in housing provision.
        In one refuge in Hammersmith, a woman with three or four children had been living in a single room for nine months. It would be an insult to the refuge to paint too grim a picture of her living conditions, but those of us who saw them felt that they were quite unsatisfactory. That woman was in receipt of housing benefit in two separate locations and there appeared to be a total inability to Lind an answer to her problems because of the inflexibility of the two local authorities involved. I am sure that there are many similar cases.
        We therefore welcome the response from the Department of the Environment, contained in the Government's response, about improved guidelines for housing authorities. It is simply not good enough to say that a woman fleeing with her children from serious violence against her in the matrimonial home is making herself intentionally homeless, and is therefore not eligible to be housed by the local authority.

        379
        We must also look to the future. We need to change the guidelines and to encourage greater flexibility and better practice, but we also need to ensure that people do not abuse the system. In calling for a more flexible approach, I believe that we should go even further than what was recommended in our report.
        Most of my constituency no longer has council houses, because they have all been successfully transferred to housing associations. That provides a good opportunity to increase housing provision and the level of repairs to the existing stock of property available for rent. I want housing associations to make an assessment of the problem in the areas they serve—particularly those associations that have taken over council homes—and to make the necessary provision.
        As to whether the Government should reconsider aspects of the law on murder, I echo the disappointment expressed by my hon. and learned Friend and the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) at the Government's response. We did not reach our recommendation lightly, but responded to evidence that the present law is unsatisfactory. Given that our view was in line with the Law Commission's recommendation, I find it difficult to understand why the Government are so relucant to re-examine that issue.
        Since making our report—this relates to a different issue, but one related to the law on murder—there was the shocking case last week of the acquittal in a murder trial of Joseph Elliott, whose defence counsel successfully argued that Elliott had acted in self-defence. I am sure that the whole House feels that the law on self-defence, as well as on provocation, needs to be re-examined.
        The Government may, after further examination, reach the negative conclusion that change would be difficult, but many of us feel that the present situation is unsatisfactory. We do not pretend that there is an easy solution, but that issue ought to be considered.
        Having chided the Minister in that respect, I should add that I welcome much of the Government's response, which was largely positive, and highlighted the great steps that are already being taken. I hope that the interdepartmental working party will find practical solutions to many of the problems that our inquiries identified.
        As our report itself concluded, unless improvements are made, it is not right hon. and hon. Members, or even the great majority of the British people who will suffer, but the victims of domestic violence.
        5.22 pm
        Ms Liz Lynne: I welcome this opportunity to debate domestic violence, especially as we have discussed family values extensively over the past few months. Not all families hold to the values that we expect. Half the women killed are killed by their husband, partner or ex-partner. One third of reported crimes against women are crimes of domestic violence, and one quarter of all assaults occur in domestic circumstances. Those statistics are not generally acknowledged. We tend to view family life through rose-tinted spectacles, assume that all families get on well and believe that children are best brought up in a family atmosphere—but they are not if that atmosphere includes violence.
        380
        Much of the improvement over the past few years is the result of the establishment of domestic violence units. Many more women now feel more able to report domestic violence—but not Asian women, many of whom still feel that there is a stigma attached to reporting domestic violence. Many of them are 20 years behind the rest of the community in that respect. I hope that will improve, and we must do all in our power to encourage Asian women to report domestic violence in the same way as other women. Many other hon. Members and I have dealt with such cases.
        Before domestic violence units were established in London in 1986, there were only 860 reported cases of domestic violence. By 1991, that figure had increased to 8,000. We must congratulate those responsible for that success. They are not always brillant, but the situation is far better than in the past. Many women do not report domestic violence to the police but go to hospital casualty departments. I should like women social workers in particular to be immediately on hand there, to help women who turn up at the hospital with a black eye, broken ribs, a broken limb or any of the other injuries synonymous with domestic violence. A social worker could then do follow-on work with the family.
        Although the situation has improved, a large problem remains. Recent evidence from Canada suggests that a woman has to be assaulted 30 times before reporting domestic violence, and I am sure that the experience in this country is very similar—that is extremely frightening. Many women fail to report violence against them because of lack of money. They fear that they will be unable to survive on their own. They see leaving their husband or partner as the inevitable result of reporting violence and are afraid of then being unable to manage financially. They fear reprisals, not only from their husband or partner but from his relatives.
        Alcohol is a predominant factor in many incidents of domestic violence. Turning Point and Alcohol Concern say that between 50 and 60 per cent. of domestic violence involves alcohol and alcohol abuse. I urge the Government to reconsider removing the ring fencing of the drug and alcohol abuse budget. If a man who seeks help—having acknowledged that he is abusing his wife and that his children are being affected—cannot find a way out by entering a Turning Point hostel or getting help from another agency, the violence will continue.
        Unemployment and poverty also lead to a lack of self-esteem. When someone lacks self-esteem, he wants to make someone else feel lower than he does. That person is invariably his partner or wife. The individual with low esteem will take it out on his partner, so that he feels big, adequate and masculine. We all know that that is not true, but such an attitude is usually brought on by low self-esteem.
        Twenty-four hour helplines are also needed. The Department of Health is funding the Women's Aid Federation to the tune of £136,000, but it cannot operate a 24-hour helpline. I understand that that is the only money coming from central Government. Compare that £136,000 with the situation in Canada, where spending to combat domestic violence is $136 million.
        Local authorities are responsible for refuges, of which there are very few. I agree with other hon. Members that a national strategy is needed to provide them throughout the country. At present, 27 per cent. of local authorities provide no refuges, 11 per cent. provide only one and only

        381
        5 per cent. provide more than three. That is not acceptable, given the continual increase in domestic violence. Proper national funding would ultimately prove cost effective, reducing the number of problems—especially those related to health—that currently force Government Departments and agencies to pick up the pieces.
        Women's Aid and Chiswick Family Rescue—now known as Refuge—estimates that it needs £270,000 a year just to keep going. It is finding it difficult to cope. It is not raising the money that it needs, and it has already had to cut services. It will cut others next month, and it has said today that it fears that it may have to close completely in 1994 if the money is not forthcoming. It is scandalous that the first women's aid refuge to be set up should face such a funding crisis. We should be finding more money to set up more refuges, rather than allowing money to be taken away. In today's economic climate, people find it difficult to give to charities.
        The problem is the same throughout the country. What happens to women when refuges close? They have nowhere to go but the streets. The current homelessness problem makes life very hard for them. The Rochdale safer cities project estimates that 25 per cent. of Rochdale's homelessness is the result of domestic violence. That problem, too, exists throughout the country.
        Today's debate concerns abuse of partners, but children who witness such abuse are scarred for life. It has been recorded that more than half the children living in a violent home in West Yorkshire witnessed or experienced abuse. One third of those children tried to protect their mother. We do not do enough to counsel and help such children; services are cut time and again, and, without the necessary counselling, love and affection, the children may ultimately become abusers themselves. That is well documented. It is a great shame that we cannot do more.
        As others have pointed out, it must be made easier for mothers to cross local authority boundaries. Even if an authority can rehouse a women, and accept that she did not make herself homeless intentionally, what women wants to be rehoused in the same street as a violent partner, or a few streets away from him? Women fear that, when they are out shopping, they will bump into the person who has abused them persistently for years, or that their children will be terrified going to school knowing that he may be around any corner.
        Local authority homelessness sections should employ more women who are properly trained to pinpoint homelessness resulting from domestic violence. Many women still refuse to admit that they have been beaten up or otherwise abused, because they feel that it is a fault in some way. They feel that they have done something wrong, or that they are inadequate; they will not accept that it is the man concerned who is inadequate, sensing that they are themselves failures. Trained people would be able to spot that, and perhaps act on their perception more quickly than is possible now.
        More emergency legal aid provision is also needed. I am very worried about the current proposals, which will prevent many women from acting against violent partners. This is at the heart of the problem. Many women who have left their husbands and want to take them to court accuse their former partners and then decide not to give evidence. The Crown Prosecution Service must prosecute far more often; it should not be up to the women concerned to initiate such action.
        I know that the probation service is doing a very good
        382
        job, but we must ensure that all aspects of domestic violence are taken seriously. Part of the problem is the fact that a range of Departments must deal with domestic violence. Recently, in another place, Earl Ferrers mentioned the forming of an interdepartmental group. Will the Minister tell us whether such a group has met? I hope that all Departments will recognise their responsibility in regard to women who have been subjected to domestic violence.
        I welcome the Government's response to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, but I want them to go further. I hope that the Minister will take on board all that has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
        5.36 pm
        Ms Jean Corston: I congratulate the Select Committee on Home Affairs on choosing such an important topic for its first report to the House. It reflects the current concern about domestic violence, particularly that felt by women.
        Domestic violence is not an isolated phenomenon, as hon. Members have made clear today. It is widespread, and it is no respecter of social class. Indeed, it has an ancient tradition. All hon. Members will be familiar with the phrase "rule of thumb"; how many know what it means? In the past, a man was permitted to beat his wife as long as he used a stick no thicker than his own thumb. Thus, violence was legitimised for a long time, and passed into folklore. Only 20 years ago, it was still seen as solely a matter of feminist concern: it was then that Erin Pizzey wrote her seminal book "Scream Quietly or the Neighbours Will Hear".
        The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and others have mentioned the effect of domestic violence on children and the cycle that builds up. One of the saddest things that I recall hearing in recent years was a friend's account of enduring 17 years of domestic violence. Finally, she left her husband with her two children. Only after talking to other people did she discover that such violence was not the norm. Her father had beaten her mother, and her husband had beaten her; she considered that to be normal married behaviour. Moreover, her case is not an isolated instance.
        Our domestic violence legislation completely fails women who are brave enough to go to court. The law is a mess—I say that as someone who, before becoming a Member of Parliament, was a barrister specialising in domestic violence law. The law is spread among different Acts of Parliament, all attested to in the Select Committee's excellent report. That means that a woman has to deal with a maze of legislation, and it is difficult for any barrister or solicitor trying to advise her to find a remedy that offers protection to her and to her children.
        The Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 and the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978—both introduced by the Labour Government, I am pleased to say—still stand as the basic corpus of domestic violence law. However, the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act, which is obviously more widely available because it falls within the jurisdiction of magistrates, applies only to married people, not to people who are cohabiting. We know that in a large proportion of "marriage" relationships people have not gone through the marriage ceremony but are simply cohabiting. The Domestic Violence and Matrimonial

        383
        Proceedings Act is available to co-habitees only in the jurisdiction of the county court, which means that people often have to travel long distances to get to the court and apply for an injunction.
        The Select Committee report and the Law Commission have attested to the way in which domestic violence legislation makes if difficult to obtain injunctions. One of the most iniquitous aspects is the fact that it is difficult for a woman to get an injunction if she has not applied to the court quickly. There is supposed to be an obvious element of urgency, yet I have known of many cases in which a woman has been traumatised by the violence, has needed to recover from her injuries, or has needed to escape the relationship and find somewhere else to live.
        There has been a delay while she has adjusted to the injuries that she has received, and to having fled from home, and that is seen by the courts as a reason not to grant the injunction. They say that she could not possibly really need an injunction, because she did not go to court as soon as the incident happened. I suspect that most women who are beaten up repeatedly in violent relationships want to get away from the relationship, to seek medical attention and to get better, and to make sure that their children are safe. Going before a county court judge is not necessarily No. 1 on their list of things to do.
        The law also fails women because of the way in which it treats as strangers people who have been but are no longer cohabiting. The only remedy available is a tort injunction—one of the old torts of assault, battery or trespass. The difficulty with those is that, if a woman goes to someone else's house to stay, perhaps as a lodger, or returns to her parents' home or that of another relative, she cannot obtain a trespass injunction because she is not the tenant or the owner-occupier; therefore, in law she cannot apply for such an injunction. She cannot apply for an injunction to stop the man coming to the place where she is living and assaulting her. There is no tort of harassment.
        Moreover, no tort injunction carries the power of arrest, and that power is so important for women in such circumstances. If there is a power of arrest, at least if the man comes near her the police have an absolute obligation to arrest him and bring him before a court at the earliest opportunity.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) referred to domestic violence suffered by women from ethnic minorities involved in what we could describe as immigration cases. I endorse what my hon. Friend said. If a woman leaves a violent husband within 12 months of marriage, she risks deportation. I know that because a constituency case was recently brought to me, involving a woman who had obtained a judicial separation after eight months of marriage. The judge found that her husband's behaviour was such that it was unreasonable to expect her to continue to live with him, yet she has now received a letter from the immigration and nationality department telling her that she is on 28 days' notice to leave the country. That has happened through no fault of her own. That woman is a victim, and she is being treated shamefully by the application of our immigration rules.
        We should also deal with the questions raised by the programme "The Bounty Hunter", which was on BBC2
        384
        some time ago, and which revealed how men in the Asian community make a nice living out of hunting like animals women who flee from domestic violence and violent relationships. The subterfuges that the bounty hunters use to track down women and drag them back home are alarming, and I hope that the Government will deal with the matter. I hope that the Minister will say something about it when he responds to the debate.
        Reference has already been made to the attitude of the police. I welcome the change in their attitude, and have spoken to police officers in Bristol who have told me that they no longer treat such incidents as merely domestic matters, as they so often used to do in the past. In 1977, I took a friend who had been severely beaten up by her partner to the police station, and I remember being appalled by the pressure that was put on her not to bring proceedings. The police kept saying, "You'll have to go to court, and in the meantime you've got to live with him, so wouldn't it be better if you went home and patched things up?"
        It is good that there have been some changes in attitudes, but it is important to recognise that both the police and the legal profession tend to give such work to young inexperienced people. In the legal profession it is seen as the "rough trade", and police officers tell me that such work is often given to people with little experience. As a barrister, I grew sick and tired of hearing other lawyers say, "I went to represent this woman and she said she was going to go back home. What a stupid woman!"
        That attitude totally fails to recognise the position of most women who suffer domestic violence, which, as other hon. Members have said, often involves homelessness, and the way in which the rules on intentional homelessness operate. If one asks women victims of domestic violence what they want, they usually say, "I want things at home to go on as they are, except that I don't want him to beat me up any more." It would be a good thing if the police and the legal profession would adopt those changes in attitude.
        With regard to the criminal law, we need different definitions of provocation and self-defence as defences to charges of murder and manslaughter, and we should also examine the way in which the rules of evidence operate against women. The law on self-defence is based on the notion of a punch-up in a pub, and the definition of provocation is based on the notion of a threat to a man's potency or virility. The way in which those definitions operate means that any victim of domestic violence who has not responded immediately is without the law. A well-founded fear of domestic violence should be a defence against such charges. We should also change rules such as the corroboration warning in the law on rape. That is an outrage to all women, and the House ought not to allow it to continue.
        I welcome the Government's response to the part of the Select Committee report that deals with refuges. In 1988, I visited a refuge in a small town in central Sweden. It was beautifully appointed and well furnished, yet the people there apologised to me because they felt that it was not quite as smart as it might have been. Any woman who had seen a refuge in this country would have been astonished at how well appointed the Swedish refuge was. There was also immediate internal alarm contact with the local police.
        National funding for a proper network of refuges is vital so that women can seek refuge quickly and safely for

        385
        themselves and their children, and there must be mechanisms for ensuring that those refuges become staging posts to enable women to escape from violent relationships and to rebuild their lives.
        The law of this country cannot possibly be respected or properly applied when such a large section of the population feels that the remedies that ought to be there do not exist. The resources that ought to be in place are not there. It is important for the House to make it clear to men that such behaviour is not acceptable, it is not their right, we condemn it and it ought to stop.
        5.49 pm
        Sir Dudley Smith: I had not intended to speak, but I was so interested in the various speeches that have been made that I wanted to refer briefly to one point.
        I very much welcome the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), with most of which I agree. I would part company with the hon. Member for Bristol East (Ms Corston), in that it is not my experience that the police are giving enough attention to what we broadly call domestic violence.
        My worry as a constituency Member of Parliament, which is probably replicated throughout the House, is that, because of the declining moral fabric of Britain over the past 25 years, many more people live together, often on a short-term basis. There are many cases where a woman, probably unwisely, has taken a man in or formed a liaison with him, and then discovered to her cost that he is a violent type because of drink, or is naturally violent. She then has the utmost difficulty in getting rid of him.
        A number of cases have been brought to my attention in which women have been badly beaten up on a regular basis after barring their attacker from the house. The offences are committed with a great deal of guile. Harassment is the order of the day; it is not just banging on the door and coming in: there are all kinds of sneaky ways of getting into the house and attacking the woman on her way home from work or going out. One woman said to me, "It is all very well being battered around occasionally, but do I really have to be killed, seriously injured or hospitalised before something is done about it?"
        We all know that the police are under great pressure because of rising crime statistics, and domestic cases have always taken a fairly low priority. When couples are not married and the man is on a determined course repeatedly to attack and batter the woman, action ought to be taken.
        I agree with the hon. Member for Rochdale that women should not have to take this. Society ought to make an example of men who carry on in that way. The sooner we do it the better it will be, and the sooner the statistics will improve. It is all too easy for the wrong kind of man to be able to get away with it.
        5.52 pm
        Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Everyone must agree that we are debating a serious and urgent issue when we consider that one in five murder victims are women killed by their partners or ex-partners, and one in three of all reported crimes against women result from domestic violence. We should also remember the high level
        386
        of unreported domestic violence which has blighted our society for hundreds of years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) has reminded us.
        I join other hon. Members in welcoming the Select Committee's decision to investigate these matters. I also welcome the recommendations in the Select Committee report. However, I have one or two minor reservations. Why is there no recommendation on legal aid, although there are laudable words about its inadequacy? Why is there no recommendation about the training of the judiciary, which is equally important? I was also rather disappointed that there was no mention of the prosecution service having to lay down some guidelines. It is sometimes rather a mystery why the prosecution service proceeds or does not proceed with prosecutions.
        The Government's response contains much that is to be welcomed, but I have some serious reservations. First, I join other hon. Members in regretting their decision not to have even consultation on the law of homicide.
        We all know of several well publicised instances of women unjustly condemned on a charge of murder. The attention drawn to the subject by the soap opera "Brookside" will bring it into the public eye even more in the months ahead. I do not know how many hon. Members watch the series, but the plot deals with the reasons why women may kill their partners or ex-partners.
        I wonder why the Select Committee ruled out a defence of self-preservation, as that would be another way of approaching the problem. Another reservation of mine concerns funding, which I shall refer to later. I am also concerned about the note of delay which creeps into the Government's response to the recommendation of a public education and awareness campaign. Perhaps they are a little reluctant to go down that path.
        I want to say something about public education and awareness campaigns. In Edinburgh, part of which I represent, over the past few months there has been a high-profile and highly successful public education and awareness campaign called the zero tolerance campaign. I know that other local authorities are examining this initiative, and I hope that more local authorities and central Government will also look at it.
        It is based fundamentally on challenging male behaviour. Those who have visited Edinburgh over the past few months will have seen a large number of posters with messages directed at men. For example, the fundamental message of the campaign is "Zero tolerance of violence against women". Another notable message is "Male abuse of power is a crime". There are many other messages that are challenging certain male assumptions.
        Edinburgh district council's women's committee, which initiated the campaign, took the view at the end of the day that the root of the problem was the unequal power relations between men and women in society. There is a continuum from male attitudes of superiority to the slapping of women, which has been supported publicly by Sean Connery and many others. Just a few days ago, I saw a popular comedy programme just casually accepting that view. That level of violence is tolerated by thousands of people when it should not be, and the continuum proceeds to more drastic and serious violence.
        The zero tolerance campaign aims to challenge those male attitudes and to link domestic violence with other male abuses of power. It has highlighted the crimes of rape and sexual abuse.

        387
        The campaign has also enlisted the support of the local newspaper, The Edinburgh Evening News, which has given it a great deal of coverage. That has helped to give the campaign a high profile, and I pay tribute to the newspaper, and to Jean West, the reporter who covered it so brilliantly.
        I also suggest to the Government that, as all that work has been done in Edinburgh, and as they are supposed to be considering a public awareness campaign, perhaps they should consider extending it to the whole of Scotland. I am aware that the report refers only to England and Wales and that some of the detailed recommendations would have to be different for Scotland, but the issues are fundamentally the same. Perhaps the Government would like to consider extending the zero tolerance campaign as a pilot scheme throughout Scotland. Of course, I should like it to be extended throughout the United Kingdom.
        There is a campaign by the Scottish Office, which is all right as far as it goes, but it targets women, telling them to behave in this way and take care in that way. It is okay as far as it goes. However, the Scottish Office campaign makes no attempt to target male behaviour, although that is the fundamental requirement of a public education and awareness campaign. I hope that that will be taken on board by the Scottish Office in Scotland and the Home Office in England and Wales.
        Leaving aside the fundamental aspect of prevention and turning to the terrible realities that go on around us daily, I endorse what the Committee said about the importance of treating domestic violence as a crime and prosecuting people who perpetrate it. I am sure that we all agree that that has not been done enough in the past and, although it is improving, there is still plenty of room for improvement. I hope that the police and the prosecution service will take that on board.
        As well as prosecution, women must be protected. Civil law is important in terms of the protection of women. Many good suggestions in the report will apply to England and Wales and in a slightly different way to Scotland. Many civil law remedies are available to a large number of women only if they have access to legal aid. Therefore, the section of the report that criticised the Government's legal aid cuts is important.
        As I said, it is unfortunate that there was not a specific recommendation relating to legal aid. Nevertheless, there is the message that many women are not able to pursue civil remedies because of the cuts in legal aid and the reduction of the income level at which legal aid becomes applicable. Certainly, the Government will have to address that. I hope that they will get the message in the Select Committee report on that subject.
        Another important aspect of protection relates to refuges. Clearly, there is a serious problem and, unless the Government are prepared to put money into refuges, it will continue. I am worried because I remember a Select Committee report in 1975 which said that there should be one family refuge place for every 10,000 people in the population, yet less than a third of that number exist at present. With this report, I hope that we will not have a similar gap between what is asked for and what is delivered. Aberdeen is the only city in Scotland with the level of refuges that was recommended by the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities.
        388
        The whole thrust of the Government's response is that all of the funding issues are for local authorities. At the end of the day, local authorities are largely funded by the Government, so there must be a role for central Government finance. If the Government are putting all of this emphasis on local authorities, why cannot we have ring-fenced money specifically for refuges? Unless we have refuges, many of the other recommendations in the report will fall down.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) referred to the sort of things that are happening because there is not enough money. We heard that help lines are being shut down and there are no child care services. Perhaps some hon. Members saw the programme "First Sex" a couple of weeks ago, which showed that the organisation Refuge was at risk of being shut down because there was not enough money. Clearly, there is a crisis with regard to refuges. As the Select Committee emphasises, that is one of the central recommendations—if not the central one—in the report.
        Time is running out, so I shall not talk about the other issues that I wanted to talk about. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) may talk about the Child Support Act, which impacts on this issue. I shall say a word about the social fund, which has not been mentioned. Domestic violence victims were removed from the highest category of that fund and that is another issue. Clearly, there are many issues. The Government said that they will accept some of them. I hope that they will accept more of them, and act with urgency on the ones that they seriously support.
        6.3 pm
        Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Select Committee on Home Affairs, of which I am a member, published a strong report containing 42 positive recommendations. The Government's response was acceptable in a number of areas. However, in other areas, it seemed to have something of the cold antiseptic voice of the quiet man in the warm office trying to make the right sympathetic noises without committing the needed resources. The Government's sympathy was there.
        Undoubtedly, Ministers are genuinely horrified by domestic violence and wish to reduce it. However, we need more than just sympathy—we need political will and, as the report calls for, political momentum to deal with the problems. Words of sympathy come cheap; action requires resources. The Government must be prepared to commit resources.
        During the inquiry, we saw the extent of the problem. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) referred to an important visit that we made to the Islington police station. There we saw a card-index system that showed that one in 30 households in that area reported a domestic violence incident to the police. If we accept what the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) said—that only a small proportion of domestic violence incidents are reported—the incidence of domestic violence could well be much higher. It may even be as high as one in 10 households. Almost certainly, domestic violence incidents take place in most communities and on most streets in Britain.
        The size of the problem does not seem to be recognised by the Government, local authorities and some of the other agencies that deal with the issue. I exempt from that criticism the police who, because of the increasing need to

        389
        deal with the problem, have demonstrated a willingness to examine it seriously. They are prepared to tackle the problem and amend their ways.
        The Government have not been prepared to take the necessary initiatives. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) referred to one important initiative—the need to ensure that people are aware of the size of the problem. More awareness is needed to encourage preventive work and protective work. We must encourage people to recognise the need to spend money on an issue. We must ensure that attitudes in society are sufficiently censorious of domestic violence so that people report it to the police when they hear about it in other households. If people mention domestic violence in the pub or wherever, others must ensure that they are censorious of such behaviour and create a widespread view that it is unacceptable.
        We must reduce the tolerance to domestic violence in some communities and raise awareness of the penalties for those who commit acts of domestic violence and the help that is available to victims of it. That is why, in recommendation 12, the Committee called for a campaign designed to raise the awareness, especially of the perpetrators and potential perpetrators as well as victims, of the criminality of domestic violence, the possibilities of redress and the seriousness with which the authorities view the matter.
        The Government's response to the Committee is unclear. They appear to recognise the importance of the issue but are unwilling to fund and back the necessary public campaign. They have referred to the need for sensitivity, and we all accept that. However, the need for sensitivity should not prevent them from taking the action necessary to show the importance of the issue and ensure that people are fully aware of it.
        The Metropolitan police gave this evidence to the Committee:
        "the examples of good practice in Canada, North America and Australia, where there is far more public awareness of domestic violence and policy due to an overall state-wide publicity programme. The programme includes Central Government and local Government publicised policy. There are television advertisements, roadside advertisements—a heightened public awareness through leaflets and statutory agencies".
        The result of such a campaign can be social condemnation of domestic violence and a reduction of it. Therefore, it is important for the Government to commit resources to such a campaign.
        It is also essential for the Government to commit resources to refuges. An all-party committee was able to reach a consensus on the importance of and the need for a national policy on refuges. The Government were vague and did not seem to appreciate the need for that sort of national policy. They were prepared to leave it to local authorities. The Government must recognise the importance of the provision of refuges. I hope that the Minister will respond more positively than he did in his written response to the Select Committee.
        We need to ensure that there are more resources for legal aid, as the hon. Member for Rochdale rightly said. If victims of domestic violence, primarily women, face the withdrawal of access to legal aid, they face the withdrawal of access to remedies and the protection that they need. It is no good pretending that somehow everyone either has access to legal aid or can fund a court action to seek a remedy. That is simply not the case. A restriction on legal
        390
        aid, such as we have seen, is a restriction on access to the courts and justice. The Government must respond much more positively to that.
        I call on the Government to reconsider their view on provocation. I endorse the views of the hon. Member for Ryedale. He stated eloquently that our Select Committee looked with carer at the issues of law on this, and that, although some of us were not convinced at the start, we were all certainly convinced by the end that the Government needed to look into the defence of provocation. The law is hung up on the issue of the time in which an incident occurs. Time is not the issue. The issue is whether the killing was a direct result of the perpetration of violence and the loss of self-control. The Government failed to address that in their response.
        Southall Black Sisters produced poignant, forceful evidence about the problems of immigrants who come to marry, particularly women from the Indian sub-continent. Sometimes they face domestic violence within a year of arriving in Britain. Immigration laws fail to deal with that effectively. Simply to say that we shall treat each case on its merits is not good enough. The extent of the issue must be considered, yet the Government, in their response, do not seem to be prepared to do so.
        The aim of the report is to give political momentum to tackling domestic violence. We need to increase awareness of the issue. Resources need to be committed. The Government, local authorities and agencies must give the issue appropriate priority. I hope that the Minister will do more today than simply make the right sympathetic noises. We want an expression of political will, an expression of willingness to find political momentum and an expression of willingness to provide the necessary resources. Will he give it?
        6.12 pm
        Mr. Harry Cohen: I, too, welcome the Select Committee report. The Government should give priority to implementing its recommendations and finding the necessary resources. Mary Tuck, the former head of a working party set up by the Home Office, said:
        "Dealing with domestic violence is the single most preventive strategy we could put into practice against violent crime. Domestic violence is a central problem for society."
        Therefore, the Home Office has concluded that in its own report.
        Many statistics have been cited today and I shall refer to some of them. Islington council police unit commissioned a survey of domestic violence in north London, which reported at the end of March. Of those surveyed, 37 per cent. suffered from mental cruelty, for example being ridiculed, being deprived of money, clothes and sleep or being prevented from going out; 27 per cent. suffered from threats of violence or force; 32 per cent. suffered from actual violence, such, as being grabbed, punched or shaken; 26 per cent. suffered from a black eye; and 23 per cent. had been raped—made to have sex without consent. One of the most worrying aspects of the report is that only 37 per cent. of the men interviewed said that they would never respond violently to a partner. That is an appalling statistic. That attitude needs to be remedied until the figure is 100 per cent.
        This Session I have introduced two Bills. One was on the defence of provocation and the other sought to change the law on rape. The Government deferred the matter of rape in marriage to the Law Commission, which

        391
        recommended that statute law should be changed—yet the Government have not acted on that. It is a scandal to leave it to common law, because what can be changed by judges can be changed back by judges. It should be on the statute that rape in marriage is a criminal office. I intended to read a letter I received about those Bills, but I have no time. In fact, I had lots of mail. Women describe horrific experiences, such as being used as a punchbag. Day after day, women and their children are at risk and could face terrible consequences.
        Society's attitude to domestic violence is split. We think that all decent people, or at least the overwhelming majority, oppose domestic violence. The truth is that many think it permissible and part of machoism. Some men joke about it, while others deny its existence. That trend is getting worse as economic and other circumstances worsen. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) rightly pointed out how people with low self-esteem sometimes take out their feelings of frustration on their partners. The situation is worsening. The Government must initiate a public awareness campaign and take a stand in favour of zero tolerance of such behaviour.
        I support what has been said about Southall Black Sisters. I know of many cases where women in a violent marriage depend on their husband for their status here and without him could be thrown out of the country. The Minister should regard domestic violence as an exceptional circumstance and allow such women to remain here as of right.
        Hon. Members have referred to refuges. We should have a proper refuge network throughout the country, centrally co-ordinated and funded by the Government. The London Housing Unit in its research on England and Wales showed a considerable shortfall. The Government should deal urgently with that matter, especially with refuges that face considerable financial difficulties.
        The Government's response to my Bill on the defence of provocation has been extremely disappointing. The current definition of provocation is inadequate and far too narrow. The Government do not recognise domestic violence as a mitigating circumstance. As a result, 30 or 40 women are probably in prison unjustly. I am campaigning on behalf of Sara Thornton. Those cases should be reviewed, and in my view the women should be released. Many such women do not get a fair trial. Often, at the time of the death they are suffering from dreadful trauma and guilt, so they cannot put up a proper defence. The law is inadequate in many respects. Our mandatory life sentence for murder is wholly inappropriate in such cases.
        Concern has been expressed about revenge killings. We are talking about desperate women. It can be proved that they are desperate and have suffered cumulative violence. My Bill intended to make such a plea available to them. Most people, in the House and the country, argue that it should be on the statutue book. Ultimately it is for the authorities—the Crown Prosecution Service—and juries to decide whether a case is a revenge killing or whether there are mitigating circumstances, but the law should allow people to make that plea.
        This is one of the most vital issues that the House should be tackling. I strongly support what has already been said—that the Government should act to find the
        392
        necessary resources, should have a public awareness campaign, and should also adopt a policy of zero tolerance of domestic violence.
        6.19 pm
        Ms Joan Ruddock: First, I congratulate the Select Committee on producing such a comprehensive report on this important issue. It is unusual to hear the concerns of women raised in the House, and I only regret that this time the subject is so painful. It is customary for those on the Opposition Front Bench to congratulate all hon. Friends, but I should like to congratulate all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, which has been thoughtful and useful.
        In the current climate of public concern about the level of crime and the increase in violent crime, the debate is opportune. Domestic violence is a crime—a violent crime and primarily a crime against women. I remind the House that almost half of all homicides of women are killings by a partner or ex-partner. A third of all reported crimes against women are domestic. Domestic violence is more common than street violence. It is a crime of epidemic proportions. In Greater London alone, reported attacks have almost doubled in the past two years; 9,200 attacks were reported last year and 30,000 women and children sought help and refuge during the same period. A further 100,000 contacted Women's Aid for support.
        Domestic violence is not a new crime. The difference now is that women are increasingly less prepared to tolerate violence and more prepared to report it to the police and other agencies. One of the principal reasons why women finally come forward is for the sake of their children. Two out of every three women who go to refuges have young children, and evidence submitted by the Children's Legal Centre to the Select Committee showed that many children will have been assaulted and are already mentally and emotionally scarred from what they have witnessed, with untold results. Concern for their future is another reason for welcoming the seriousness with which domestic violence is beginning to be viewed.
        In the past 18 months alone, a series of excellent reports have been published by Victim Support, the Law Commission and now the report that is the subject of this debate. What is remarkable about the reports is the consensus evident in the analysis and in the recommendations for action. Attention, however, is a long way from remedy and action. I welcome the fact that the Government have responded so quickly to the Home Affairs Select Committee report and I shall comment on it in detail later, but the Government's response is less than the wholehearted commitment to action that we and the Select Committee seek. I only hope that the interdepartmental working party on domestic violence, which I welcome, will take the Select Committee's recommendations further.
        Domestic violence impacts on many areas of public policy and the law, and the Home Affairs Select Committee report was wide-ranging in its remit. I have time to comment on only a few of those areas, the first of which is public awareness.
        Domestic violence cannot be viewed simply as another crime or a legal problem which can be eradicated by appropriate legal remedies. The reports that I have already mentioned all share the understanding that domestic violence is part of a wider social problem of women's

        393
        unequal position in society. Too often still, women are dependent on men socially and economically. Attempts by women to assert their independence and leave the marital home when necessary are constrained by that basic inequality.
        At least 6 million women in Britain today earn poverty wages. The gap between men and women's earnings has barely narrowed in the past 15 years. Full-time working women still earn only about 70 per cent. of male earnings. Women also head up two thirds of the homeless families in Britain and, as the report published by the Commission on Social Justice this week showed, the number of homeless families rose by 46 per cent. during the 1980s, with 20 per cent. of people on incomes of less than £3,500 a year.
        Equality for women in the workplace is essential if they are to control other aspects of their lives. I fear that, until we have a Labour Government and a Ministry for Women, British women will continue to be seriously disadvantaged in this society.
        Social attitudes still reflect deep-seated views about the role of women and men in the family. Women are still accused in some circumstances of wanting to be abused or of deserving it. Conversely, they are blamed for not leaving after they have been beaten up. Their ambivalent feelings about leaving a man with whom they may have had a long relationship and may still be in love are viewed as a weakness. Domestic violence is thus often portrayed as a woman's rather than a man's problem, which is why it is crucial to raise public awareness.
        I welcome the Select Committee's recommendation and hope that the Government will really—truly—adopt it. I strongly endorse everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) about the zero tolerance campaign run in Edinburgh, which is a good example of an effective and sensitive campaign dealing with the issue of men's attitudes.
        One of the basic tools for raising awareness must be adequate information, yet we still do not know the real extent of domestic violence. The Select Committee's first recommendation is that there must be nationally collected statistics on the issue, from which a proper strategy can be developed. I welcome the Government's acceptance that the present statistics are incomplete. I also welcome the additional studies being conducted by the Home Office.
        Other hon. Members have mentioned women from minority ethnic communities. When violence towards a woman occurs in an ethnic minority community, the problems she faces are compounded. It may appear to her to be too daunting or even a betrayal to seek help outside her community. It may even be harder for her to become economically independent. Women from ethnic minority communities may also face, as we have heard today, racism and interrogation about their immigration status. We support the Select Committee's recommendation for further research into that problem.
        As we have heard, under current immigration rules a spouse will normally be given permission to remain in the United Kingdom for a limited period of 12 months in which, in a sense, the marriage is tested by the Home Office. But women experiencing violence during that period and who leave home are faced with a possibility of deportation to their country of origin, where they may risk isolation, stigmatisation and have no economic independence. The case of Mamta Chopra, who was forced to flee and now faces deportation, shows that that 12-month rule is deeply discriminatory against women from ethnic
        394
        minority communities in abusive relationships. I endorse the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) that the immigration service be represented on the working group.
        When a woman finally decides that she must leave and that she has no option, she is likely to be afraid, demoralised, undermined and desperate. Making that decision to leave leads her into a difficult legal and bureaucratic maze which she must negotiate and in which she needs support. One of the most powerful reasons for women having to stay is that they have nowhere to go, which is why the network of refuges in Britain is so tremendously important. As we have repeatedly heard, the provision is totally inadequate, and there is no excuse whatever for that. Eighteen years ago, the last Select Committee on the subject called for one refuge place per 10,000 population, but we still have less than one third of that number. The Minister must deal with that point today.
        Many refuges are at crisis point because hard-pressed local authorities are cutting their grants. Local authorities cannot be expected to bear all the financial burden. It is clearly the responsibility of central Government to put resources into a network of women's refuges. I remind the Minister again of the Committee's strongly worded recommendation
        "that the first priority for Government action on domestic violence should be the establishment of a central, co-ordinated policy for refuge provision throughout the country."
        Interdepartmental discussions on refuge provision are not enough. Pushing the problem back to local authorities is totally unacceptable. The Government must take the lead in establishing a nationally funded network of refuges. The Government should recognise the extent of support for the proposals from all the relevant agencies, which recognise that, if women have no immediate place of shelter, all the agencies' good work will be wasted.
        I also want to add my support to the recommendation that local authorities and housing associations give priority to victims of domestic violence for rehousing. In many areas, including mine, the new guidance is working, but there is a desperate shortage of affordable housing—a shortage which occurs directly because of Government policies. Once again, the Government are asking local authorities to do the impossible: to give priority to the most needy and at the same time to be fair to those thousands on the waiting lists. That cannot be done unless local authorities are allowed to produce the council housing that they know is needed in their areas to meet both ordinary need and the priority need of people fleeing domestic violence.
        We know that there are many excellent initiatives involving inter-agency co-operation at local level. Such initiatives need to be encouraged. Local authorities and the police are now working in co-operation to co-ordinate the services and help available to women fleeing domestic violence. The Select Committee has made a number of recommendations relating to police practice, all of which are sensible and ought to be supported. The thrust of the recommendations is to ensure that police work on domestic violence is not marginalised in the police service or squeezed out by competing demands for funds. The Committee also recommends changes that will more clearly demonstrate to the public, particularly women, that the police are taking the issue seriously.

        395
        I am aware of many good practices which are being developed, although the police in their evidence agreed that progress was patchy nationwide. The domestic violence units established by the Metropolitan police in 62 of its 69 divisions have been successful, as they have been elsewhere, but it was clear from the evidence given to the Select Committee that a major reason for such units not being established in some areas was lack of resources.
        There is now a widespread feeling that existing specialist and time-consuming work, such as that involved in domestic violence units, is threatened by the market philosophy of the Sheehy report. Perhaps the Minister—if he is listening—will tell the House how the work that is done in domestic violence units would be assessed by performance-related pay. While improvements in police practice still remain to be made, the most effective response comes from joint action. I commend, as others have, the practical example of joint action in Islington where the police, the probation service, the local authority and the safer cities programme have established a sound counselling and advice service.
        I invite hon. Members to welcome a new initiative in my constituency, where the police have set up a specialist vulnerable persons unit incorporating the victims of domestic violence and racial attacks, and abused elderly victims all within one unit. The unit has, I believe, eight staff, and it will be an important experimental project which we should monitor carefully. Many of the initiatives have worked closely with the safer cities programme, but many of them are now jeopardised because the Government are cutting grants and closing some of the existing safer city projects. If the initiatives are worth while, surely they are worth supporting.
        As the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) clearly outlined in his report, the Committee considered changes in both the criminal and civil law. I shall mention the issue of provocation, referred to by other hon. Members. It has been rightly argued that the present law is confused and disadvantageous to women. An integral part of the law of provocation is that there must be sudden and temporary loss of self-control. However, a sudden loss of self-control and an immediate response to violence by a woman is likely to bring greater violence upon herself.
        The case for provocation to take account of the slow burn—the reaction of a woman over many months, even years—is a strong one. While we believe that justice has now been achieved in the case of Kiranjit Ahluwalia, I must put on record our continuing concern for the fate of Sara Thornton, Sally Hyams and Emma Humphrys. All those cases have been taken up by the Rights of Women, and the women involved still seek justice in this country.
        A change in the law on the issue would be a complex task and likely to attract strong opinions from practitioners and the public. For that reason, I endorse the Committee's recommendation to make a request to the Law Commission to produce a consultative document on the law of homicide and to the Government to bring forward proposals. Once again, the Government have given a disappointing reply which has completely failed to respond to the arguments made by so many influential and distinguished people. I hope that the unanimity in the House today will make an impression on the Minister.
        396
        Tackling domestic violence needs not only fine words, but concrete actions; it also needs money. The Government must not think that they can place all the responsibility on the shoulders of the police, local authorities or voluntary organisations. I look forward very much to a positive programme of action from the interdepartmental working group, which I hope will soon be announced to the House.
        Whatever the financial cost to the Government of implementing all the recommendations of the Select Committee, the cost of not implementing them would be very much greater in terms of individual misery, and suffering among women, families and society. There would be a tremendous cost to the nation in terms of our police and social services, and our children's future.
        6.37 pm
        The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I am grateful to the House for this opportunity —my first—to discuss the serious problem of domestic violence.
        We have all benefited today from the depth of knowledge evident on both sides of the House, and particularly from the recent work of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, described by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), the Committee's Chairman. The members of the Committee are to be congratulated on their thoughtful investigation into the problems associated with domestic violence and the measures needed to tackle it.
        The Government's response to the Committee was published on 29 June by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. That response reaffirmed our commitment to ensuring that domestic violence is tackled vigorously, and is treated as the crime it is. We also agreed with the Committee on the need for action against domestic violence to go beyond the criminal justice system, to meet the special needs of women and children affected by violence in the home, and to work towards prevention in the long term.
        I am also grateful to the House for the warm welcome that the Government's response has received. I know that some Opposition Members would like the response to have gone further than it did, but there has been a general welcome to it tonight. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton described our response as measured, detailed and positive. The Select Committee's response may be a unique one from such a Committee to a Government.
        Significant efforts have been made in recent years to improve the response to domestic violence, putting the needs of the victim at the centre of that response. The police and the courts are treating incidents of domestic violence with increasing seriousness. As a consequence, the signs are that more such crimes are coming out into the open.
        Last week, it was brought home to me how dramatic the change can be. I paid a visit to Scotland Yard and spoke to the inspector in charge of co-ordinating the Metropolitan police's response to domestic violence, in which it is doing an excellent job. She told me that, in 1985, 770 cases of domestic violence assaults were recorded by

        397
        the police. Last year, there were over 9,800 recorded cases, and a quarter of all recorded assaults in London last year were domestic.
        We still do not have a complete picture of the true extent of domestic violence. New surveys are planned to help us to find out more, but figures like those held by Scotland Yard will leave no one in any doubt of the challenges that are facing the police, local agencies and others in dealing with domestic violence.
        Our response to the Select Committee report set out the plans we have to take work forward across Government and consider what new initiatives may be needed. In many areas, such as the criminal justice response, civil provisions, the welfare of victims, encouraging local action and long-term prevention, we are actively pursuing improvements.
        Recent initiatives have been directed chiefly towards ensuring that the police and courts treat violence within relationships as seriously as assaults by total strangers. Three years ago this month, the Government issued guidance to police throughout United Kingdom on the need for a quick and effective response, taking account of the overriding need to protect victims. Within a year of the guidance, all police forces in England and Wales had developed clear policies on domestic violence, and most had introduced specific improvements to their response.
        The Government agree with the Select Committee on the need to ensure that new policies lead to real changes. That is why a study is assessing the impact of the guidance on police forces in England and Wales in handling cases of domestic violence. An initial survey provided an overall picture in all forces. Interviews are now being conducted in five selected force areas with victims, police officers and other agencies in contact with the police.
        In response to the Committee's recommendation, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary has decided that domestic violence is to be a core subject for next year's inspection programme. The inspectorate will also formulate advice for police forces to ensure that domestic violence units are not marginalised.
        In addition, researchers who are monitoring the arrest of suspects and decisions that are taken by the police in relation to proceedings have been asked to classify incidents involving domestic violence separately from other types of violence. The findings from all these exercises will inform future action, and will help to develop further the police response to violence within the home.
        One of the key elements of strategy for tackling domestic violence is that perpetrators are brought to justice. As with the police response, there needs to be a consistent approach, and to that end the Crown Prosecution Service has issued guidance to all chief prosecutors about how they and their staff should deal with such cases. The CPS has also published a statement of its prosecution policy, which explains the factors relevant to the review and prosecution of domestic violence cases.
        We will continue to stress the importance of treating domestic violence as seriously as we would treat violence outside the home. We also need to bear in mind the special needs of the victims of the crimes. Those needs were brought home to me when I visited the domestic violence unit run by Wandsworth police, and heard from two victims who had suffered over a number of years.
        The Government recognise how important it is to provide immediate support and places of safety for those
        398
        who are escaping from domestic violence. The guidance issued to the police stressed that victims of assault should be put in touch with support services. Such services can play a vital role in providing women not only with practical help and advice but with the emotional support they need—assuring them that they are not alone and that the violence is not their fault. That point was made by some hon. Members. Some 375 local victim support services are benefiting this year from Government funding of £8·4 million. In addition, the four women's aid federations also receive grant aid from the Government.
        As we made clear in the response to the Select Committee's report, we also recognise the valuable role that is played by refuges in providing emergency accommodation and more long-term support for victims of domestic violence. We paid close attention to the points made by the Committee about the level of refuge provision in this country and the effect that that could have on overall response to domestic violence.
        However, in principle we maintain the view that effective local support services, including refuges, are best provided at local level. Such provision can be based on an assessment of local needs and take into account the wider local response. Moreover, in the long term we must continue to pursue policies in other areas that will help more women to stay in their homes and reduce the need for such an enormous and desperate upheaval.
        Refuge provision is to be one of a number of matters that will be discussed by the interdepartmental group on domestic violence. I have listened carefully to the views expressed here this afternoon, and tomorrow I am to meet the Women's Aid Federation of England. I want to hear its ideas, and I will think carefully about what it has to say as we take this work forward.
        The Government welcome the Committee's endorsement of a number of permanent and experimental schemes that are being funded to provide support for victims during the legal process. To assist those who are attending court, the Crown court witness scheme started on a pilot basis in 1990 has now been permanently established. There are now schemes in 36 Crown court centres, with more planned to provide practical advice and emotional support to witnesses in criminal cases.
        The Home Office programme development unit was set up last year to fund innovative local projects in the field of crime and criminal justice. Two such programmes are concerned with increasing and improving the criminal justice response to domestic violence, backed up with an increased range of services to support women and meet their welfare needs.
        I saw that the Committee visited one of the projects in Islington, where, since February, a skilled civilian team has been attached to the police to work with women victims. The team can undertake immediate crisis counselling, to provide information and to refer women to other agencies in the area with whom the team has established close links. The project aims to encourage the use of legal sanctions, a prompt response to referrals and greater awareness of domestic violence within the community.
        In Leeds, a package of projects has been set up to help identify the problems that are experienced by victims of domestic violence in gaining access to support services and to experiment with different responses. A civil court and criminal justice forum has been established to encourage understanding of the victim's needs and to provide an advocacy service to support women who are going to

        399
        court. Specialised counsellors have also been attached to two local GP surgeries to provide specialised help and information.
        Those two different experimental approaches are being evaluated closely. The findings will be disseminated widely to share the lessons that have been learned, and will inform future practical policy development.
        Sir Dudley Smith: My hon. Friend has no responsibility for the judiciary, but will he tell me whether magistrates are being encompassed in the extra information which will be disseminated to give an end result of a better approach to the problem?
        Mr. Maclean: I assure my hon. Friend that we want to ensure that all involved in criminal law, including magistrates, are fully informed of the resources and information available, particularly when it comes to sentencing offenders. The Government will make sure that magistrates are aware of the range of possibilities open to them.
        The Select Commitee rightly identified the need for action against domestic violence which went beyond the criminal justice system. A wider response, involving not only Government but communities and local agencies, is essential. The Government have a role in encouraging local action and in disseminating good practice. More than 100 local schemes to help victims of domestic violence have been funded through the Home Office safer cities projects. In Derby, Hull, Islington and Tower Hamlets, safer cities money is funding domestic violence workers.
        In Leicester, a major initiative has been set up to fit emergency alarms in the homes of women at risk from their partners. Similar schemes operate in Bradford and Islington. Multi-agency groups designed to improve local co-ordination have started in Coventry, Hull and Wandsworth. We what to build on the many excellent local initiatives which are being developed throughout the country.
        Ms Corston: If that is the case, will the Minister explain why the Government have found it appropriate to cut safer cities funding?
        Mr. Maclean: The hon. Lady will probably be slightly embarrassed when she discovers that we have expanded the safer cities programme. We expect to increase the number of cities covered from 20 to 40.
        One of the tasks of the interdepartmental working group will be to consider how good practice can best be promoted. In particular, we shall consider ways of strengthening co-ordination at local level. Statutory and non-statutory organisations involved in tackling domestic violence have much to gain from exchanging ideas and practices and developing a shared understanding of how they can best respond collectively to domestic violence. Above all, the victims of domestic violence will benefit most from improved local co-ordination.
        The way forward must also include steps to prevent domestic violence. One form of prevention which the Select Committee considered involved work with offenders to prevent future reoffending. The Home Office and the Scottish Office are jointly funding a research study to evaluate two innovative projects—the CHANGE project
        400
        in Central region and the probation project in Lothian. Those projects aim to change the behaviour of men who abuse their partner.
        We recognise the importance of raising awareness throughout society of domestic violence in schools, among professionals in services which may come into contact with domestic violence and among the public at large. The National Curriculum Council's guidance to schools on health education suggests that both sex education and family life education should be key components of the curriculum.
        We agree with the Select Committee that there is a clear need for more public information on domestic violence. Such information should emphasise that domestic violence is against the law. It should encourage victims to seek help and advice, and it should explain where such assistance is to be found. The interdepartmental group will give thought to what more can be done and how it might be achieved.
        Many hon. Members referred to the law on provocation in homicide. If the House will permit me, I should like to remind it of what we said in our response:
        "As the Committee noted, the law has responded with flexibility to the particular circumstances of domestic violence victims, whilst maintaining the distinction between a less culpable (though still unlawful) reaction to provocation and murder. The Government does not. consider that the Law Commission's proposal on provocation would improve the courts' ability to draw that distinction in individual cases and has no current plans to amend the law in this area. The Government takes the view that the law on provocation, particularly in the light of the Lord Chief Justice's remarks in Ahluwalia, maintains a proper balance between a reluctance on the one hand to exonerate pre-meditated revenge killing and a desire to leave a judgment on the facts of the individual case to the jury. The law does not, in the Government's view, require the reaction to provocation to be instantaneous. However, it is quite right that evidence of pre-meditation should undermine a defence of provocation. A delay between the provoking circumstance and the act of killing may also provide evidence to undermine such a defence, but that is for the jury to decide on the facts before them. The Government does not share the Committee's view that the law is uncertain or unclear."
        Mrs. Roche: The Minister rightly quoted the Lord Chief Justice. Does he agree that the Lord Chief Justice's remarks on provocation are obiter dicta? Does he feel that a new definition of the law is therefore necessary?
        Mr. Maclean: No, I do not agree. The Select Committee's point was that the law was inflexible and could not respond to modern circumstances. It is clear that the law can be flexible and can change, as we have seen in the development of cases which resulted in Ahluwalia.
        Mr. Cohen: Will the Minister give way?
        Mr. Maclean: No. I must allow my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton a few minutes to respond.
        In the short time available to me today, I hope that I have provided an idea of the range of work currently in hand, and of our plans for the future. I have shown that progress has been made in recent years. But the Government accept that more can and should be done.
        Since the Select Committee finished its investigation, we have begun the process of developing our proposals for future action in a committed and co-ordinated way. Several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), asked me whether the group had met. The

        401
        official working group on domestic violence has met twice. It has discussed areas in which work can be taken forward at national and local level.
        I can inform the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) that, thanks to the Scottish Office representatives in Edinburgh, the Edinburgh zero tolerance campaign was brought before the interdepartmental working group. The group has discussed and examined the campaign.
        We believe that the interdepartmental group will make a significant contribution to co-ordinating our policies to tackle all facets of domestic violence. It is certainly not the end of the matter simply because the Select Committee has produced a report, the Government have responded to it, and we have had this debate. I assure the House that we shall continue to give this serious and widespread problem the priority that it deserves.
        6.56 pm
        Sir Ivan Lawrence: We have had an excellent debate, and I shall highlight some of the features that have made it so. First, there was cross-party agreement. There was a lot of light and little heat, which will have made it appallingly bad television. Secondly, there was agreement about the size of the problem and the matters which needed to be dealt with. Thirdly, the need for more refuges was highlighted. Such refuges need central funding, whether it is dispensed by local authorities or not.
        Fourthly, there was a common welcome for the change in police culture. Domestic violence is now treated as a crime. The fact of arrest may provide a deterrent. Fifthly, there was agreement on the confusion of the law, which needs to be simplified. Out of that should also come better access to legal aid for afflicted women, and more victim-friendly court procedures.
        402
        Sixthly, the value of publicity was emphasised. We should bring it home to people that they are not alone if they go to complain about the treatment that they have received in their home. Seventhly, the problems of ethnic minority women were well covered in the debate.
        Eighthly, disappointment was expressed that the changes which the Committee recommended on provocation were not welcomed by the Government. I hope that they will reconsider, because the feeling in the Committee was strongly that there should be some clarification. If the Law Commission has decided that the changes would be a good thing, a good thing they are likely to be. I do not suppose for a moment that the Lord Chief Justice would oppose the wishes of the Law Commission on that matter.
        Ninthly, there was a broad welcome for the report. It is unusual for Select Committee reports to receive that response. It is also unusual to receive a reasonably enthusiastic response from the Government. The Government response was not unreasonable in all the circumstances. There may even have been some indication that there is a need for positive action and that the cost of meeting some of our requirements and our recommendations would be more than covered by the savings in the rest of system if there is inaction.
        For all those reasons, it has been an excellent debate. It provides justification for the Select Committee system, it provides justification for having half a day to debate its provisions, and, hopefully, the beneficiaries of it all will be the victims of domestic violence.
        It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates), and the Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates).

Croydon Tramlink Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
7 pm
Mr. David Congdon: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This private Bill is jointly promoted by London Regional Transport and the London borough of Croydon, and I am pleased to introduce it. The purpose of the Bill is to seek powers to enable the construction and operation of a tram system to be known as tramlink, connecting the centre of Croydon to Wimbledon, Beckenham, Elmers End and New Addington.
London Regional Transport has a general duty to provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services in Greater London. It must pay due regard to the current transport needs of Greater London, and to the efficiency, economy and safety of operation. Croydon council has numerous statutory duties, especially as a highway planning authority, and is also empowered to produce an economic strategy. The new unitary development plan for Croydon has identified the need to develop efficient and reliable public transport as an attractive alternative to the car, while, at the same time, promoting environmental policies as an important consideration in any new developments. The council considers tramlink—
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To take up the hon. Gentleman's point about environmental policies, why have the promoters not been able to respond to the petition from the Open Spaces Society and the Ramblers Association? They suggest that, since much of the scheme will take up public open space, it would be logical for the promoters to find compensatory open space for the land.
Mr. Congdon: The scheme has been designed to minimise the impact on open space. I shall say a few more words about that later. However, there is already a large amount of valuable open space in Croydon and the promoters believe that the impact on open space would be limited; therefore, they were not able to meet the demands that have been outlined by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). It is significant that the Association of Croydon Conservation Societies supports the Bill.
I am sure that hon. Members are aware that London is suffering from severe congestion in its public transportation system, both on roads and on the public transport network. The CBI has estimated that the cost of the congestion of London's transport system amounts to a staggering £10 billion per annum. Hon. Members will also be aware of the pollution effects of cars on the environment. Studies have been undertaken to propose long-term solutions to those problems in central and Greater London.
Following the successful promotion of the scheme to authorise the construction of the Docklands light railway, London Regional Transport and British Rail carried out a joint study into the contribution that light railways could make to the improvement of transport in London. A report published in 1986 identified a number of areas where light railways could be of value. Chief among those was a system based on Croydon, using a mixture of BR lines and new construction to link Croydon with its
404
adjoining boroughs. Further work was carried out with the active co-operation of the local council, and in 1987 a system of three routes was identified as economically viable, physically possible and of great benefit to the economic life of the area.
In 1989, further reports were prepared for the Department of Transport on the transport problems of various parts of London. One of those, the south London assessment study, related to Croydon and its adjoining boroughs. The report identified existing traffic problems and traffic congestion as the most important issue. Those reports generated a lot of concern in south London, because their key proposal to alleviate the transport problem in London was major, massive road building. Politicians of all parties and local interest groups objected strongly to those proposals, and they were rightly dropped.
The reports also examined other proposals such as traffic management measures, junction improvements, road widening and new routes. Bus priority measures and the restructuring of bus and British Rail routes were also included. Croydon council has implemented many of those road and junction improvements to make better use of the existing road network, but it also concluded that a more ambitious approach to the problems of congestion was required, which, at the same time, would offer substantial environmental and economic benefits.
Mr. Piers Merchant: I follow my hon. Friend's logic about the need to ease congestion, and I share his feelings about problems with building more roads, but does he agree that it would be far better to use existing British Rail infrastructure to improve links in that part of London rather than put in new infrastructure? Does he accept that running trams down the centre of roads in Croydon will hardly ease traffic congestion?
Mr. Congdon: The Bill proposes using a lot of existing British Rail track. However, there are problems because British Rail track is quite inflexible and difficult to extend to other areas. One of the advantages of introducing a light rail system is the greater flexibility to extend it to other areas.
My hon. Friend is right to mention impact on roads where light rail has to run, but it is possible, with good design and traffic management measures, to minimise any impact to enable the light rail to run on existing roads.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend will be aware that the first constituency in the country to use electric trams was my own of Blackpool. We were the one town, not only in this country but in western Europe, never to abandon trams. We are delighted that my hon. Friend and his colleagues in Croydon are proposing to bring back trams, because they are very successful. I know that his scheme is based on the one that is already operating in Manchester. I strongly support his comments about the ability of tram schemes to lessen congestion and to run along roads.
Mr. Congdon: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. Like many hon. Members, I have experienced the joys of a Blackpool tram on a wet and windy night at certain party conferences in that illustrious resort. I have also visited Manchester. The small impact of Manchester's light rail system in terms of noise and visual intrusion is striking. At one stage during the drawing up of the proposals for the

405
light rail system, I had the pleasure of visiting Wimbledon. The contrast between the noise of British Rail trains on the track and light rail has to be heard to be believed.
Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has trodden the path between Croydon and Wimbledon, a path that we hope will become a light rail in due course. I look forward to much interchange between our constituencies.
To take up the logic of my hon. Friend's point about using existing rail, as would be the case in my constituency, that is nonsense if one does not continue the logic so that the rail ends where the existing rail at present terminates at Wimbledon station. I understand that the proposals are for a terminus elsewhere, which would be nonsense for my constituency.
Mr. Congdon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that the promoters would have preferred an interchange into platform 10 at Wimbledon station. When the Bill was deposited, it was quite clear that no agreement could be reached with British Rail, which understandably took the view that it might want to extend other services for which it would use platform 10. That has caused my hon. Friend some concern, as it has some people in Merton. Now that the issue has been reviewed, although it was thought at one stage that the proposal would run into the buffers, British Rail considers that there is merit in looking at it again. A feasibility study by BR has stated that in principle it is prepared to allow tramlink to use platform 10.
I know that the promoters hope that discussions with BR will continue, to arrive at the solution that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes)—and they—would like, as the scheme would greatly benefit from a full interchange at Wimbledon station. There is no doubt that the proposal in the Bill has always been viewed as a second best alternative. We would like the full interchange at Wimbledon along the lines that my hon. Friend suggests.
Earlier, I was discussing the studies carried out in Croydon. The council concluded that the tramlink scheme offered the prospect of a revitalised public transport system and a credible alternative to transport by car. It also concluded that the system could be reliable, quiet, efficient and accessible to all. It would improve the environment and the amenities of the locality. As a result of this conclusion, Croydon council resolved to develop tramlink in conjunction with LRT.
Before becoming a Member of this House I had the pleasure of serving as a councillor in Croydon for 16 years, the last six of them as deputy leader to Sir Peter Bowness. In that capacity, I was a member of the tramlink working party, set up to enable senior members from both sides of the council—including the leader, deputy leader, Councillor Mary Walker, who was leader of the Labour group, and others—to make progress with the proposal and to offer guidance to officers working on the complex issues involved.
I pay tribute to the genuinely bipartisan approach adopted by all in that exercise. I also pay tribute to the commitment of members and officers of the council. From this cross-party coalition there emerged a recognition of the significant benefits that the scheme would bring to the area. I hope that the same bipartisan approach will be shown in the House tonight.
406
The project is, and has been, an example of how good cross-party support for a scheme can bring great benefits to an area. It is also an excellent example of local government working well to the benefit of its people.
The scheme would connect central Croydon with Wimbledon, Beckenham, Elmers End and New Addington. The Wimbledon branch would extend frorn the terminus near or—I hope—at the BR station to central Croydon. The line will use the existing BR branch line and will replace the rail service between Wimbledon and West Croydon. It will provide for an interchange with other BR services at Wimbledon, Mitcham junction and West Croydon. The line will provide a more frequent and attractive service, with additional stops connecting residential areas with rail services into London.
The branch connecting central Croydon to Beckenham will share an existing alignment with British Rail services. A disused British Rail alignment will also be used, and new track will be constructed where necessary. This line will connect the highly developed commuter areas of Beckenham, Elmers End and Woodside with Croydon, as well as providing an interchange with British Rail services at Beckenham.
Mr. Merchant: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the interchange at Beckenham junction will not run into Beckenham junction station but, like the one a t Wimbledon, will be of the type that will involve passengers wishing to change from tramlink to British Rail, or vice versa, coming out of one station, walking down the road and going into another? It is thus incorrect to describe it as an interchange.
Secondly, is my hon. Friend aware of the strong opposition to the scheme in my constituency? It also is bipartisan, embracing the Labour and Conservative parties in the area.
Mr. Congdon: I understand some of my hon. Friend's concerns about Beckenham, but I should have thought that the interchange was a reasonable way of enabling people to transfer from one service to another. I emphasise that the whole link, from the edge of the borough of Croydon into Beckenham junction, runs along existing British Rail track. We are not even talking about taking up track, as we would be in some parts of Croydon. The track is still on the ground, providing BR services.
Mr. Merchant: I apologise for pressing my hon. Friend on this, but I must correct him. He has just told the House that a section of the line will be newly built, running in my constituency along parts of South Norwood country park.
Mr. Congdon: I apologise if I have misled my hon. Friend. I was taking into account the fact that, under a proposal recently agreed by the Boundary Commission, the park will shortly become part of the London borough of Croydon. Anyhow, once the line leaves the country park, it runs entirely on British Rail's existing track. I am happy to clarify the matter.
The third route, the light rail branch to New Addington, starts off using a partly disused British Rail alignment, but thereafter most of the route into New Addington has to be built through open land. By that I mean that, in the main, it goes along the edge of open space, not across the middle of it. This new line will provide the first ever rail service to the New Addington

407
estate. New Addington has a population of about 25,000 and is the largest residential area in London without a rail service.
The central section of tramlink comprises a loop connecting West and East Croydon BR stations to the Wimbledon, Beckenham and New Addington branches of tramlink. This section will be built in the street as a conventional tramway, incorporating a variety of road traffic schemes to integrate the new system with the transport network.
The promoters are anxious that tramlink should meet, as far as possible, the needs of all members of the community, with particular attention to the needs of the elderly and the disabled. Accordingly, they are committed to making the whole system accessible to people with disabilities. All aspects of the scheme, including the design of the stops and rolling stock, will be subject to the closest scrutiny, to maximise accessibility. An important example of this is the fact that the floor level of the trams will be very low, allowing easy access from raised footways and low platforms to be provided at tram stops.
I know from my involvement with the working party in Croydon that great care has been taken to minimise the impact on homes and on the environment. For example, to connect New Addington with central Croydon, the system has to cross some very sensitive environmental areas—especially Addington hills, an attractive wooded area. Members of the working party were most concerned that the initial proposals would have meant a line running straight through the middle of this valuable open land. That working party felt it essential that the line should, instead, run up the edge of Addington hills. After a lot of technical discussion, the experts, I am pleased to say, came up with the proposal in the Bill. Consequently, the route runs along the edge of the road and does not cut straight through Addington hills.
That is a very good example of the promoters' desire not to cause environmental difficulties, particularly to valuable open space. I am pleased to say that that sensitive approach to crucial environmental issues adopted by the working party and the promoters has underpinned the development of the scheme. I believe that it now achieves its objectives with the minimum impact on the local environment.
Hon. Members will be pleased to know that I do not intend to go through the Bill clause by clause, although they will want to know about one or two. of its important features. It is promoted by London Regional Transport and Croydon council. It is intended that the construction and operation of tramlink will be undertaken by the private sector, which will bear the commercial risks and responsibility for the success of the system.
Mr. Bennett: Assuming that the Bill gains Royal Assent, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the whole scheme will be completed as one entity, or is there a risk that the private sector may decide that one bit is financially viable and other bits are not?
Mr. Congdon: I welcome the hon. Member's intervention. The promoters' intention, as I understand it, is that all parts of the scheme will be built and financed by the private sector and that it will stand or fall in its entirety.
408
A very important part of the system is the link to New Addington. That link is a costly part of the scheme because it involves the construction of much new track. It provides a valuable link to the large community of 25,000 people, who currently do not have a rail link and are totally dependent on buses or cars. We all know the problems of getting into urban centres in the rush hour, when we can be subject to all sorts of delay. The proposed link will offer those people a particular benefit, and that is why it is part of the integral system.
The key part of the scheme is that the commercial risks and responsibilities rest with the private sector. It will provide the major part of the funding. An element of Government funding could well be required, but that would have to reflect the public benefits that the scheme will generate, especially to other route users. The major proportion of the total construction cost would still be provided by the private sector. No subsidy will be provided by London Transport or Croydon council for the operation of the system.
The scheme is an excellent example of how the private sector can make a valuable contribution to the provision of transport infrastructure. I know that the Government attach great importance to the private sector assuming such a role, and it is a further reason why I am happy to support the Bill.
Such an arrangement has the distinct advantages of easing the burden on the public purse by maximising the private sector contribution to the scheme at a time when there are many competing demands for new transport projects. It will also reap the benefits of private sector enterprise and expertise. Such active co-operation will allow the promoters to call upon considerable worldwide expertise in the introduction and operation of modern light railway systems.
The private sector is already heavily involved in the scheme. The project development group, comprising London Regional Transport, Croydon council and their three selected private sector partners—including a major British construction company—has begun to take forward the development and detailed design of tramlink. The private sector participants are already—I stress the word "already"—committing their own resources to the process.
The scheme enjoys the unanimous support of Croydon council, which has voted in favour of it, and is strongly supported by the Croydon chamber of commerce and industry, which is a consortium of 1,300 local businesses. The scheme is also supported in principle by local trade associations, environmental groups and the neighbouring boroughs of Bromley. Sutton and Merton. A high degree of public support for it was expressed during the consultation period. There are some local objectors, and I welcome the fact that they will have the opportunity to express their concern in Committee.
Tramlink provides an exciting opportunity to introduce a modern, clean, reliable and, above all, safe transport system, which will enhance the quality of public transport in a large area of south London. It will improve the environment by encouraging the use of tramlink for many business and leisure journeys. It will offer for the first time a congestion-free alternative to using a car for travel between major commercial, retail and residential centres. London needs and deserves the best system of modern, environmentally friendly and convenient public transport.
The Bill has completed all its stages in the other place, and has been closely scrutinised by a Select Committee

409
there. I hope that hon. Members will agree that it is a most worthwhile scheme that should be given every encouragement. I urge the House to give the Bill a Second Reading, so that a Select Committee of the House can have the same opportunity to examine the scheme in detail.
7.25 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I do not plan to oppose the Bill at this stage, but I wish to make it clear that I have some misgivings about it. I am firmly in favour of the development of new tramways, because if we are to solve congestion on our roads, they have a very useful future.
It is important that the people who promote such new schemes persuade the local communities that the entire scheme is worth while. At least one Conservative Member has referred to the experience gained in Manchester. It should be noted that in Manchester the schemes that have been brought into use have basically used existing British Rail track and service. A small amount of track has been constructed within the city centre. In trying to develop new schemes in Greater Manchester, considerable problems have arisen when the developers have wanted to run the tramway down residential roads. I know that you will call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I say too much about Manchester, but it is important to recognise that that system represents the transfer from a railway system to a tramway system.
On many occasions in the House, I have suggested that the procedure in which we are involved is a total farce. This may be the last occasion that the House has to go through this pantomime with a works Bill. Most hon. Members will be aware that, some 18 months ago, the House passed the Transport and Works Act 1992, under which we developed a much more sensible way in which to deal with such Bills.
The only reason that we are dealing with the Bill now is that it officially started its progress in the House of Lords under the old procedure. It was generally accepted that anything that had been originally presented as a private Bill should be allowed to continue in that fashion, but that we would not let any future Bills follow that process.
I think that the Bill demonstrates the faults in the old procedure. It must be nearly two years since the Bill was originally tabled. The whole process of private Bills was designed to encourage the promoters to negotiate with the petitioners and agree a solution that was acceptable to everyone. It is quite clear that the Bill had a heavily contested passage through the House of Lords and, equally, it will have a heavily contested passage through the House.
I am very disappointed that the promoters have not taken more time to meet the ramblers and others who have objections to the loss of open space without compensation, and to find a way of meeting their objections. I would plead with the promoters, even at this late stage, to enter into negotiation.
As many hon. Members know, it is easy to spin out the procedures involved in this type of Bill. No doubt, in a week or two, we will have a carry-over motion, where there will be scope for several hours of debate. It may be necessary for the promoters to find 100 Members for the closure. Depending on the day on which the motion is tabled, that could cause considerable difficulty.
410
Then there will be the Committee stage, which is supposed to be a very judicial process, in which four hon. Members, who know nothing about the scheme, are selected to listen to the objectors. We know that there are often manipulations behind the scenes concerning who is selected as Chairman of the Committee. Two votes may well decide the outcome of the scheme. If the Government are enthusiastic, the Chairman will come from the Government side. That seems to have more influence on how a proposal progresses than all the arguments of the objectors. Even when the Bill has been through that process, there can still be a Committee stage with amendments and a whole series of other procedures that can drag it out.
If the scheme is really worthy, it seems logical for the promoters to do some deals at this stage to get rid of the objections and find a compromise with the objectors so that they can speed the Bill on its way. I hope that it will not be necessary for me to return to the subject.
I will concentrate my remarks now on the points put to me by the Open Spaces Society and the Ramblers Association. If such schemes are worth while and if they are going to reduce congestion and speed up transport, it should be possible to compensate for the open space that is taken by the scheme with other pieces of open space. In most places, promoters of light public transport schemes have made great efforts to find compensating land.
It is sad that, on this occasion, Croydon council and London Regional Transport have been unwilling to find that compensating land, not because it is impossible to find any, but because of the economics involved. I stand to be corrected, but I think that it is London Regional Transport that wants to make a profit out of land that it can sell on the open market and LRT is not prepared to offer it as compensation for the land that has been taken.
I would argue strongly that, in almost all our urban areas, preserving open space is important. Obviously, it must sometimes be taken for schemes, but it is usually possible to find some land to compensate for it.
Mr. Merchant: I support the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Is he aware that the same problem exists in the southern end of the Beckenham area, where the South Norwood country park will be traversed by new construction for tramlink? That will detract from a valuable amenity in the area and people feel that, if that has to be done, compensating land should be provided.
Mr. Bennett: I do not want to get into the detailed geography of the area, because I do not know it very well, having looked at the area on the map at fairly short notice, and also because it has been a long time since my grandmother lived in Beckenham and I used to go out to some of those places. If I were pushed, I could take the House on a ramble around my childhood activities in the area and point out that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] No, I will not be tempted tonight, but I might have to do so on another occasion.
I could point out that many of the places over which I could have rambled some 40 years ago have now been built on. One of the problems in most of our urban areas is that open space has been substantially taken up by housing. As a result, we lose the open space for animals and vegetation. Often, the land becomes fragmented and its quality is destroyed.

411
Kids also lose open space where they can go and, without breaking the law, get up to a certain amount of mischief. Such activity can be extremely annoying if it occurs at the bottom of one's garden or on a street corner where a gang of teenagers congregate. Kids often make a noise. When someone comes out and tries to move them on, there may be a bit of friction. It might become a bit of a game, people may become annoyed and then the police are called in.
It is very difficult for the police if, strictly speaking, the law is not being broken. However, the police want to try to calm such situations down. If there is informal open space, youngsters almost always disappear there and do not annoy adults or pensioners. Where space is taken in such a scheme, it is very important that some space is provided as compensation.
Mr. Congdon: The particular piece of open space to which my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) referred is South Norwood country park, which was created only a few years ago. It comprises 150 acres of open space. Even if we accept the objectors' statement about tramlink taking 13 acres—frankly, nowhere near that amount will be taken—we must put that into context and bear in mind the 150 acres, which were created as open space, on which it had been proposed to build housing and put light industry. The fact that the council decided to designate the land as a country park shows the seriousness that it attaches to creating open space. The council would certainly not wish to see any open space destroyed.
Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman referred to 13 acres. Let us not argue about whether it is 10 acres or 13 acres. Let us just see whether some land can be provided as compensation. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can tell me how much of Croydon and the surrounding authority areas has been lost to housing and other developments since 1970. I suspect that a very large area of those authorities has been lost as open space.
I accept that part of the scheme crosses the country park. However, would it not be far more useful if compensation for that—if it cannot be added to the surroundings of the country park, which may be very good from the point of view of nature conservation—were provided in areas which, according to the map, appear to be very densely populated and which lack informal space where youngsters can get away from adults and not commit crime, but give vent to high spirits? Such activity is only natural for youngsters, but it can be very annoying if it happens at the bottom of one's garden or close to it.
I do not want to delay the House much longer today, but I want to set down a very firm marker. Under this procedure or under the new procedure for making orders, we should encourage people to believe that if they produce tramway schemes or any other works scheme that would take open space, they should look around for open space to compensate for that.
It would be particularly unfortunate if the argument for not providing compensatory land was not that such land is impossible to find, but that there are costs involved in providing that compensatory scheme. Although I will not vote against Second Reading today, I set down a marker
412
that, if the promoters want to get the scheme into place quickly, they should find some way of meeting the objections of ramblers and the Open Spaces Society.
7.38 pm
Mr. Richard Ottaway: I support the Bill and agree with the sentiments of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) about the procedures that we are following. Many of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raised have been raised locally and I am glad that he is prepared to keep his options open at the moment and will not oppose the Bill at this stage.
After all, the Bill relates to the principle of tramlink. It is certainly not the final word. It is an enabling Bill which simply provides for the transfer of powers to a private operator to construct and operate tramlink. The promoters can analyse whether they can raise the necessary funding and whether the construction is viable. They can then come back and persuade everyone that they have the right answers.
The tramlink scheme does not affect the south of the borough, which I have the privilege to represent. There are no proposals for lines to go down to Croydon, South, but I support the Bill because I believe that the economic development of Croydon is paramount, and that the tramlink will assist the economic development of Croydon and London. The financial viability of London as the commercial capital of the world has to be supported, and such projects will assist in maintaining the status of London, and Croydon as a part of London.
Those of us who pass through Croydon, or indeed Beckenham, know how much traffic congestion there is. If I have one beef about Government transport policy, it is the transport infrastructure black hole that exists in south London. I have approached my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London more than once about that. I have to accept that steps are being made to improve the infrastructure locally, and the access to Croydon and the proposed Coulsdon bypass are something for which the Government can take credit.
Mr. Merchant: I am sure that my hon. Friend speaks accurately about his constituency. He described an infrastructure black hole in south London. Is he aware that in my constituency, which measures three miles by two miles, there are 14 open and working British Rail stations? Does he call that a black hole?
Mr. Ottaway: I am sorry if I misled my hon. Friend. I was talking about road infrastructure. In my constituency there are 14 British Rail stations and we have excellent train links to the centre of London, which I shall mention later. However, no new roads are proposed for south London. Those of us who drive up the M23 from Gatwick, cross over the M25 and look at the stump of the old M23 will have to agree that it is a sorry sight. Sadly, if there was one blow that the Government struck against the borough of Croydon it was the abandonment of the M23 in 1979, for reasons that were valid at the time but did nothing to help access to Croydon, which is essential for its financial importance and interests. The proposed east-west link, which will complement the spokes that go in and out of London, will vastly improve access to Croydon.
I am impressed by three points. First, the proposal has wide support from the council, from the chambers of commerce and the vast number of corporate entities

413
affiliated to them, and from local trade associations. I accept that some people object to the Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) will no doubt develop his objections in due course. However, the House of Lords has already listened to the various objectors and was not overwhelmed by their objections. In paragraph 10 of its findings it said that it did not find against the Bill on the basis of the objections, but made the useful comment that
"the promoters seem to us to have demonstrated a sympathetic understanding of these petitioners' situation and a willingness to try to mitigate the effects of Tramlink on them."
That comment shows the effectiveness of petitioning, but it is not grounds to oppose the Bill.
Mr. Bennett: Did not the House of Lords Committee hint that the promoters should negotiate with the petitioners between the House of Lords stage and the Committee in this House? As I understand it, the promoters have made few concessions, and hardly any of the petitions have been withdrawn.
Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the next sentence in the summary. I confess that I am not privy to negotiations between the promoters and the objectors, but I understand that some steps have been taken and I accept that the House of Lords has recommended that an effort be made to reach a consensus.
Secondly, I am impressed by the relatively small number of properties affected by the proposals. I understand that only 25 houses are affected, which for a rail link 18 miles long is a relatively small number.
Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend says that few houses are affected. Will he explain what he means? Does he mean affected to such a degree that they need to be purchased, or is his description broader?
Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend comes to my next point. I meant that 25 houses will have to be purchased. There is a wider degree of blight, as is inevitable with such a proposal. The third point that impresses me, however, is that the promoters have undertaken that where blight notices have been served they will deal with them sympathetically and with minimum delay. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, who I know is most concerned about possible delays as a result of blight, will take note of that. Those three proposals remove many subjects of concern to me and enable me to support the Bill.
I still have four concerns, however, which I shall briefly mention. The first is that, frankly, there is still a lot of iffiness about the funding of the proposal. Understandably, there is no Government commitment at this point, but the promoters of the scheme will not start unless they are convinced that it will be financially viable. As a result, there is a higher standard of assessment of the risk. That is why private loans do not feature in the public sector borrowing requirement. Such loans tend to be more tightly controlled than Government loans and are therefore less risky.
That argument is at the heart of the privatisation debate. Private organisations tend to make a more detailed analysis of the financial risks. I hope that we can have greater clarity about how much public money may he forthcoming and how much might be needed to remove many of the concerns being expressed about funding.
414
On funding, one point has not been properly aired. Property that is enhanced by the proximity of the line will increase in value, and the beneficiaries might like to chip in towards the line's construction costs. That is not without precedent. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford) smiles. He knows much more about local government than I do, but a precedent was established when the developers of Canary wharf, which will benefit from the construction of the Jubilee line, undertook to chip in towards the cost of that line.
The borough council owns some property near the tramlink route, but lacks the powers to sell it at the enhanced value and apply the proceeds to the scheme. I hope that in due course the Government will consider what powers might be needed to facilitate the sale, because that money should be readily available.
Sir Paul Beresford: Will my hon. Friend welcome the opportunity to visit the residents association of Lynden Hyrst, for example, where the residents feel that when they step on to the pavement the tramlink will virtually run across their toenails? Perhaps he would like to ask them how they feel about the benefit, and whether they would care to donate towards the scheme.
Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend's argument is valid, but it has nothing to do with my argument. If property is financially enhanced by the proximity of the line, its owners might like to chip in towards the cost of the scheme. Of course there are objectors. I have dealt with the objectors who are affected. The line is not going through my constituency, and none of my constituents objects to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central has constituents who object. No doubt he will deal with the matter in his skilful way.
My second concern is the disruption that might take place during construction of the scheme. I understand that in the city of Sheffield, as a result of traffic congestion, retailing fell by about 30 per cent. during the construction of the light railway. There is a pattern to shoppers' habits. If they know that they are likely to run into traffic jams in a certain area, they do not go there, and local retail trade tends to drop.
My third concern is the British content of the proposed scheme. I appreciate the promoters' efforts, but it must be accepted that two out of three promoters in the group are not British. What is the matter with the British? It is not much of a compliment to British industry if we have to rely on foreign input to build a tramlink in the middle of Croydon.
Hon. Members who have attended Transport Question Time, or, indeed, Prime Minister's Question Time, will have heard the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) banging on about subsidies that might be given to Asea Brown Boveri, which is based in his constituency. I happened to be driving past ABB in Derby the other day and I thought that I would look in and see how it was getting on. It certainly does not need help from the Government to get off the ground. I was impressed to hear that it recently won the contract to supply all the tram rolling stock in Strasbourg, of all places, the heart of the European Community and the home of the European Parliament.
Why cannot ABB try to win the contract in Croydon so that we could have a genuine British element in the

415
scheme? I hope that there will be a fair chance for British bids to be fully appreciated. Of course we need a fair competitive basis for tendering.
My fourth concern is the possible spur off the proposed tramlink to Purley. I hope that, during analysis of the scheme, such a possibility will not be ruled out. Trams used to go to Purley, and that could happen again. My initial soundings reveal that there is no overwhelming local enthusiasm one way or the other for such an idea, but it should be discussed. Indeed, I approached the Purley and Woodcote residents association on that point. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London will be pleased to hear that the association says that it already has reasonable bus and rail links from Purley to Croydon. However, trains from Purley to Croydon do not operate so regularly as trams would.
The scheme is imaginative, it has been well thought out, it will do much to ease traffic congestion in the Croydon area, it will add to Croydon's prosperity, and it has my full support.
7.52 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On behalf of the Labour party, I also welcome the Bill. Its concept of rapid, modern transport, which we have envisaged in our manifestos in recent general elections—circumstances have frustrated us in developing such themes—is greatly welcomed. The innovation and pioneering concept of the Bill's promoters should be recognised.
For a country the size of ours, very few modern transport projects have been promoted by any town or city since the second world war. Reference has been made to Manchester, and there is obviously docklands and Tyne and Wear, but there have not been many initiatives by local authorities, transport undertakings or, for that matter, Governments of either colour to modernise our transport system. This is a new and welcome departure, particularly as the scheme is in Greater London.
The immediate beneficiaries will be people who live in and near Elmers End, Beckenham, New Addington, Wimbledon, and along the routes linking those areas with the strategic shopping and commercial centre of Croydon. However, other residential areas and parts of south London will also benefit from the project. The link to Wimbledon will enable people who live along the Network SouthEast line serving Kingston and Sunbury to have much greater access to the eastern side- of the Greater London region south of the Thames, but to avoid the necessity of going to Clapham junction.
That theme can be developed further if one considers that people from Guildford travelling via Surbiton to Wimbledon will have access to Beckenham and Croydon while avoiding congested Clapham junction. They will have less travelling time. To complete the picture, I refer also to people who reside in Hampton Court or along the Chessington-Tolworth-Malden Manor line. There will be a great travel benefit to those people, too, if the line is linked with Wimbledon.
It has already been said that the project has all-party support in Croydon. As far as one can ascertain, there is demonstrable support for the project among the people of Croydon. That is very important, notwithstanding the representations of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr.
416
Merchant). The councils of the London borough of Merton and the London borough of Bromley wish the Bill well, at least in principle.
The Bill is only the first chapter in the project. If the project is to succeed and be constructed and, more important, be realised operationally, there is much to be done. Probably the most important aspect is the need for reassurance on funding of the project. We look to the Minister to give an idea of the extent to which, in terms of money and spirit, the Government will back the project. It is certainly a large project. We are talking about £140 million at a time of recession and commercial uncertainty. Therefore, we need significant backing and enthusiasm from the Department of Transport.
Many people who support the project are looking for reassurances either from the promoters or from the Department of Transport that it will be part of an integrated network. Implicit in that is the fact that tramlink must have a system of through ticketing with buses, Network SouthEast and, I hope, the London underground.
In a debate which, to a large extent, will be bipartisan, I hesitate to mention travelcard, but it is important that the Opposition should again remind the Minister for Transport in London that he and his Department have failed to give guarantees about the future of travelcard for existing public transport networks in London. That is bad and it is causing great disquiet. As we try to develop new systems of public transport in Greater London, the need for low-cost transferable ticketing throughout the various modes of transport in Greater London is underlined yet again. We should like a guarantee that travelcard will be not only used on existing transport networks but be extended to the Croydon tramlink.
It is inevitable that, in preparing for today's debate, hon. Members studied the report of the debate in another place. I was concerned to note that the principal sponsor, Baroness Gardner of Parkes, hinted that there might be a need for premium pricing to fund what is demonstrably an expensive project. That would be more than disappointing and would go against the spirit of promoting a modern, swift and cheap new form of public transport within Greater London. I hope that the sponsors and the Department bear that in mind during the Bill's parliamentary stages.
From my reading of the debate in another place, it appears that there were those who expressed an over-confident opinion about the funding for and the viability of the project. Although I wish it well and believe that it could and should be funded, it is somewhat shortsighted for their Lordships to take the view that the scheme will be largely financed by private capital and therefore
"subject to the most intense expert scrutiny by those putting up the money."
There needs to be an undertaking from the Government about funding of construction and an undertaking that once the project is operational it will not be allowed to go bust, in any circumstances. That might appear to be an extreme scenario, but throughout the 20th century many public transport projects have subsequently been found not to be financially viable in strict commercial terms.
Once the project is completed, Governments of whatever colour must ensure that it survives. By then, where people live and work and much commercial activity will be based on the existence of that public transport

417
system. Therefore, once the Bill receives Royal Assent, that commits all future Governments to being the ultimate guarantor—
Mr. Bennett: We want a guarantee not just that the project will survive, but that it will survive in its entirety. With any privately funded scheme, the concern is always that those putting up the money might say, "We have looked at the economics and part A is all right, but we are not going to put up the money for the other parts." If people are to lose open spaces and suffer other disadvantages, it is important that in return they get the whole scheme, with all the advantages, not just part of it. That is especially true in areas such as New Addington.
Mr. Mackinlay: I accept my hon. Friend's point, which he puts more ably than me, that Parliament will be making a decision that morally binds future Governments to maintaining the project once it is constructed.
Sir Paul Beresford: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the crux of the scheme is private funding and that that will involve bidding? To give any guarantee along the lines that he suggested would undermine the likelihood of realistic bidding from the private sector.
Mr. Mackinlay: I accept that the concept of the Bill is that the project should be commercially viable and that there will be bidders and franchises. During our debates on the Railways Bill, the Government stressed that entrepreneurs, companies and consortiums were prepared to fund transport systems and make a stab at operating them. The jury is still out on that. The hon. Gentleman buttressed the argument for privatisation by supporting the Bill in the Lobby. Therefore, I am surprised that he should question that principle in respect of the Croydon Tramlink Bill.
Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman is talking about two different cases. The British Rail proposal involves negative bidding. The rail system exists and we want to keep it running. The Croydon Tramlink Bill is quite different. We are talking about the construction and running of a system. Because that has not started, any Government guarantee on finance would undercut the sharpness of the bidding from the private sector.
Mr. Mackinlay: I was not inviting the Government to issue a blank cheque or give a commitment that, as from this evening, they will underwrite the project. It would be naive of me to expect that from this Government. If there were a Labour Government, they, too, would hesitate to write a blank cheque. Nevertheless, if the Bill receives Royal Assent and some consortium constructs and subsequently runs this exciting project, but 20 years down the road it fails, the party that is in government must not allow the tramlines to be pulled up. That would be foolhardy. That is why we are at such an important stage; it sets the agenda not only for this project but for future projects.
Mr. Congdon: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I urge him not to go too far down that track —if he will excuse the pun—because one of the important parts of the project is to put the bulk of the risk in the private sector. The private sector must be under no illusion in its bidding. It must rigorously go through, as it has, the estimates of demand, usage and fares, in the knowledge that it will not be bailed out in 12 months if it gets it wrong;
418
to do so would he a misuse of public funds. Nevertheless, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that in the very long run it would be disappointing, to say the least, if we had the infrastructure but it was not used for trams. We need to strike a balance between ensuring that the risk is firmly in the private sector and avoiding a difficult problem 20 years ahead.
Mr. Mackinlay: I am content to say, "Hear, hear" to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. There is not a blade of grass between us on this point. He has expressed himself in the same spirit in which the Labour party approaches the project and with some confidence and hope that private finance can be found.
Like a number of hon. Members, I have some knowledge of and association with Croydon. I stood in Croydon, Central as a Labour candidate in the 1983 general election and, subsequently, in a much wider sphere as a European parliamentary candidate in 1984. l have some identification with and appreciation of not only the territory but some of the personalities involved—both those promoting the Bill and, in one or two cases, those petitioning against it. I am aware of the beautiful open spaces along the proposed route. I urge the Bill's promoters to remember that many of the points raised by petitioners are legitimate. An urgent attempt should be made to assuage their anxieties. Meeting some of those points would not be fatal to the project.
I want to mention a few of the points made by petitioners. In the other place, Lord Lytton argued that, before Royal Assent, there should be a scheme in place to ensure that blighted properties are bought, if the owners so request, with the utmost expedition. I hope that such purchases will not be confined to the 25 properties to which reference has been made. I hope that common sense and good will will prevail in respect of other properties that may suffer some degree of blight, or where personal circumstances—particularly affecting elderly or retired occupants—ought to be taken into account.
Many petitioners are not yet confident—although I believe that their concerns may be overcome—about the proposed design. The scheme should be sensitive to the needs of pedestrians and cyclists, particularly where the link goes through open areas such as Lloyd park. Also, the rail cars should take into account the needs of the infirm and semi-ambulant. Wherever possible, the line of route should segregate the trams from cars and lorries, if not from other forms of public transport.
Mention was made of the need to attempt to reinstate high-value land and to replace land that is lost. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made the valid point—this is a flaw in the Bill —that an assumption is made that the promoters cannot or will not find land to compensate for that used by the tramlink. Parliament should send a signal that, notwithstanding Croydon council's extremely good record of providing land on its own initiative, an effort should be made to replace land used for the route. One cannot be satisfied at this stage that that principle has been taken on board by the promoters.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), replying to an intervention, argued that a contribution could be made by those who will benefit from the line of route. I am not opposed to that principle, but inevitably there are people who have a rapacious appetite for commercially exploiting new public projects. There is

419
anxiety in Croydon that Sainsbury would like to develop 36 acres at the bottom of Gravel hill on the Kent Gate way. Croydon borough council, as the co-promoter, has made it abundantly clear that it is opposed to that land being developed by Sainsbury—but it will not be able to stop Sainsbury legitimately pursuing through the planning process and a public inquiry an opportunity to exploit land that abuts the tramlink.
Prospective developers and others will inevitably seek to offer to contribute to the project in return for some advantage to themselves. That is a commercially legitimate practice, but we should be on guard against attracting resources to fund the project in a way that compromises good planning principles.
Mr. Merchant: Is not the hon. Gentleman also concerned that, if and when the tramlink starts operating, there might be pressure—particularly from the operator of the New Addington line—to construct park-and-ride areas? Given that the line will run through two miles of countryside and will attract few passengers, except from New Addington, the operator might want to provide park-and-ride areas to make that line more viable.
Mr. Mackinlay: The hon. Gentleman makes a legitimate point, about which I am not unsympathetic. In a number of areas, there will inevitably be a temptation to create park-and-ride facilities where none is currently planned. Equally, Croydon council is anxious not to eat further into open spaces or the green belt by making substantial and frequent provisions for park-and-ride. More thought must be given to providing a balance. The hon. Member for Beckenham suggests that New Addington will become one big car park, because that major junction will attract traffic from Biggin Hill and other areas adjoining Bromley.
There would also be extensive opportunities for undesirable parking in the Lloyd park area, in a number of streets off Coombe road. However, that is not an argument for frustrating the passage of the Bill tonight, but the Bill's promoters must give greater consideration to this point of great anxiety among the petitioners.
Mr. Ottaway: There are two aspects to be considered. The first is the Canary Wharf principle, whereby private developers that enjoy enhanced value could, as a condition of relevant planning permission, chip into the construction cost. I take the point about safety, but that could be a condition of planning permission. That concept is not unknown. Secondly, I understand that one or two derelict acres in the centre of Croydon, next to a railway line, belong to the local authority. That land will have enhanced value, but the borough does not have the power to sell it and plough the proceeds into the scheme. Perhaps the Government could address that matter.
Mr. Mackinlay: I am sure that the Minister and the promoters have taken note of that point. It is new to me, but it appears to justify further consideration.
Notwithstanding bus deregulation and privatisation, London Regional Transport should use its good offices to ensure that extensive Hoppa bus services feed the tram stops without causing unnecessary traffic congestion and parking problems.
Mr. Congdon: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about possible further encroachment on open space as a result of further planning permission being granted for a superstore or park-and-ride facilities. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Croydon council's urban development plan strengthens the safeguards in respect of the Kent Gate way? Although Sainsbury is fighting an inquiry, the company will be strongly resisted, as it should be.
There is a link between that and park-and-ride because other people take the view that the same land would make a wonderful park-and-ride site. I believe that it would be disastrous to use open space in that way, and I am pleased that the promoters take a similar view. They believe that the demand for the tramlink will be such that park-and-ride facilities would have only a small effect on the level of patronage. The promoters consider that the tramlink will be economically viable without park-and-ride facilities, and have not included them in the Bill for that reason. The promoters have no desire to see park-and-ride facilities provided.
Mr. Mackinlay: A number of petitioners consider that that point deserves more consideration; I agree, although I support the concept of the Bill. We do not suggest that there should be extensive park-and-ride facilities, for the reasons cited by the hon. Gentleman. I entirely agree with him about the Kent Gate way site: I would expect the London borough of Croydon to resist any applications to develop that land, just as I would expect Sainsbury to try —legitimately, from its selfish point of view—to obtain planning permission.
No doubt that will be sorted out later. The point is that the promoters do not seem to want to consider the parking that will be generated in New Addington, and in and around the Lloyd park area. More homework needs to be done.
The promoters' plans are very imaginative, but they will raise an eyebrow or two among those who are familiar with a very congested part of south London. It is proposed that much of Addiscombe road and the area immediately outside East Croydon station should be used almost exclusively for the tramlink; that will involve the redirection of traffic around Chepstow road, Barclay road and the vicinity of the Fairfield halls. Do the promoters really believe that—even given the widening of the area involved—there will be sufficient capacity to absorb the heavy traffic that must negotiate it? I feel that an alternative must be found.
Sir Paul Beresford: I understand that the current road widening is not related to the tramlink—so they say.
Mr. Mackinlay: So they say; but road widening is in progress. My point is that, whatever the motive and the funding for it, the promoters should reconsider the idea that the tramlink road should monopolise the area immediately outside East Croydon station.
We welcome the Bill in principle. It will be good for people living in the boroughs of Bromley, Croydon and Merton; it will also produce increasing benefits for those living and working in a much wider area of south London and north Surrey. We hope that it will have a good run in the House, and that those who examine it will bear in mind the need to explore new ways of providing mobility at low cost—in regard to both the workplace and recreation.
8.22 pm
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) on his skilful and persuasive presentation. He helped me greatly: now I need not detain the House long in explaining the Government's position.
We see the advantages of the proposed tramlink. In its non-technical summary of the environmental statement, Halcrow Fox said that the link was being promoted because
"present widespread traffic congestion at peak times in Croydon is predicted to increase by 15 to 20 per cent. between 1986 and 2001, affecting travel by bus and car and commerical operations and increasing problems of 'rat-running', noise, air pollution and other adverse environmental effects; scope for increasing capacity through new road building or widening existing roads is severely constrained and very unpopular with the public."
According to the summary, Croydon council's transport strategy suggests that public transport should play a greater role in meeting the predicted demand for movement; light rail provides an attractive alternative to road building, increasing capacity on key routes with minimum environmental impact, and offers a real choice to travellers as against the car or bus. The Government consider that to be an accurate summary of the scheme's advantages. It involves a 17·5 mile link—or 28 km, as I should say nowadays—centred on Croydon, with branches to Wimbledon, Beckenham, Elmers End and New Addington.
There is no doubt that traffic congestion is a serious issue in Croydon, and that communications should be improved. I do not think that many people would suggest that a massive road-building programme is the answer; certainly, I do not believe that there is any local enthusiasm for such a move—even from my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), whose reservations will be appreciated by other hon. Members.
However, a light railway system has advantages. For instance, it involves minimal environmental intrusion, and is energy efficient. No harmful fumes are emitted, as they are from cars and other vehicles. Moreover, choice, is enhanced: passengers have a real alternative to the car or bus. The Government consider the tramlink scheme worth while, and accordingly support the Bill in principle.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East pointed out, this is essentially a private sector project. That is very much in accordance with the Government's policy of involving the skills of that sector, as well as its capital, to the maximum extent to allow the transport infrastructure to provide the best value for money for both taxpayers and, ultimately, users. My hon. Friend referred to the work of the project development group. I can confirm that the promoters are making good progress: they have already appointed a private sector project development group.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) pointed out that two of the companies involved were not British. They are Transdev, the French operator of transport systems, and AEG(UK). Although AEG is not a British company—it is building the rolling stock—AEG(UK) will provide the United Kingdom with substantial employment opportunities. Tarmac—a British company—is also involved in building the infrastructure for the line.
422
Those companies are funding the development work themselves: private capital is going into the project development group. The work is now well advanced. Subject to parliamentary approval of the Bill, the promoters expect to be able to invite private sector bids for the concession to build and operate the scheme early next year, including one from the project development group.
Let me make two points about the way in which the project development group will work in relation to eventual bidding for the scheme. I suspect, from what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South, that there may be a hint of misapprehension about the group's role. In wishing to ensure that the taxpayer's involvement was minimal at this stage, the promoters determined to use the device of a project development group funded by the private sector, with expertise drawn from the relevant sectors.
Those companies would, in effect, prepare a development brief which would then be the subject of tenders for the various aspects of the line—for its construction, for the construction of the rolling stock and for the operation of the line. At that point the project would be open for any company to bid, within EC rules. I should be disappointed if the only bid forthcoming was from the promoters.
Of course the promoters have become involved in the project, because they believe that it has a future, and no doubt they will want to tender for the work. I applaud their initiative in doing what they have done to provide mechanisms in the process for considering tenders that will ensure that members of the project development group do not enjoy an unreasonable advantage—that would be improper—but that, none the less, if the promoters do not win the contract, the costs that they have borne so far will be passed on to the successful bidders.
The members of the project development group are applying their skills to working the scheme up, and no doubt they look forward to bidding for the tender in open competition in due course. However, there is no guarantee whatever that they will be successful. If my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South is keen that British companies should be involved in tendering for the project, as he is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade he should use his extensive contacts to encourage as many British companies as possible to bid for the contract and beat off the foreign competition. The Government applaud and welcome the approach that the promoters have adopted towards the project development group. We think that that is the right way to proceed.
Grants have been mentioned, and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East said that an element of grant might be sought to support the project. I am sure that he and the promoters, and other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), will understand the grant position well. The Government will consider any application for grant on its merits by examining the public benefits that will be secured by the scheme—those are conventionally known as the non-user benefits—and relating them to the amount of grant sought. I must not disguise the fact that we shall have to do that against the background of competing schemes and the overall availability of funds. The scheme is attractive, but it would be wrong of me to give guarantees about any level of grant that may be forthcoming in due course.

423
It is a great pleasure to see the hon. Member for Thurrock in his place. He is the Labour mascot for the other 15 Members of Parliament who represent Essex in the Tory interest. He is much loved by all of us and, I hate to say, will be greatly missed. However, if he will forgive me, I must tell him that I took exception to his accusation —I believe that I noted it accurately—that I had failed to give guarantees on travelcard.
Mr. Mackinlay indicated assent.
Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman nods in assent. I do not know what I am supposed to say that would reassure him. He is a fairly literate chap, so I need not descend to monosyllables to make my point.
I was recently reported in the Evening Standard as having offered my resignation if travelcard were not to survive. As it happens, I had not done that, but when the next journalist rang to ask me whether it was true I thought that I had better say yes, because otherwise he might say that I was trying to climb down from the commitment.
Since then, I have repeatedly pointed out, and I welcome the opportunity to do so in the House, that anyone who understands how public transport operates in the capital city recognises that travelcard is not an option, but is essential. It is the method by which millions of people in this city make their journeys. If one did not preserve and develop the advantages of multimodal travel such as the scheme now offers, one would not be doing the residents of this great city a service.
Were it not for the appalling precedent, I would have been tempted to ask the hon. Gentleman to read my lips, but remembering when that expression was previously used, I thought that it might be ill advised. None the less, I tell the hon. Gentleman in the clearest possible terms that the travelcard is in no danger. It is safe in my hands—there I go again, with yet another inappropriate reference. I hope that I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that he should not be disturbed.
Indeed, I fear that my normally generous sense of humour might wane if he were to continue along that line, because I do not believe that he is the kind of chap who would like to mislead millions of people in this city and leave them in doubt about the continued availability of the most popular device for getting around it.
Mr. Mackinlay rose—
Mr. Cohen rose—
Mr. Norris: Before I give way to the hon. Member for Thurrock, may I give way to my good friend the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen)?
Mr. Cohen: I am grateful to my good friend the Minister for giving way to me. May I ask him two questions?- First, will the travelcard apply to tramlink? Secondly, although I appreciate that he is saying that he strongly favours keeping the travelcard, could that not mean a card completely different from the present travelcard? People can use the existing card all day to make as many journeys as they like, but could not the travelcard that the Minister means be one that runs out if someone makes too many journeys? Would that not be a completely different travelcard?
Mr. Norris: O, ye of little faith. It is important to relate travelcard to the Bill, and I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that everyone involved in the development of the scheme recognises that it should be part of the travelcard system, especially as about 70 per cent. of the people who will use tramlink will move on to other modes of travel.
Mr. Bennett: Where does it say that in the Bill?
Mr. Norris: It is not appropriate for that to be in the Bill, any more than it appears specifically in, for example, the Railways Bill. However, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Secretary of State will give the franchising director powers to require potential franchisees to be members of travelcard. I have made it plain that, with the leave of the House, I intend to introduce similar clauses in forthcoming legislation on the deregulation of buses in London. However, I must tell the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Leyton that negotiating the precise terms of entry into travelcard for Croydon tramlink is a matter for the promoters, for LT and for the other members of travelcard.
Mr. Mackinlay rose—
Mr. Norris: Before I give way to the hon. Member for Thurrock, I shall answer the second question asked by the hon. Member for Leyton by saying that his fears are unfounded. The card will continue in the form that he and I—and millions of people in this city—recognise. No doubt the system will develop. For example, I believe that stored value ticketing, which will enable us to use the same facilities for transport as the phonecard currently provides for telephoning, is likely to be widely taken up.
Passengers will enjoy having a simple ticket, like the phonecard, which, if they need to get on the tube or the bus, will obviate the need for change so that they can use the system more easily. There is a great deal of merit in that. When one is totally convinced of the importance of the device in the public transport system, one is beyond the political stage of bantering about whether or not travelcard will survive. That parrot is well and truly dead.
Mr. Mackinlay: I welcome the Minister's reiteration that travelcard is safe: he has, in fairness, spelt that out in explicit terms this evening. Anyone reading the Official Report tomorrow morning who believed his utterances and his point to me in their entirety would also believe St. Paul who said within the walls of Damascus, "Quite honestly, I have always been preaching Christianity".
There was a stage when the Minister did wobble, to say the least, on the future of travelcard. The political reality —a London borough election next year—no doubt concentrated his mind. I welcome what he has said and if we can put the matter to rest, so be it, but it was important that we should have raised it tonight both in terms of the capacity of people to have the choice of ticketing throughout Greater London, through various modes of transport, and specifically in relation to the new, exciting tramlink. I hope that the Government and their successor will ensure that they are locked into a travelcard system as we presently know it.
Mr. Norris: I am sorry at the hint of sadness in the hon. Gentleman's voice that was implied by his reluctant acceptance that we might actually mean what we say. Of course, I understand that his deep knowledge of scripture

425
brought to mind the concept of Pauline conversion, but neither that nor the London borough elections figured in my mind.
It is perfectly sensible, and it is important in the context of the Croydon tramlink, that the overwhelming view of operators, private and currently public, is that there is no need for legislative underpinning of a travelcard scheme because they believe that it offers huge advantages. They think that using a travelcard enables bus operators to get people on board much more quickly than currently. However, such an option to enter travelcard would not satisfy either hon. Members on either side of the House or myself. That is why I made it clear and quite explicit that travelcard will continue.
I sense that I would stray from the principal purposes of our proceedings tonight were I to digress further on the subject of travelcard and I shall not do so, but it is important. Of course, if 70 per cent. of the users of the Croydon tramlink transfer to other modes of travel, they will almost certainly want to do so with a travelcard. Therefore, the House should be aware that negotiations are foreseen by which Croydon tramlink would be part of the system. How revenue is apportioned is a complex calculation, as the hon. Gentleman knows, so I shall not go into it further.
The hon. Member for Thurrock said that he had been a prospective Member for Parliament for Croydon, although in my experience he had been a prospective Member for Parliament for most constituences before his happy arrival in the charming spot that he represents in God's own county. He asked for a guarantee that the scheme would not go bust. That was a breathtaking request, because it illustrates a profound ignorance of the way in which any market system works.
It certainly points me to the conclusion that one ought to draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the definition of the word "risk". The concept of transferring the risk in the project to the private sector is that it will be the job of the private sector to make sure that it is a profitable railway that offers a standard of service which customers appreciate and therefore continue their patronage of the railway. However, I cannot disguise from the House the accuracy of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North-East, the sponsor of the Bill, when he said that the essence of risk was precisely that there could be circumstances in which the owners of the project might have to seek alternative financing for it and that might result in the diminution of their own equity or even in its extinguishment.
The substantive point about which the House was concerned was whether the promoters could bring forward the Bill and then simply build parts of the tramlink. That point was raised by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, among others. As the House knows, I am not the sponsor of the Bill; my hon. Friend has done that job very ably in the House tonight. I merely remind the House that the Committee will no doubt wish to look at the guarantee that the whole project will be built. It will be a matter for the Committee. Its members are as yet unnamed and I can therefore say with some assurance that I know they will treat that matter with assiduity.
Mr. Bennett: I am sure that the Minister is aware ghat the Department normally gives evidence to the Committee
426
on a Bill such as this. Will he confirm that, in his evidence, he will be asking for guarantees that the whole scheme is built, not just the more profitable bits of it?
Mr. Norris: I fear that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. He has been in the House long enough to know why. It is not appropriate for the Department to say that; it is for the Committee to determine whether it is appropriate and, if it is, to obtain it from the promoters of the Bill.
The Department will give evidence as to the desirability of the scheme, and the transport implications of the scheme; and, as I have told the House, the Department will be indicating that it favours the scheme.
The Bill has already passed its Second Reading and opposed Committee stages in the other place. The Committee there decided, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South said, that the promoters had made out a case for the Bill to proceed and it was very complimentary about the scheme. There remain those who object to the scheme on various grounds and to various degrees—including, as I understand it, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham.
Mr. Merchant: I paused for a moment before intervening because I thought that my hon. Friend might be coming to a point which the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) raised earlier and which still presents quite a serious problem. What happens if the budget goes ahead and the railway is built? Historically, railways have often gone bankrupt, sometimes quite soon after they are built. Given that there is a good deal of injury to the people affected by the route being built, what happens if they find themselves with a new railway that has worked for two years and then cannot sustain itself?
Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend will understand that I am not speaking as the sponsor of the Bill but merely offering advice which I hope will be of help to him and his constituents.
Let me first explain that there will be no question but that compensation which is due to any person who is entitled to such compensation under the terms of the Bill, and in light of the scheme, will be paid. If the operators of the system become insolvent, no doubt they will have to seek an arrangement with their creditors, and if an arrangement ultimately results in their bankruptcy or liquidation, the responsibility for operating the railway will pass to another. As it will pass at a price which reflects the then partronage and ability to render the railway profitable, it will also ensure its rapid transition and its continuence.
My hon. Friend is well aware that there are many great buildings in London built by developers who did not survive. I remember reading an article in The Times by Simon Jenkins that pointed out that Cubitt and Nash, not to mention Reichmann, had all gone bust while building the greatest buildings in London. It may be a fate that will perennially beset developers with imagination. The last thing that happened was that the local council occupied the building or knocked it down. The facility is there and it will continue.
The merits of the scheme embodied in the Bill are such that I can invite the House to support it. The Government support it. [Interruption.] I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), who says that if I say

427
so, that is good enough for him. I look forward to him joining me in the Lobby later if required, although I hope that the Bill will receive an unopposed Second Reading.
I point out to those hon. Members who have it in mind to oppose the Bill—not that I believe that such a thought would pass through the minds of hon. Members—that it is an enabling measure. It will facilitate the development of the scheme to the point at which, for example, the project development group is able to make an application for grant. The amount of grant required and the efficacy of the scheme that is produced will ultimately be the test of whether the scheme will proceed.
The Committee will ensure that the legitimate interests of those affected by the Bill are properly dealt with. I have no doubt that it will examine carefully the point raised by the hon. Members for Thurrock and for Denton and Reddish about the necessity for adequate compensation. Knowing the promoters well—as the hon. Gentleman and I do—I recognise that they are organisations of substance and are not in the business of short-changing those with legitimate claims for disturbance or other compensation.
Although it is proper for hon. Members to express their concerns about the Bill, it is proper for the Bill to receive a Second Reading tonight so that it can proceed on its way to what it can represent—a valuable piece of imaginative and creative infrastructure in one of the most important development centres in the country, Croydon. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.
8.52 pm
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Before I add my support to the Bill, I was amused to hear the Minister refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) as the Labour mascot in Essex. I see him more as a beacon and a forerunner. Indeed, I know that role in formerly Tory Croydon, so I sympathise with my colleague.
While I welcome the Minister's support, I advise him, albeit humbly, to renew his acquaintance with a dictionary of political quotations over the summer recess. As he recognised when he was reciting them, to support the travelcard with "read my lips" and "safe in our hands" falls short of what we require. For a moment, I thought that we would get some Neville Chamberlain—waving the travelcard, the Minister would proclaim, "a travelcard in our time". The people of Croydon are locking up their travelcards tonight as they wait to get into hospitals that are safe in the Government's hands.
I have started on entirely the wrong note, because I rose to confirm the view of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) that the Bill has bipartisan support and the unanimous support of the substantial Labour group and the majority Conservative group on the Croydon council. Councillors have given their support after assessing the environmental factor and other factors that have been discussed today. They care about their environment and do not lightly support the measure. There is a strong consensus in Croydon for the measure, but there are some legitimate concerns that we need to recognise.
I have been told that Croydon last saw trams in 1951. Historians can correct me if I have got that slightly wrong. I am pleased that trams—albeit different, more modern
428
and more energy-efficient ones—may soon be returning to Croydon as the first place in greater London for that to happen. That is an important factor.
I support the Bill for three major reasons: social, economic and environmental. I support it for social reasons because I am aware that the New Addington housing estate is isolated from the centre of Croydon in many respects. The estate has many strengths as well as many problems. In a sense, it is poor testimony to that phase of our housing and planning policy when such large estates were built.
Anything that we can do to enable the people in New Addington in the constituency of the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir. P. Beresford) to get better and faster access to the centre of Croydon, not least for employment purposes, will be an improvement. That is important because more than a third of the people of New Addington have no access to a car. As has been pointed out, there is no rail link for a substantial town of 25,000 people. In peak times, it takes a bus 45 minutes to get from Addington to the centre of Croydon.
Those are all important facts and powerful reasons for supporting a modern transport system, not least for the people of New Addington. It is certainly important for employment because Croydon, like other areas in the south, suffers from unemployment. According to official Department of Employment figures, 18·8 per cent. of the men in New Addington are unemployed. If we enable them to have better access to a wider employment market, that may make a helpful impression on that high unemployment figure. Therefore, I support the measure for social reasons.
Another social factor is the great diligence shown by the planners to make tramlink accessible to people with frailties or those who have difficulty gaining access to buses or trains. I am thinking of people with disabilities, especially those in wheelchairs, as well as people with heavy shopping or people pushing buggies. All those groups will welcome tramlink. The Bill is impressive in terms of the regard shown by the planners for ramps and ticket machines that will be accessible to people with disabilities. It will be possible for people to take their wheelchairs on to tramlink easily and information will be provided in braille for blind people or those with poor sight. I am impressed by the social policy aspect of the measure.
Like many business people and others in Croydon, I believe that the measure will have a positive impact on the economic health of Croydon. As has been said, it has been welcomed by the Croydon chamber of commerce. It improves, by definition, the east-west transport links. Therefore, its economic impact along the route could, broadly speaking, be beneficial. It also relates to a more national concern that was well articulated in 1989 by the Confederation of British Industry in a report on transport.
The CBI said, among other things, that the nation's transport infrastructure was hopelessly inadequate, that congestion had enormous economic costs and estimated them at £15 billion a year or in excess of £10 a week for every household—the costs of poor transport on our economy and our business often not calculated, often hidden. It went on to say:
"Public transport facilities should be greatly improved."
Within our local economy of Croydon and other economies, tramlink helps to move things in the right direction.

429
We have rightly heard a lot about the environmental impact of the measure and clearly there are still doubts which have been articulated and which need further thought, as the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East is the first to recognise. We are still at the beginning of this story and there is time to improve on these matters. We need to make a balanced assessment and calculate both the potential negative impact on the environment and the beneficial impacts. We have heard about the former.. but not the latter.
Obviously, there are negative impacts. It may seem as though only a few houses will be affected, but if we lived in one of them, we would not want the railroad running through the middle of it. I will not break into song, although I remember one of that title. There may be only a few houses, but to those affected it is their house and it is important. I recognise that a larger number of houses will suffer an adverse environmental impact.
We must be greatly concerned about the impact on open spaces and the ancient woodland along the route. I am worried about these matters. An hon. Friend, who told me earlier that he had to leave the Chamber for a meeting, made some important points about open spaces. I do not know the details, but if we can persuade London Transport not to sell some open land for development, but to keep it as open space, perhaps we can make some environmental gain. I would be worried if we lost too many trees.
Let us see whether, through planting a wide variety of trees, we may come out of the scheme with more rather than fewer trees. I shall certainly urge the planners, as will my colleagues on the other side of the House who represent Croydon, to talk to the Ramblers Association and other organisations about these matters. I am bound to say that I am impressed by the way in which the planners, together with Labour and Conservative councillors, have loked at many of these things sensitively and in detail to develop a route that does the least environmental harm.
We have heard less about different types of environmental gains. We all know that in congested city areas, not least areas such as Croydon, the great enemy is the motor car. Many of us drive motor cars, so we cannot afford to be sanctimonious about this. We need to develop public transport systems with the right mix of public and private funding, which enable people often to opt for public transport rather than take the car.
The other day I looked at the 1991 census figures for Croydon and noticed that in part of the borough—indeed, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway)—some 10 per cent. of households now have three or more cars. We do not need to be very clever or great experts on conservation and the environment to know that we cannot go on buying more and more cars and using them more and more often. If, as a result of schemes such as Croydon tramlink, more of us are persuaded to use public transport rather than our own cars, environmental and energy gains become substantial.
I have been looking at figures and I am told that the car and motor vehicles more generally generate some 45 per cent. of the main greenhouse gas—carbon dioxide—and up to half the man-made emissions of nitrogen oxide. Those emissions contribute to acid rain. If one assesses the environmental impact as one should and develops an environmental impact statement for Croydon tramlink, there are items on both sides of the balance sheet, not just
430
one. My judgment is that the environmental gains of the scheme outweigh the disadvantages. In Committee and through more consultation, we can look at those questions in more detail than perhaps we have so far.
Mr. Merchant: I accept the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument on pollution, and so on, but does he accept that tramlink would not be helpful in reducing pollution emissions from motor cars because the promoters say that only 10 per cent. of people who travel on tramlink will be taken from motor cars?
Mr. Wicks: It depends whether one regards that 10 per cent. as a significant or a small proportion. In the battle against the motor car and people's obsession with it, a 10 per cent. gain is important. It remains to be seen whether the atmosphere in the centre of Croydon will be improved if we can couple the tramlink with greater pedestrianisation and more curbs on the use of private cars. As in many other towns and cities, atmospheric pollution in Croydon is above EC guidelines and we should be concerned about that. I would welcome a 10 per cent. impact.
Concerns have been expressed by many groups and I want to meet those groups and hear more about their concerns. I wish to remain as open-minded as I can on those matters. Nevertheless, I am struck by the fact that the Association of Croydon Conservation Societies supports the measure in principle. I suppose that it welcomes its environmental impact.
For those three reasons—social, economic and environmental—I support the Bill. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South made a good point when he talked of the need to enable and encourage British companies to contribute fully to the scheme. As one of his humble constituents, I like to agree with him, and I agree with him on that matter—[Interruption.] I never tell people how I vote.
Asea Brown Boveri has already been mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) has in his constituency the works that are currently building trams. ABB is now building trams for Strasbourg, which is another important European city, alongside Croydon. It is building something called a "supertram". My hon. Friend has invited me to York to look at those trams—
Mr. Ottaway: The trams are being built in Derby. I know, because I went there the other day.
Mr. Wicks: I hope to go to York soon and have a more fruitful discussion with my hon. Friend the Member for York about the building of the trams. Things can happen in two places at almost the same time. My hon. Friend the Member for York is clear about where some of the trams are being built. If we can encourage British firms to put in good bids, gains will be made all round.
I am glad that the first trams in London for 40 years or more will be introduced before too long, with support from both sides of the House, in London's largest borough. In terms of population, Croydon would count as England's tenth city. I am bipartisan in regarding it as becoming a modern European town. It is already a major centre of business and retailing, but it has a council and community who care deeply about their environment and they support the measure for environmental as well as social and economic reasons.

431
I support the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East. The tramlink is good for Croydon and is on the right lines.
9.7 pm
Sir Paul Beresford: It was intriguing to listen to the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), who justified much of his position on this evening's debate on rambling. He said that he had been rambling through my constituency.
I entirely agree with many of the points that have been made, particularly those about New Addington. I welcome the prospect of a decent transport system for people in that area. I shall ignore the fact that the hon. Gentleman has pre-empted great portions of my speech while rambling across my constituency and the parks.
Considerable credit must be, and has been, given to Croydon council. It unanimously supported the Bill, and promoted and pushed it forward in conjuction with London Transport.
Many comments have been made about the positive aspects of tramlink—the light rail idea—and bringing together so many different councils, including Croydon, Merton, Sutton and Bromley, as well as London Transport and British Transport. That shows the difficulty which the council, as promoter, must have had when bringing together the different organisations involved in the project.
The scheme is essentially to be constructed and funded by the private sector. The fact that it is anticipated that it will be self-financing when it is up and running also highlights the extraordinary ability of the promoters in pushing the scheme forward.
The scheme's benefits have been mentioned. It will be a quiet, low-pollution service linking central Croydon with Wimbledon, New Addington and Beckenham—I suspect that there may be some dispute about that later. It will link trams, trains, buses. Many of the stations involved have been mentioned, including Wimbledon, West Croydon, East Croydon, Elmers End, Beckenham Junction, Mitcham Junction and Birkbeck. The potential benefits have been extensively promoted this evening.
I wish that, over the years, the same approach had been taken by the council and the Department of Transport to the M25 link with Croydon—but that issue related to earlier events today.
Much credit must be given to the promoters for the care and thought given to assisting passengers, particularly for shoppers and those using wheelchairs, prams and trollies, through the use of canopies over the bus stops and train stations, as well as modern technological devices such as automated ticket machines and information displays and television cameras. Those issues were mentioned by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West.
It is worth quoting from a fact sheet produced by the tramlink team in August 1992, which states:
"Whilst tramlink has been promoted by London Transport and the London borough of Croydon, it is intended that the scheme will be financed, constructed, and operated, by the private sector".
That is an extremely commendable and bold statement, which greatly enhanced my attitude towards tramlink.
Unfortunately, the very next sentence in the statement states:
432
"A public sector contribution may be required to reflect the benefits to other road users of easing congestion".
That may cause some Conservative Members difficulties. Such a scheme, which anticipates considerable public benefit, must strongly tempt my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London to slip into the scheme a pump-priming sum. However, such a proposal presupposes that, despite all the demands on the limited budget for future years, the funds will be available. It also presupposes that it would be only a small pump-priming fund.
The prospect of a tramlink in an urban district such as Croydon presents considerable difficulties for many people along the route, particularly where the route is new. Many residents live along the route that is already under way between Wimbledon and Croydon. Much of the route which runs through to New Addington is new. It has raised many fears with residents which may or may not turn out to be justified.
Certainly the residents' fears have been all too real for them since the initial planning of the development. The fears have been greatest among those who wish to sell their houses and move. The scheme will affect many of those people—certainly in their own minds, and those of the estate agents. Their properties will fall outside the normal remit of compensation. I know that purchase of the properties would be prompt, but many of the residents who qualify for compensation do not wish to have their properties purchased, but wish to remain.
I wonder why such a long and tedious technique—the use of the private Bill procedure to take the Bill through both Houses—was chosen. An alternative, which was available, has been mentioned. Given the openness and relative speed offered by the alternative, I was a little surprised that the private Bill procedure was chosen. There has been considerable consultation, and some support, but there has been also considerable vocal and written opposition. I have received one letter in favour of tramlink, but I have received hundreds—not all of which were organised—against the scheme. People are worried.
Nevertheless, the hundreds who wrote opposing the scheme will be probably portrayed as few compared with the numbers of people who will be served by the tramlink and who live further from the area of development.
I add my congratulations to the promoters. Many of the arguments in petitions have been met. Variations in the routes have been considered—perhaps the rambling of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) will be allowed to continue freely through my constituency.
Many points, even if they have not been met, have been carefully looked at and assessed, but a few things need elaboration, because we have still to come to the Committee on the subject.
Mention was made earlier of the Park Hill area. Many residents of Park Hill—with considerable justification—feel anger at the widening of Barclay road, Fairfield road and Chepstow road, and the bulldozing of trees that that has made necessary. I accept that the council has tried to replace the trees, but the claim that the project was needed but was not related to tramlink stretches the credibility somewhat.
The tram will run adjacent to properties in Addiscombe road and through the frontage of Lloyd park. There is justifiable concern in those areas. Many protestors anticipate environmental damage, and I have mentioned that the Lynden Hyrst residents association has been

433
particularly vocal. I will use a slight exaggeration, but the residents feel that their toenails are trimmed by the scheme when they step out of their properties on to the pavement.
Many estate agents in the area believe that the development has reduced the value of local properties, but that will be overridden when the tramlink is running. I suspect that the estate agents will then use a reverse process and say that a property is worth more because the tramlink service is there, but until that day, there will be a considerable blight.
Going a little further, the tramlink service will progress down Gravel hill. The majority of local residents will be relatively unaffected—they will be across a multi-lane highway from the service, and also above it—but it is worth mentioning one petitioner; a lady who purchased a property before the announcement of the plans.
Her property is situated at what is effectively the bottom of the hill, where it is proposed that the tramlink will cross the multi-lane highway using an extensive and complicated system of lights. One can see in the plans that drawings that relate to tramlink noticeably—one could say, cynically—skirt the boundary of her property in such a way as to remove from the tramlink scheme the obligation of purchasing the property.
The lady would prefer to stay in her home—she has bought and extended it—but she does not want to stay with the tramlink running across her toes at the front of her garden. If tramlink proceeds, she would prefer to have her property purchased with full compensation. She would then move and start again. I believe that the promoters are looking seriously at the situation, and I encourage that. The knowledge that some public utilities may need to be changed in that area may well mean that the lady's hopes will be met.
It needs to be mentioned that the route will have a negative effect on the residents of the New Addington section in my constituency. Mention has been made of the prospect of park-and ride problems, and those problems need to be faced. However, the residents of Parkway and Central parade who live adjacent to the proposed tramlink face the prospect of living cheek by jowl with the route. That is particularly so when the route has to deviate to go around the medical centre. During the run-up to building the link, the perceived blight for those people will be considerable, even though the road is narrow at that point.
I expect that the blight will be considerable even when the tramlink is built, because that area is the stopping point at which the tram will move up to a blind junction and reverse down in front of and close to the properties of several people. Worst of all, I suspect that the rules and regulations on compensation are such that those residents will receive no compensation. I hope that I am proven wrong.
It is right that this paving Bill should progress through the House. The details show that it proposes a 10.-year period during which commencement of building must be undertaken. At this stage, we face the prospect of a £140 million building programme, but it appears that there is a touch of guesstimate rather than estimate in that figure.
Many of us are aware that the full assessment of the costs of key factors such as the realignment of public utilities has yet to be completed. I suspect that the original estimate of those costs may prove to be on the low side.
We need to bear in mind the importance of Croydon to such utilities as British Telecom, Thames Water, electricity suppliers, gas suppliers, cable companies and so on. I
434
understand that building the tramlink will cause particular difficulties for British Telecom, because it has a key junction with key facilities at an important point. As I understand it, the effect of that has not yet been taken into account.
My personal view is that any funding beyond pump priming from national coffers would be wrong.
Mr. Merchant: My hon. Friend's point about British Telecom is a fair one. Is he aware that interference from electrical discharges would have an impact on British Telecom apparatus, and that large quantities of that apparatus would have to be moved? Does he agree that that charge should be levied on the promoters of the scheme?
Sir Paul Beresford: I understand that British Telecom will be a petitioner in Committee. It will probably be more appropriate to discuss points of such technical difficulty at that stage.
The promoters expect that the line will be self-sufficient once it is up and running. On that point, the most sceptical eyebrows have been raised. For example, the link between Wimbledon and West Croydon has been running for many years under the gentle hand of British Rail. The line is poorly utilised, and I understand that it is accepted as a loss maker. Anticipation of a marked improvement in use to such a degree that the viability of that line in revenue terms would be increased stretches credibility.
When one takes into account the fact that commuters may be required to pay a premium, especially at key peak times, one wonders about the potential viability of the line in the light of the competition that will definitely come from bus services as a result of deregulation and lower bus fares in real terms.
Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend concede that one of the problems of the West Croydon to Wimbledon link is that British Rail has ensured that the service runs only once every 45 minutes, which misses out much of the market? More significantly, it would be linked only between West Croydon and Wimbledon, whereas tramlink links not only West Croydon and Wimbledon, but Wimbledon right through to East Croydon and beyond. That link to East Croydon is especially critical because it links Victoria and further south.
Sir Paul Beresford: I thank my hon. Friend for his points. The infrequency of the link could be related more to supply meeting demand, which, in that context, was not considered. I remain unconvinced that, apart from myself, the use of a line from Wimbledon straight through to New Addington would be of tremendous advantage to anyone. The attraction of using tramlink to travel from Wimbledon to Croydon and on to New Addington or Beckenham probably passes by most of the residents of Wimbledon and may continue to do so for some time, but I may be proved wrong.
There is the possibility that the Bill will be passed and left on the shelf for 10 years because the finances to build and run the scheme will not materialise. It worries me that, if that occurred, it would be difficult to remove the Bill from the statute book during that time. The plans will therefore blight the area for a further 10 years unless something is built into the Bill to allow Croydon council, perhaps, as one of the promoters, to withdraw it in the event that it proves not to be economically viable.

435
Nevertheless, I support the Bill, as it is a paving Bill, because the crunch decision time will be when the bids are made.
9.27 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I shall try to be brief, as I know that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) wants to speak.
I am a supporter of trams in London, although they are more like light railways these days than the old trams. Trams are an alternative to road building, and that is to be welcomed. I went to Croydon to look at the proposals for the scheme yesterday and also meant to see those who object, but due to the usual muddle, for which I take responsibility, I did not see them and I apologise to them.
There are merits in the proposals, as my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) said earlier. There would be big benefits in terms of creating employment, especially in the New Addington area, where 17 per cent. of the population of 25,000 are unemployed. The residents there are currently inadequately served, and under the scheme they would have the opportunity to get into central Croydon in 17 minutes, they would have access to part-time work in Purley, and they would have easy access to British Rail stations in central London. Those benefits should be taken into account.
Other advantages of an efficient public transport are the saving of travelling time, and a reduction in accidents and overall traffic congestion. However, I take on board the representations made by the objectors, that other traffic-calming measures would also be necessary if overall congestion is to be reduced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made some good points about open space. One of my concerns was that the scheme would use the edge of woodlands, although it could be argued that it gives access to those woodlands. However, compensatory land and trees need to be provided, and the objections of the ramblers, for example, should be fully taken into account.
There should also be better compensation for those who are affected by blight. Such compensation relates not only to this scheme, but to many others where it is unfair that people on the edge of schemes do not receive compensation. The Department should look into improving the compensation schemes for people just outside the affected areas.
The trouble is that the schemes seem to be chosen at random—first docklands, now Croydon. Although they are worth while, there may be other areas that would benefit even more from similar projects. There is no co-ordinated Government approach to trams, and there have been no studies of where they might best be sited in London. There has been no commitment of public money, and local authorities have not been helped to encourage the private investment which the Government claim to want.
This is a serious criticism. The Government have not co-ordinated tram projects and light railways in London. There is plenty of scope for trams in east London; the docklands light railway could be extended to my part of the world—
Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair. The Manchester metro receives substantial Government support, as does the south Yorkshire supertram project. Indeed, the very purpose of section 56 is to provide grants for systems such as this. The hon. Gentleman's reference to east London reminds me of Barking, which has expressed an interest in a light rail project. We shall be interested to see what it comes up with.
The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that it would be quite wrong of the Department to set a national plan for light rail systems. Local communities should develop their own plans and then submit them to the Department. Such cases may be eligible for grant, and the Department considers each on its merits.
Mr. Cohen: I am grateful for that statement. I welcome the projects in Manchester and elsewhere. London lags behind the rest of the country. The Department has been a factor in that. Many local authorities wonder whether they would really find approval in the Department for schemes that may involve pump priming with public money.
Mr. Bennett: Would it not also be an advantage if rolling stock were interchangeable, and if encouragement were given to the buying of rolling stock made in Britain?
Mr. Cohen: Those are both good points, and they make the case for involving the Department and promoting trams throughout the country, particularly in London.
If mainly private money is involved, that is fine by me, but the gap will have to be filled with public funds. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford) talked about a small element of pump priming, but for this scheme alone that is likely to amount to £45 million—probably good value for money, but hardly a small sum. I repeat that the Government should decide which areas should be given tram systems as a matter of priority, particularly in London. That is another argument for Department of Transport involvement.
There is some concern that fares may rise. I hope that they will he properly regulated, and that operators will not be given carte blanche to charge what they like. I also hope that pensioners will still be able to use their concessionary fare cards on the trams. With those provisos, I still think that there is merit in the scheme.
9.33 pm
Mr. Piers Merchant: My views on this Bill seem to have had a good airing this evening already. It is almost as if, by a process of osmosis, hon. Members have discovered what I intended to say.
It will come as no surprise to the House to learn that I have serious reservations about the Bill: in fact, I do not like it at all. I have listened to the debate with great interest and I have heard echoes of my own concerns in many of the speeches given. I believe that, if one were to delve a bit deeper into hon. Members' views, one would find that many share a number of my grave doubts.
I have listened to the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon). As I would have expected, he handled his brief with skill and charm. He is a close colleague of mine, whom I greatly respect; I admire his current work in his constituency and his past reputation as a councillor in Croydon borough.

437
He is my next-door neighbour, so the House will not be surprised to hear me say that, but it is my genuine opinion of him.
I share my hon. Friend's views on most local issues, including the quality and quantity of British Rail services and the future of South Norwood country park, which are particularly relevant to the Bill. We have worked closely together to save the park from a proposed development by Bromley borough, which would have devastated it. I therefore find it peculiar that he is now supporting a scheme that involves some destruction of the park.
Mr. Congdon: I have never made a secret of the fact that I would have preferred the scheme not to go through South Norwood country park. There was an option at an earlier stage that the tramlink should go up Elmers End road, but, unfortunately, Bromley council was not prepared to accept such a route. I can understand that, but the decision was unfortunate; hence the need to go across the country park. I would stress to my hon. Friend, however, that the impact on the park has been minimised, and that the route goes nowhere near the environmentally sensitive areas of the lake and the wetlands.
Mr. Merchant: I appreciate that my hon. Friend has concerns about the country park, and I am glad that he has expressed them.
Two immediate options are open to the promoters. One is for the system to end at Elmers End. That would bring the system into the Beckenham area—which my hon. Friend and the promoters seem to feel is an important and significant location. It would probably be possible to build a park-and-ride facility there, because there is a great deal of undeveloped land around Elmers End station.
The tramlink will come in to Elmers End, but only on a tiny shuttle service, which is projected to carry so few passengers that one wonders whether it will be worth running an hourly service on the line. The rest of the route into Beckenham could be left aside.
If the promoters feel that there is an advantage to be gained from taking the link further into Beckenham—which I question—another possibility is for the tramlink to run further alongside the British Rail line up to New Beckenham. There is a British Rail line, running from Elmers End right through Beckenham, which stops at stations such as Clock House, which is as close to the centre of Beckenham as Beckenham Junction station. That line also provides a direct route up to central London. If I have time, I will express some broader criticisms of the route into Beckenham junction and the need for it.
I want to make it clear that, although I am very critical of the Bill and many of the things that the promoters have suggested, I am not critical of my hon. Friend. I appreciate his position; he is, in a sense, a vehicle for the promoters of the scheme. I also appreciate that he recognises the need to ameliorate the traffic problems that exist in central Croydon. But the essence of my case is that, if there are problems there that need tackling, I do not see why it needs to involve the Beckenham area and running a link right up to Beckenham Junction.
I shall now turn to some of the remarks that have been made by other speakers this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East, who put the case for the promoters, rather simply and quickly dismissed the possibility of running better services on existing British Rail lines. I should like to ask him, and through him the
438
promoters, what detailed studies were carried out on the alternative routes that could have been built up around the existing British Rail system in that part of London.
I believe that, if such studies were carried out properly, one would see that it was perfectly possible to run a high level of service, if there is a demand for it, on existing British Rail lines, possibly with one or two fairly inexpensive adaptations, rather than building a whole new rail system costing, we are told, some £140 million.
Mr. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that many of the problems between tramways in Britain as opposed to tramways in Europe is that Europe has a whole series of regulations that allow joint running between tramways and heavy railways? So far, those regulations do not exist in Britain.
Clearly, one of the problems with many tramway schemes is that they cannot run, even for short distances, on railway tracks on which heavy trains run. I realise that there could be a major problem with possible accidents, but I would have thought that, with modern signalling, it should be possible to have joint running.
Mr. Merchant: I entirely accept that point. It is a genuine one, and relevant to the argument. The Department of Transport recently produced a detailed briefing on light rail systems, but it makes rather arbitrary distinctions between trams, light rail systems, rapid transport systems. Indeed, at the end of the day, what is a railway?
There is no clear divide between any of those different systems, other than the definitions that are imposed on them. There is a slow transformation from the heavy rail system at one end to the miniature light railway at the other. Only where regulations are drafted does there become a legal distinction between the two.
There is scope for investigating the possibility of having lighter vehicles on British Rail lines, perhaps at times mixed with existing heavy British Rail rolling stock. It should be possible to find means of allowing the tracks to run in closer proximity than they do at the moment—perhaps to be interchangeable to an extent.
The point with which I was dealing before the hon. Gentleman intervened was the use of existing British Rail track, not for the rolling stock to run on, but for the tramlink to run alongside. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East rightly said, over a large section, but not all, of the route in Beckenham, that is exactly what is proposed.
However, my criticism relates to what my hon. Friend said. It particularly relates to the promoters, who say that, because these people have a British Rail line running at the bottom of their gardens, it does not matter that they should also have a light rail system operating there as well. It is a very peculiar argument that, if one is already troubled, it does not matter if one is troubled a great deal more, and troubled continuously.
For people who live close to a railway line, there is a great difference between a line that carries only a couple of services an hour and none after 8 pm, which is the situation over most of the stretch in Beckenham, and the line that runs from Beckenham Junction via Crystal Palace to Victoria. The former is very much a secondary line, although it is important for the people who travel on it.
That line is not heavily used. That will change with the arrival of tramlink into the area, as through trams will run

439
possibly from 6 am until midnight, eight times an hour in each direction. That is a completely different situation. I reject the argument that it is acceptable to intensify use on that line. If anything, I believe that that is the one thing that should not happen. If we must have new transport systems in that area—something I challenge—they should not be in areas where people are already disturbed.
My constituency measures three miles by two miles and contains 14 BR stations serving destinations north, south, east and west. As some of my hon. Friends have explained, although there is a radial rail system in London which emerges from the centre of London, lines in my constituency run at perfect right angles to that. It is possible to travel east and west slightly more easily than it is to travel north and south. In addition to lines serving central London, it is possible to travel to Croydon on the existing BR system. However that service is difficult.
At present, there are two ways of travelling to Croydon. One way is via Addiscombe station, which will disappear under the tramway proposal, as that station will be removed and there will be no service to that area. Addiscombe is half a mile from East Croydon, and it is one and a half minutes by car—I know, because I have driven there.
Although I accept that that route is not as convenient as travelling right into the centre of Croydon, perhaps something could be done at the Croydon end to improve matters. However, there is a service at the moment from Beckenham to Croydon via Addiscombe. The other service runs via Crystal Palace.
With that transport infrastructure, it is questionable whether the people of Beckenham would benefit from the proposed tramlink.
Mr. Congdon: Will my hon. Friend at least concede that the best judgment about whether the people of Beckenham would see great value in tramlink lies with the assessment of the private operators as to whether the scheme would be viable? They judge that it would be viable as an integral part of the network. Will my hon. Friend at least concede that they, and not he or I, are the best people to judge?
Mr. Merchant: I have examined in extreme detail the assessments of the predicted number of passengers who would travel on every section of tramway. I have read the summaries and alternative proposals, which have been studied professionally and with great expertise. I believe that the promoters' figures for the use of the tramlink system are deeply and fatally flawed. I simply do not believe that the custom exists to make the system a viable project.
In addition, the prospect of capital finance emerging to make the project work is very unlikely. I suspect that, when people in the private sector are asked to come forward with large amounts of cash to finance the project, and they study in great detail the likely demand and passenger flow, they will conclude that it is a risk which is not worth taking.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North-East made great play about the private sector providing capital for the scheme. I am not against the private sector doing that if it wishes, but the promoters have made it clear to me —I have pursued the matter in some detail because it is of
440
great importance to me—that they will definitely need the addition of public funds in order to raise sufficient money to build the tramway system.
We now have a curious situation. The promoters say that they would like to build the system but that they will need public money and that they hope to raise private money on the back of the public money that will be pledged.
In addition, my hon. Friend the Minister has said, quite rightly, that he can give no pledge about public money for the system. He said that he would consider any application and that he might be in favour, but rightly added many caveats. He said that he would need to be convinced that the system was viable and that it would have to take its place among other competing systems.
The House has passed other such Bills. Indeed, I was on the Committee on one of them, and I did not oppose it, because I do not oppose light rail on principle. The system will have to take its place among those other demands and, most crucially, it will have to take its place alongside other Government priorities.
Perhaps I am doing an unusual thing, but I am offering my hon. Friend the opportunity not to have to come up with a large sum of public money. I am offering him a way out by suggesting that, if the Bill does not go through and the scheme is not developed, he can save the money that he might otherwise have felt obliged to put into it.
Mr. Ottaway: In such an eventuality, the money could be used for improving the road infrastructure in Croydon.
Mr. Merchant: That is possible, but I am sure that, if the House were offered £40 million and hon. Gentlemen were invited to decide how to spend the money, there would be no shortage of requests for it to be spent on a wide variety of alternative projects, either in transport or elsewhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said something that was echoed by a number of other hon. Gentlemen and caused me considerable concern. He said that this was only an enabling Bill. The implication is that it therefore does not matter much, and that we should give the project the go-ahead and see what emerges after all the details have been worked out. If we reach that stage, to whom should the promoters go for permission to continue? They will have to go to no one because, if they have the money, they can go ahead with the scheme within the wide powers given by the Bill.
My interest is the ordinary people who live in my constituency and, to an extent, those who live elsewhere but will be affected by the project, who have expressed grave concern about the impact that building and operating the tramlink will have on their houses and daily lives. They have a right to be heard, and they are entitled to have their concerns taken into account.
I know that the Committee will consider much of their evidence, and I am glad about that, but it will know that this is only an enabling Bill, so its members may feel that, on balance, the principle of the Bill is acceptable so long as various measures are taken to look after the concerns of the hundreds of people who will be affected by the tramlink.
When the pressure is off—the pressure of the commercial and transport lobby, who are pushing the scheme so hard—will the promoters be prepared to talk to those people who live in the houses affected? I suspect that

441
they will be far more interested in pushing ahead with the project, if they can get the money. So I am worried about the Bill being dismissed as simply an enabling Bill.
Mr. Michael Colvin: We have just been through a similar debate in relation to Southampton. The House failed to pass a similar project because no provisions had been made for park and ride. Can my hon. Friend tell the House how much provision has been made in this case for car parks, so that people can park their cars before getting on the tramway system? That is fundamental to the viability of the system.
Mr. Merchant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that, because it is essential. Very few, if any, light rail systems of this nature can operate without feeder passengers and park-and-ride facilities. That is simply because enough passengers cannot be attracted from a wide enough area to make such a system viable, particularly in the deregulated and competitive atmosphere that we are likely to face by the time the project, if it goes ahead, is built.
The only way in which such systems can become viable is by having good park-and-ride provision. There is no such provision in the system. It is not catered for by the Bill, and its promoters have been extremely coy about the possibility of it. In fact, they have effectively said that they have rejected the addition of park-and-ride facilities in most areas of the system.
In Beckenham, about which I am most concerned, the Beckenham Junction link has no park-and-ride facilities at all. That is of grave concern to my constituents, because they feel that the immediate danger they face is that people who use the system will come in—
Mr. Congdon rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 8.

Division No. 356]

[9.55 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Burns, Simon

Alexander, Richard

Burt, Alistair

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Butcher, John

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Butler, Peter

Allen, Graham

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Amess, David

Cash, William

Ancram, Michael

Chapman, Sydney

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Clappison, James

Arbuthnot, James

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Cohen, Harry

Austin-Walker, John

Colvin, Michael

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Congdon, David

Baldry, Tony

Conway, Derek

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Barnes, Harry

Corbyn, Jeremy

Bates, Michael

Cousins, Jim

Bayley, Hugh

Cox, Tom

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Cryer, Bob

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Benton, Joe.

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Day, Stephen

Bermingham, Gerald

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Dewar, Donald

Boateng, Paul

Dixon, Don

Boswell, Tim

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Boyes, Roland

Dover, Den

Brandreth, Gyles

Dowd, Jim

Brazier, Julian

Duncan, Alan

Bright, Graham

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

442

Durant, Sir Anthony

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Eggar, Tim

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Etherington, Bill

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Maxton, John

Fishburn, Dudley

Milligan, Stephen

Forman, Nigel

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Forth, Eric

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Morley, Elliot

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Fraser, John

Mullin, Chris

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Nelson, Anthony

Fry, Peter

Nicholls, Patrick

Gallie, Phil

Norris, Steve

Gerrard, Neil

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Gillan, Cheryl

Page, Richard

Godsiff, Roger

Paice, James

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Patnick, Irvine

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Pickles, Eric

Gorst, John

Pike, Peter L.

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Grocott, Bruce

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Gunnell, John

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Hague, William

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

Prescott, John

Hampson, Dr Keith

Richards, Rod

Hardy, Peter

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Harris, David

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Haselhurst, Alan

Rooney, Terry

Hayes, Jerry

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Heald, Oliver

Short, Clare

Hendry, Charles

Simpson, Alan

Heppell, John

Skinner, Dennis

Hinchliffe, David

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Hood, Jimmy

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Hoyle, Doug

Snape, Peter

Hunter, Andrew

Soames, Nicholas

Jack, Michael

Spearing, Nigel

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Spellar, John

Jenkin, Bernard

Sproat, Iain

Jessel, Toby

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Stephen, Michael

Khabra, Piara S.

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Kirkhope, Timothy

Straw, Jack

Knapman, Roger

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Thomason, Roy

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Knox, Sir David

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Tracey, Richard

Legg, Barry

Trend, Michael

Leighton, Ron

Trotter, Neville

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Wallace, James

Lewis, Terry

Waller, Gary

Lidington, David

Walley, Joan

Lightbown, David

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Watts, John

Loyden, Eddie

Wells, Bowen

Luff, Peter

Whittingdale, John

Lynne, Ms Liz

Wicks, Malcolm

McAvoy, Thomas

Willetts, David

McCartney, Ian

Winnick, David

McFall, John

Wise, Audrey

MacKay, Andrew

Wood, Timothy

Mackinlay, Andrew

Wray, Jimmy

Maclean, David

Yeo, Tim

McLeish, Henry

Madden, Max

Tellers for the Ayes:

Mahon, Alice

Mr. Vivian Bendall and Mr. Richard Ottaway.

Maitland, Lady Olga

Marek, Dr John

NOES

Beggs, Roy

Spink, Dr Robert

Bennett, Andrew F.

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Horam, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Mr. Piers Merchant and Mr. Edward Leigh.

Shaw, David (Dover)

Bill read a Second time, and committed.

Croydon Tramlink Bill [Lords]
  ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1993–94
  It being after Ten o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates), put forthwith the deferred Question on Estimates and Supplementary Estimates, 1993–94 (Class VIII, Vote 1) and the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the other estimates appointed for consideration this day.
  ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1993–94

    Class VIII, Vote 1
    Resolved,
    That a further sum, not exceeding £1,807,298,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Home Office on compensation for criminal injuries, probation, police and superannuation payments for police and fire services.

    Class VIII, Vote 3
    Resolved,
    That a further sum, not exceeding £745,493,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Home Office on police, the forensic science service, emergency planning, fire, the Fire Service College, court services, other services related to crime, probation and after-care, miscellaneous services, prevention of drug abuse, control of immigration and nationality, issue of passports etc., community services; and on administration (excluding the provision made for prisons administration carried on Class VIII, Vote 2).

    Class IX, Vote 1
    Resolved,
    That a further sum, not exceeding £427,760,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Lord Chancellor's Department on the court service, magistrates' courts, legal aid administration, tribunals, the court building programme, certain other legal services and a payment to the Land Registry Trading Fund.

    Class IX, Vote 5
    Resolved,
    That a further sum, not exceeding £135,693,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during
    444
    the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Crown Prosecution Service on administrative costs including the hire of private prosecuting agents.
    MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Question which she was directed to put pursuant to paragraph (I) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.)
    Resolved,
    That a further sum, not exceeding £92,536,513,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1994, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 495, 496, 497 and 711.
    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the five foregoing Resolutions and upon the Resolution of 10th June and the eight Resolutions of 8th July, relating to estimates, by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Michael Portillo, Mr. Stephen Dorrell, Sir John Cope and Mr. Anthony Nelson.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (NO. 2) BILL
    Mr. Anthony Nelson accordingly presented a Bill to apply a sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on 31st March 1994, to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, and to repeal certain Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Acts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 192.]
    10.10 pm
    Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 7 February 1992, as can be found in column 325 of Hansard, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) asked a question about the Widgery tribunal, which was answered by the Attorney-General. I tabled a question for 18 October, which came fourth in the list of questions to the Attorney-General on that subject. I have now received a letter saying that it has been transferred to questions on Northern Ireland—which means that, as far as oral questions for 18 October are concerned, it has disappeared. However, it is clearly established by precedent that such matters should be dealt with by the Attorney-General: he deals with tribunal issues.
    I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. How can I ensure that my question is re-established on the list of questions to be answered orally by the Attorney-General?
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): That is not a matter for the Chair; the hon. Gentleman must pursue it with the Ministers concerned.

  Suppression of Terrorism (India)
  10.12 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I beg to move,
  That the draft Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 (Application of Provisions) (India) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.
  Extradition is the cornerstone of the international effort to ensure that criminals cannot escape justice by crossing frontiers. It is increasingly recognised by Governments that this effort needs to be reinforced. The order will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the extradition treaty that we concluded with India in 1992.
  Extradition arrangements with India go back for over a century. This new treaty strengthens them, and sends an important message to terrorists that their activities will not be tolerated. To a very large extent, the treaty replicates the existing arrangements—the Commonwealth scheme —under which we and India are already able to extradite suspected or convicted offenders between ourselves, and indeed almost all other Commonwealth countries. Some hon. Members have asked why we need to have a treaty at all. As I will demonstrate, the treaty is an important joint statement of our mutual determination to defeat terrorism, for there are two new features which the order will enable us to introduce for the first time into our arrangements with India.
  First, we and the Indian Government have agreed that, for the purposes of extradition between us, a fugitive will no longer be able to resist his extradition on the grounds that any of the offences listed in the treaty was of a "political" character, and therefore outside the scope of extradition. That will bring our arrangements with India into line with those with almost all western European states, and with the United States of America.
  The listed offences, which find their equivalent in schedule 1 to the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978, are serious, and they are those most likely to be terrorist related. Among other things, they relate to the hijacking of aircraft, hostage taking, murder, manslaughter and serious physical assaults, causing explosions, and some firearms offences. I am sure that no Member of the House would wish those accused of such crimes to be able to escape extradition solely on the ground that they are politically motivated. Indeed, I do not believe that our courts would accept that incidents of terrorist violence should be regarded as political. So this element of the treaty is not so much a curtailment to one of the traditional safeguards that all extradition arrangements have contained as a tightening of the law.
  Let me assure the House that the treaty does not affect any other safeguard for the fugitive. Every case will continue to be considered on its merits and in strict accordance with our law. Offences under military law will continue to, be outside the scope of extradition, unless they are also offences under the general criminal law of both countries.
  Mr. Max Madden: Will the Minister tell the House how many applications for extradition India has made in the past 10 years, and how many complaints it has made about the current provisions of the Commonwealth scheme?
  Mr. Maclean: I am not aware of any severe complaints about the Commonwealth scheme, but since the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 came into force on 1 September 1967 the Indian Government have extradited one person to the United Kingdom in 1978, and that person was later convicted here of perjury and various forgery charges. I understand that three applications are currently outstanding, two from 1985 for conspiracy and deception suspects and one from 1987 for a conspiracy and fraud suspect. I hope that that is a full answer to the hon. Gentleman.
  The important point is that the country to which a fugitive is returned will continue to be unable to add on any new charges for offences that were not disclosed by the same set of facts as the extradition offence, unless the returning country has consented. All requests to this country will continue to be scrutinised twice by Ministers, and at least once by the courts.
  Mr. Terry Dicks: My hon. Friend's statement so far assumes that the Indian Government act as a democratic organisation, but they do not. Some of my hon. Friends and I believe that if people are deported, their human rights will not be recognised, as is often the case in India now.
  Mr. Maclean: I shall come to India's human rights record in a moment, and to the firm assurances that the Indian Government have given the British Government. I know that there are deeply held views on both sides of the Chamber and on both, or all, sides of the argument. However, I must be concerned not with political matters but with ensuring that any application that comes before the British Government and the British courts is treated fairly and objectively in terms of British law. I assure my hon. Friend and all hon. Members that, whatever their individual opinions may be about the political situation in other countries, including India, that is not a consideration for the British courts.
  Mr. Keith Vaz: Why not?
  Mr. Maclean: When such cases come before Ministers and before the British courts, the facts will be studied. A prima facie case, which would satisfy our courts that there is a case to answer, will have to be produced. I do not think that my hon. Friends would want the British courts to start involving themselves in extraneous political considerations.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: My hon. Friend will know about the present problems relating to the availability of legal aid. Will he assure the House that any individual subjected to such pressure will be properly represented in court? Surely we should guarantee that as a basic right of any individual in such a position.
  Mr. Maclean: I do not think that my hon. Friend is suggesting that we should make special or additional changes to the legal aid scheme. He knows how it operates and all those who are eligible for it. I would merely stress that any applications coming before the British Government will be scrutinised twice by Ministers and at least once by the British courts. We will be scrutinising them on the basis of the facts and whether there is a prima facie case to answer.
  Mr. John Heppell: With how many states outside western Europe have the Government separate extradition treaties?
  Mr. Maclean: We have an extradition treaty with most countries in western Europe and with the United States of America. We have now concluded an extradition treaty with India. Whether we have further extradition treaties with other countries is a matter for negotiation and consideration. The countries that would want to seek reciprocal arrangements with us are inevitably those that have an interest in terrorist matters. Those countries that have no terrorist problems are unlikely to want to conclude a treaty with us, although we have deep concerns about terrorism.
  Extradition will remain the ultimate discretion of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and his decisions will continue to be the subject of scrutiny by the courts. He must refuse if there is reason to believe the request is not bona fide or if the person's trial or treatment on return would be prejudiced by his or her race, religion, nationality or political opinions. We take that duty and obligation very seriously.
  Sir Dudley Smith: I appreciate what my hon. Friend is trying to achieve and I am not against the general principle. However, is he aware that a large number of Sikhs who are British citizens are very much opposed to many of the efforts of the Indian Government, particularly on matters of human rights? They must be at least uneasy about some of the provisions.
  Mr. Maclean: I note and respect the point that my hon. Friend has made. Of course, I am aware of those concerns, which will be felt in many quarters, and I shall talk about human rights in a moment.
  I repeat the sentence that I have just uttered about the duty on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself in considering the cases. We will operate as we are required to do by law. We must refuse if there is reason to believe that the request is not bona fide or if we suspect or have reason to believe that the person's trial or treatment on return would be prejudiced by reason of race, religion or nationality. I can give my hon. Friend that firm assurance.
  Mr. Tom Cox: The hon. Gentleman rightly talks about the role of the courts here. However, is he equally aware that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber are concerned about the role of the courts in India? What assurance do we have from the Indian Government that anyone who is extradited from this country to India will soon be brought before the courts, will have adequate legal representation in the courts and will not be subject to pressures—whatever pressures they may be, and there will most certainly be physical pressures —once they are returned to India?
  Mr. Maclean: We would not have concluded the treaty or be bringing the order before the House if we had good reason to believe that those suggestions would turn out to be the reality.
  Of course, we shall monitor carefully any requests for extradition. If one were received and granted, we would monitor carefully what happened if and when a person was returned.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Maclean: I have given way a great deal already and many hon. Members want to speak. I wish to conclude my remarks and hon. Gentlemen may make their own speeches.
  The Secretary of State must also refuse if it would be unjust or oppressive to return the person either because the offence was trivial or committed a long time ago or where there is reason to believe that the accusation was not made in good faith or in the interests of justice.
  Genuine political refugees have nothing to fear from the treaty or from the order. Our law will continue to preclude extradition where we believe that the request has been politically motivated, and the treaty contemplates nothing less. [Interruption.] I must make progress. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs also wishes to speak in this debate.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members know that, if the Minister does not give way, they must resume their seats.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Many of us know that we will not be called in this debate. If we have reasonable points to put briefly to the Minister, as a courtesy to the House he should at least let us put them to him.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not for the Chair to decide.
  Mr. Maclean: I deliberately kept my speech short to allow as many hon. Members as possible to intervene. I have already given way a number of times in this short debate—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must contain themselves.
  Mr. Maclean: I am sure—
  Mr. Pike: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Maclean: I will not give way.
  I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that suspected terrorists should not be able to exploit a defence that was certainly not intended to shield them from the justice of our democratic partners. We cannot allow the United Kingdom to be seen as a safe haven for such people. The effect of the order is to say to fugitives that they cannot escape justice for serious crimes simply by claiming that they were politically motivated. If we are satisfied that they will receive fair treatment, they can expect to be returned.
  It is obvious that some hon. Members will remain concerned at the prospect of returning terrorists or, indeed, anyone else to India because of anxiety about human rights in that country.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister spoke of "returning terrorists" to India in advance of a trial. Surely, he should not say that. He should say people who are accused, suspected or indicted on charges—he should not say that they are terrorists.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is a point for debate; it is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Maclean: I am sorry that the debate has come down to such semantics. If it makes hon. Members happy, of course I mean suspected terrorists.

  449
  We recognise the genuine concerns of hon. Members about the human rights situation. We have spoken frankly to the Indian Government about the importance that we attach to human rights. We have been encouraged by the decision of the Indian Government to legislate for an independent Indian human rights commission. The Indian Prime Minister has assured us that violations of human rights are and will be fully investigated and wrong-doers punished. He is determined to ensure that his country deserves international respect, of which this treaty is an expression.
  I explained earlier that the treaty and the order contain two differences from our previous extradition arrangements with India under the Commonwealth scheme. I have spoken briefly about the first difference and, undoubtedly, many hon. Members will have points to make about that. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is here to take on board those points and respond to them, if he has an opportunity to do so.
  Mr. Vaz: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a proper point of order.
  Mr. Vaz: It is a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the second time in 24 hours that a Home Office Minister has come to the Dispatch Box and read out a speech prepared by the Home Office without giving way to hon. Members on either side of the House. This order is as important as any other business before the House. It concerns the ratification of a treaty that has been signed by a Minister.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: It is not a matter of order for the Chair. As I said before, and as the hon. Gentleman knows full well, it is a matter for whoever has the floor of to decide whether to give way. As a matter of fact, the Minister has given way.
  Mr. Maclean: For the record, I have given way five times in a one-and-a-half-hour debate.
  The second new feature is the extension of United Kingdom jurisdiction over certain of the more serious offences listed in schedule 1 to the 1978 Act when they have been committed or attempted in India.
  Extra-territorial jurisdiction can be a valuable tool in our efforts to bring criminals to justice. It is an alternative to extradition, rather than a replacement for it. For example, under the order, a person could be prosecuted in the United Kingdom for causing an explosion in India with intent to endanger life if, for some reason, extradition were not possible and all the evidential requirements of our system could be met. The same would apply in a case of murder, kidnapping, hijacking, and other serious terrorist offences. This new jurisdiction in the case of India will also enable us, in due course, to ensure that our courts arc able to enforce the orders of Indian courts confiscating terrorists' funds. That will be the subject of an Order in Council under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.
  Because certain serious crimes of violence committed in India will, as I have explained, become offences in the United Kingdom, it will as a consequence become an offence in the United Kingdom to conspire to incite in the United Kingdom people to commit such serious crimes of violence in India. Once again, this will bring our arrangements with India into line with those with most
  450
  western European countries and the United States of America. Just as it is unacceptable that those who commit in India serious crimes of this nature should abuse the extradition procedures of this country—
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Maclean: I shall conclude this section and then give way briefly.
  Those who organise crimess from this country cannot be allowed to escape the consequences, simply because their intention was to see a very serious crime committed in another country. Needless to say, any such charge would have to be accompanied by sufficient evidence to persuade our courts that it was substantiated.
  Mr. Heald: Many of my constituents who are Sikhs and Kashmiris are concerned that, whereas in Europe we are reasonably satisfied that the judicial arrangements for the people who are extradited are acceptable, in India the judicial system is not as effective and has a political background to it, so there is a risk of not getting a fair trial. Would my hon. Friend wish to comment on that?
  Mr. Maclean: We take the view that, if we can conclude an extradition treaty with another democratic Government, it is because we have been satisfied that the judicial system is such that trials will be fair. I repeat: before anyone is extradited, he or she will have to satisfy British legal procedures and British Ministers that there is a prima facie case to answer. The burden of proof will he the same burden as we have in British courts in the present committal proceedings.
  Obviously, genuinely held doubts and concerns will remain in some quarters of the House. Let me re-emphasise that, to a very large degree, the treaty represents nothing more than an endorsement of the current state of affairs. But it also shows, importantly, that we intend to fight terrorism in co-operation with the Indian Government.
  The Indian Parliament is already part-way through the process of making the necessary legislative arrangements to enable ratification of the treaty. The order will come into force only when the Indian procedures have been completed, and on the day when we exchange instruments of ratification.
  The bulk of the treaty requires no legislation in order to give effect to it in this country, but its two special features, which are the subject of the order and which I have endeavoured to explain simply, mark it out. They send a firm message to terrorists that neither we nor the Indians will tolerate their activities within our borders and that we will ensure that they face justice in one or other of our countries if they do not take heed.
  I commend the order to the House.
  10.32 pm
  Mr. Graham Allen: Last night the Government introduced a series of petty, grudging and introverted measures to handicap our immigration and asylum appeals system. Only one day later, they bring to the House another measure which may be the subject of widely differing interpretations. The Labour party and. I hope, every hon. Member fully supports initiatives intended to combat terrorism and human rights abuses.

  451
  The danger is that the Government may be seen to be dealing with one of those problems, through this extradition treaty, at the expense of the other.
  The treaty was widely criticised for the context in which it was signed. We certainly want to increase trade with a close friend and ally, as India is, but is this order the political price being extracted for a number of trade deals? When the Prime Minister visited India—indeed, when he addressed the British-Indian parliamentary group earlier this week—were human rights as high as trade issues on his agenda? I hope that the Minister will answer that question.
  The Labour party welcomes in principle terrorism extradition provisions, wherever they apply. Terrorism is not merely a blight on the democracies of the west but, sadly, must be faced by all democracies. We must be constantly vigilant against it and the Labour party has always supported all reasonable international attempts to bring terrorists to trial.
  The Government cannot, however, hide behind our loathing of terrorism. A number of questions about the order must be answered and I hope that the Minister or his colleague will answer our five basic questions—the Minister has already tackled one or two of them in his speech—when he winds up the debate.
  First, why do the Indian Government require additional powers? Has a case been made for saying that the Commonwealth extradition agreement is not adequate to tackle the problems of the issue facing India and the United Kingdom?
  Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) asked, how many complaints have been received about the inadequacy of the Commowealth extradition agreement? At face value, only one request in 10 years from the entire area hardly shows a massive demand for change.
  Thirdly, what new powers will be exercised under the new treaty? Is it window dressing or a diplomatic symbol agreed because of the Prime Minister's visit to India?
  Fourthly, if India can get a separate treaty, are the Government negotiating a further treaty with any other country with terrorism problems?
  Fifthly, on a more technical issue, do the provisions of the extradition treaty apply to people with dual nationality as well as to Indian nationals?
  Our welcome for the order is tempered by a grave disquiet about continuing reports of breaches of human rights in India, many of which are alleged to he perpetrated or implicitly condoned by those in positions of power in both the military and the Government there. I will elaborate on that issue shortly.
  Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend mentioned violations of human rights. He will therefore recognise the problem of Kashmir. Is it not strange that, although the Government said that the relevant United Nations resolution should be applied to Kashmir, they now seem prepared to waive that? How will they regard a political offence in relation to Kashmir when for many years they have clearly refused to carry out the United Nations resolution?
  Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend makes a telling point.
  Mr. David Young: Will my hon. Friend take on board the concern felt by many hon.
  452
  Members who represent Kashmiri communities about the Indian Government's failure to allow Amnesty International, the press and Members of Parliament from this country to visit India to investigate the position there? The way in which the measure is being railroaded through makes the British legal system look like an instrument for Indian oppression. Is there not a deep and abiding concern that the term "terrorist" may be being used instead of the term "freedom fighter"? We are against genuine terrorists, but the United Kingdom cannot act as an instrument of oppression of another state.
  Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend will know that Labour Members—not least my hon. and right hon. Friends from the shadow Foreign Office team—have raised those matters continually and will continue to do so. However, I am pleased to welcome the fact that the Indian Government are prepared to allow international human rights organisations to enter areas of concern. I understand that for some years Amnesty International was not allowed to visit parts of Kashmir. I shall seek further reassurances on the subject, but I am pleased to hear what I understand to be an agreement to the effect that Amnesty International will be allowed to go in and investigate matters where it feels it appropriate to do so.
  On the issue of human rights abuses, Amnesty
  International's 1992 report states:
  "25,000 political prisoners, including some prisoners of conscience, were held without charge or trial under special or preventative detention laws. Torture and ill-treatment continued to be widespread and systematic, resulting in scores of deaths in custody. Hundreds of people 'disappeared' or were extra-judicially executed in 'encounters' staged by the police or security forces. The security forces deliberately killed unarmed civilians suspected of supporting insurgents. At least six people were judicially executed."
  I think that the House will agree that if that report is
  correct it is profoundly disturbing for a country which holds a special and honoured place in the fellowship of modern democratic nations.
  Mr. John Watts: The hon. Gentleman said that the fact that the Indian Government were expressing a willingness to open up to Amnesty International and take action on human rights was to be welcomed. Does he agree that it would have been better if the British Government had waited until the measures were in place so that the Indian Government could point to an improved human rights record before the order was brought before the House tonight?
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
  Mr. Allen: The response from both sides of the House to the hon. Gentleman's intervention shows hon. Members' feelings on the subject.
  Mr. Corbyn: While an examination by Amnesty International or other human rights organisations of the conditions in which prisoners are held is important and necessary, and should have been available for 20 years, does not a fundamental problem remain? The police in India have taken upon themselves—with Government support—the power to arrest and detain without charge or trial for unlimited periods, in secret prisons and without the opportunity for the due process of law. It is on that basis that torture follows.
  Mr. Allen: The Acts passed in India which legitimise many of the practices to which Amnesty International and

  453
  I have referred lie at the centre of the problem. The state appears to feel that it is under threat and therefore passes Acts which legitimise actions that would be deplored by all hon. Members. That is one of the reasons why we are less than enthusiastic about supporting the extension of extradition rights, which were previously limited to our European Community partners and the United States.
  Such issues have led my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, West, for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) and many other colleagues from both sides of the House to attend the debate. I pay tribute to them for doing so. It should be placed on record that many hon. Members from all parties are present. To my knowledge, there is no three-line Whip for the debate. The fact that both sides of the House are crowded at this time of night and on such a day shows the seriousness with which hon. Members view the subject.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, and what he has just said about the presence of hon. Members from both sides of the House who are extremely concerned about the human rights aspects of the matter. Without wishing to embarrass the hon. Gentleman, as the official Labour spokesman on the subject, will he join in the Lobby a number of us who feel that we must vote against the extradition treaty?
  Mr. Allen: I hope that it will become clear as I continue my speech that the Opposition feel that the extradition provisions on terrorism are obviously necessary in some parts of the globe. I do not believe that anyone would wish to be associated with any weakening of the fight against terrorism. But equally, I hope that the reservations that I have outlined so far will make it clear to hon. Members on both sides of the House that we have some profound difficulties with the way in which the Government have drawn up the agreement and the way in which they are proceeding tonight.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Allen: No, I wish to make some progress. I have been relatively generous in giving way. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
  It would be unfair and unbalanced exclusively to blame the Indian authorities for abuses of rights in India. There is no question but that militant groups have also been responsible for breaches of human rights. For example, in their report on human rights in Jammu and Kashmir. Asia Watch and Physicians for Human Rights identified executions, rape, torture and indiscriminate attacks by militant groups in Kashmir. Those abuses can never be ignored or condoned, regardless of any personal views about the status of Kashmir.
  If the Government had accompanied signing the treaty or publication of the order with a condemnation of rights abuses of all natures by all parties in India, and made positive proposals to help to reduce them, perhaps their stance would be more acceptable. No one underestimates the massive and intractable difficulties facing India and its political society. Once again, however, I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity, either in his reply or in an intervention, to reassure the House that the Government will make every effort to promote the cause of human rights in India.
  454
  We unequivocally welcome the apparent change in the Indian Government's policy on allowing Amnesty into areas to which it was previously denied access. If the provisions are not to lead to miscarriages of justice, abuse of rights—as I have said, hon. Members are right to have expressed anxiety at the extent of abuse in India—it is vital that the British Government effectively enforce articles 9 and 16 of the treaty. Article 9 allows refusals of extradition on the grounds of political opinion, and article 16 allows refusals on the grounds that the death penalty may be incurred.
  We need reassurances from the Minister not only that adequate safeguards exist but that the political will exists to enforce them. Assurances must be given that the treaty would be suspended if the death sentence would he imposed on anyone extradited from Britain under the treaty. I urge the Minister not to hesitate to refuse extradition if a real risk exists of the accused receiving an unfair trial.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman has rightly identified some reservations that are held by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, but four times I have counted the hon. Gentleman saying that his party has supported the general fight against terrorism. Why, then, has his party consistently opposed the Prevention of Terrorism Act?
  Mr. Allen: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving way to the hon. Gentleman. He becomes a bigger joke every time he opens his mouth.
  The Minister might also take the chance later to comment on the worries that many hon. Members have about the long delays in bringing cases to trial in India. Commenting on other nations taking a long time to bring cases to trial may wear a little thin when we look at the record of the judiciary and legal system in Britain. None the less, the delays are a serious matter and I hope that the Minister will take them into consideration.
  The Government must also be sensitive to the signals that the order may give to the settled communities in the United Kingdom. Fears have rightly been expressed about the implications for legitimate fund-raising activities in the communities in the United Kingdom. That fear is that they might eventually be drawn into the extradition net as well. I understand that further proposals to limit fund raising are possibly in the pipeline. I hope that the Minister will reassure the wider communities who do a great deal of perfectly legitimate fund raising that there is no possibility of those who raise such funds being caught by any provision which might result in their extradition.
  Mr. Dicks: Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the activities of the Indian security services among the Sikh and Muslim communities in this country?
  Mr. Allen: If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of such activity, we shall all be interested to hear about it. I have none.
  This order is a small piece of a larger puzzle. That puzzle is not a matter for us; it is a picture that the Indian Government and people will have to piece together. It will involve establishing a safe and democratic role for India in the international community. India will have to resolve its relationship with its neighbours, especially Pakistan. It will also have to work out solutions to the ethnic and religious troubles from which its communities suffer. These

  455
  problems are the province of the people of India and only they can resolve them. As a long-standing friend of India, the British Government have a crucial role to play. We shall be respected as India's friend only by being—and being seen to be—even-handed.
  10.50 pm
  Mr. Gary Waller: It might be said that nothing could be more reasonable or right than an extradition treaty directed against terrorism. Treaties of this kind, however, should only be concluded between countries whose legal processes and methods of upholding justice and order show a close correspondence. It is to my great regret that that cannot be said of our country and India, despite the fact that it is a great country with which we wish to enjoy the warmest relations.
  There must be serious doubts about the wisdom of concluding an extradition treaty with a country whose recent human rights record reads as badly as India's. For many years, I have been a member of Amnesty International. It has a first-class record of investigating allegations of human rights abuse and of recording their outcome without fear or favour. Any country whose record is under scrutiny is unwise to seek to undermine Amnesty's reputation.
  Recognising pressure from this and other directions, India has often, and for many years, promised to open up the country to visits from human rights organisations, but invariably applications for such visits have ended up with refusals or obstruction. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) should pay close attention to that fact.
  Recently, assurances have been given that such visits would be acceptable in principle, provided that state and central Governments were both in agreement. But only a matter of a few days ago, Amnesty's visit to Bombay—I remind the House that there is no insurgency there—was refused. It is therefore hardly surprising that some scepticism about such announcements has developed.
  Interestingly enough, three days ago, on 17 July, the Indian High Commissioner in London, Dr. Singhvi, stated on a BBC World Service broadcast that international human rights organisations would now be allowed to enter Kashmir "under certain conditions". He repeated the offer on Monday in the presence of many of the hon. Members who are present for this debate. Although the commitment is welcome in principle, it would be helpful to know what those conditions are.
  Will Amnesty officials be allowed to talk not only to security officers and Government officials but to representatives of opposition groups and nongovernmental organisations? Will they be able to travel freely without military or Government escort? We need answers to these key questions. As Her Majesty's Government have in the past urged India to admit human rights organisations, I hope that they will press for this agreement in principle to be put speedily into effect, with none of the restrictions that would throw doubt on the ability of human rights organisations to investigate fully and freely.
  456
  Concern has been expressed about how the treaty will relate to the disputed areas of Jammu and Kashmir. Many would argue that, since those areas are still subject to dispute, special provisions should apply to that treaty.
  One cannot overlook the reports of apparently deliberate killings of unarmed civilians by members of the security forces. One cannot ignore the widespread claims of torture, rape and the arbitrary arrests of suspected separatists. An increasing number of them are alleged to have disapeared or died while in custody. Since 1985, nearly 500 cases of deaths in custody have been recorded in India. Very few have been investigated properly. Amnesty and other organisations have recorded hundreds of such cases, and I wish there was time in this short debate to refer to them. I shall, however, refer to one.
  In December 1990, a doctor in Srinagar made a statement about a patient that he had treated in hospital. It is important to note that, in late 1989, extra powers had been granted to the security forces in response to mounting violence on the part of armed opposition groups in the state. The doctor reported:
  "I yesterday discharged a patient aged between 18 and 20, who had been in this hospital for three months. Twenty per cent. or more of his body had suffered deep burns from a hot clothes iron. These burns were … so serious that I and other doctors had only just succeeded in saving his life. He had also been shot by a bullet in the armpit. His torturing with the clothes iron had all been done during interrogation by the regular army at Sopore."
  It is because of that case, and so many others, that great concern has been expressed, here and in the Indian subcontinent, about the way in which those who are extradited and the many others held in Jannu, Kashmir and other disputed parts of India will be treated in custody.
  I remind the House that special laws are in force in Jammu and Kashmir that curb legal safeguards and encourage human rights violations, for example, the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act and the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act. That legislation tends to give the security forces carte blanche for their actions.
  Allegations about human rights abuses have also been made in Assam and Punjab. Earlier in the year, numerous allegations were made even in Delhi about human rights abuses and deaths in custody following torture by the police.
  The Indian Prime Minister, Mr. Rao, has issued a clear condemnation of such behaviour. On 17 February, he addressed the Indian police and acknowledged the threat to the reputation of India on the world stage. He urged the police to
  "ensure that excesses are not committed, especially in custody. Human rights are of paramount importance in a democracy like ours."
  Recognition at the highest level of a serious problem of custodial violence, which demands to be addressed, has not been matched by an ability or determination to carry into practice the commitment, given in the name of India, to protect human rights. Last year, the Government said that they would strengthen legal safeguards for detainees in custody, but they have obviously failed to take the necessary action.
  Such injustices can be remedied, even in part, only by ensuring that, in all cases of torture and death in custody, a speedy independent inquiry is held, and those

  457
  responsible are brought to justice. I believe that the extradition treaty should not have been concluded until such a commitment had been given.
  It is true that murders and atrocities have been committed by armed opponents of the Indian Government, many of them separatists. Surely it is worth bearing in mind the fact that nothing feeds militancy more assiduously than oppression and unpunished atrocities committed by those who are supposed to be responsible for upholding law and order. It is hardly surprising that the number of people seeking separation from India has swelled since India moved 500,000 security forces into Jammu and Kashmir and gave them such wide discretion to act. It should be noted that India has as many troops occupied with those people it regards as its own, as it has dedicated to external defence.
  India is, of course, under pressure and I believe that that pressure should continue. Last month, the United States Congress passed an amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill cutting $4·1 million from US overseas aid to India. It is worth remembering that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said shortly after taking office that the British Government's policy in future would be to link foreign aid to a country's human rights record, and that India is this country's leading recipient in terms of foreign aid.
  In relation to the need for an extradition treaty, my hon. Friend the Minister said that passing this measure tonight will send a signal. I suggest that, to a considerable extent, it will signal to India that Britain is willing to tolerate abuses of the kind to which I have referred. I am sure that we would not be willing to tolerate that, but that is the signal which, regrettably, many people will understand. In this country, the treaty will be seen as a threat hanging over those who wish to express their views in our free society in the United Kingdom.
  We should be concerned, not just about the Government's intentions in bringing the treaty before us tonight, but about the perception in Britain and in the Indian subcontinent. Considering that perception, I must say that there is no way in which I can possibly support the treaty. Indeed, I must oppose it.
  11.1 pm
  Mr. Roger Godsiff: Like the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), I regret that I also cannot support the treaty—not because I am not as committed as any hon. Member to combating international terrorism, but because I do not believe that the order contributes to achieving that. I also believe—this legitimate fear is shared by many hon. Members—that the treaty will be used by the Indian Government to persecute still further Kashmiris who are seeking to do nothing more than to assert their legitimate right to determine their own future.
  The treaty will include all Indian citizens. Many people in Jammu and Kashmir do not consider themselves Indian citizens; they consider themselves Kashmiris. However, the treaty presupposes that they are Indian citizens and that the whole of Jammu and Kashmir belong to India, and it includes all the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir in its provisions.
  The Minister told us that the order will simply extend the provisions of the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 to enble international terrorism to be combated in a better
  458
  way. We have already heard the number of cases where India has asked for extradition and the number of cases where the United Kingdom Government have asked the Indian Government for extradition. That clearly shows that the current arrangements are working perfectly well. There is no need for this measure.
  We are told that India's democratic institutions and judicial arrangements mirror our own, and that it is therefore quite appropriate for us to have an extradition treaty with India. That might operate in theory, but it most certainly does not operate in practice in the Kashmir valley.
  The Kashmir Bar Association recently provided figures that show that 15,000 bail applications are pending in Indian-held Kashmir. Some 5,000 bail applications were granted, but the authorities refused to implement them, and 500 cases of habeas corpus are outstanding.
  Indian-held Kashmir is not run by a judicial authority; it is run by the Indian military. To do that, vast numbers of troops have been deployed throughout Indian-held Kashmir. Indeed, the latest figures suggest that, for every 10 Kashmiris, there is now one Indian troop in Indian-held Kashmir. As the hon. Member for Keighley pointed out, Amnesty International has documented many hundreds of cases of human rights abuse, but, against that background of abuse, the Government are seeking to pursue an extradition treaty which will put relations with India on a par with arrangements with other western countries.
  Our own suppression of terrorism legislation grew out of the accord of the European convention on the suppression of terrorism. All signatories to that convention are European countries. They were signatories to the European convention on human rights; India was not. They were all signatories to the Helsinki agreement; India was not. As a matter of interest, they were all signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; India was not.
  We are being asked to give India special provisions that only one non-European country has been accorded, and that is the United States of America. Whatever our feelings about the United States of America, I am not aware of any part of the USA being under martial law or of the human rights abuses that have been catalogued in Jammu and Kashmir occurring in the USA.
  How can the Government argue that there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that, under the treaty, the person being extradited
  "would not be prejudiced … or be punished, detained or restricted on grounds of political opinion"
  when the Indian army is daily carrying out a war against the people of Indian-held Kashmir and when, under the Indian constitution, it is an act of treason for any Indian national to advocate secession by part of the union from the state of India?
  That means that, if any Kashmiri were to argue the cause of self-determination for the people of Kashmir and secession from the Indian union, in the eyes of the Indian Government, he would be guilty of treason. In that case, would the Indian Government have the right to ask for him to be extradited back to India to stand trial for treason?
  I cannot but believe that the British Government have put human rights at the forefront of their consideration of the issue. I cannot help but feel that what is really driving the treaty is our desire to increase commerce with India and, above all, to increase the arms trade to India. One

  459
  third of our current exports to India relate to the arms trade. A junior Defence Minister is actively involved in promoting the arms trade with India.
  Senior executives of Marconi have a long list of examples of export licences being conveniently rearranged to ensure that words such as "atomic" and "nuclear" are left out of those licences. We are well aware from available evidence that India is acquiring a massive nuclear arsenal, and the British Government are only too happy to assist with that.
  The treaty is unnecessary. If the Indian Government were to implement the United Nations resolutions of 1947, 1948 and 1960 and give the people of Jammu and Kashmir the right to determine their own future, and if those people then determined their own future, perhaps the Indian Government would have a just case for bringing such a treaty to the British Government and asking the House to approve it. Until the Indian Government do that, and until they clean up their human rights record, I am not prepared to support the treaty.
  11.8 pm
  Mr. Terry Dicks: I endorse everything that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) said about Kashmir and the Punjab. The treaty is not needed, because an acceptable one is already in place, linking this country with the other Commonwealth countries. The Government have been conned by the Indian Government, who see British recognition of the treaty as a way of saying to the rest of the world, "Britain recognises our problems and supports us." My hon. Friend the Minister gave the game away when he referred to terrorists being sent back to India. He slipped, so he then said that he meant potential terrorists. He made the slip and it is on the record. He can wriggle and twist, but it is there for all to see.
  India is referred to as the largest democracy in the world. I call it the biggest hypocrisy in the world. It talks about democracy while it practises state terrorism. It is amazing that, when President Clinton recently launched a missile attack against Iraq, our Prime Minister rightly said that Britain was opposed to state terrorism and supported Clinton. Why on earth is my right hon. Friend, through this treaty and by meeting India's representatives, supporting India's state terrorism, which is even worse than that in Iraq?
  Because Kate Adie does not go to the Punjab, there are no headlines telling us about India's state terrorism. She goes to Bosnia, so Bosnia becomes a major international issue. Nothing is heard about the Punjab and the suppression of human rights in India, because the media do not want to go there. Like colleagues on both sides of the House, I have tried to get the media to raise the issue, but they do not want to know, because it is not a major issue. Of course it is not a major issue, because the media do not want to make it one and because of the so-called wonderful, friendly relationship between our Government and the Indian Government.
  We are supposed to believe that there have been new moves to allow human rights organisations to operate in India. I have tried six times to get a visa to go to India and the Punjab. The Indian high commissioner does not even have the decency to reply. He answers my letters on any
  460
  other matters, but will he let me go to India? No. I offered him a deal, both on the radio and in writing. I said, "Let me go. If my Sikhs are telling me lies about the suppression, murder and rape of people in the Punjab, I will come back and call them liars. But if they are telling the truth and the Indian Government are lying, I will come back and say that." "Oh no," they said, "we can't do a deal like that." Of course not—the deal was too fair.
  The Indian Government know that they are liars and that they are misleading people. They know that my Sikhs and the Sikhs and Kashmiris throughout this country are telling the truth about what has happened to their relatives. The Indian Government do not want to know. I say to them, "If you have nothing to hide, why are you hiding something?" Their abuse of human rights makes the abuse in Iraq pale into insignificance, and it has been going on for a damned sight longer—since 1984.
  Other hon. Members have said that Kashmir has a right to self-determination; so does the Punjab. There is nothing wrong with fighting for that cause, provided that it is done in a reasonable way. I accept that a handful of terrorists are making it bad for the genuine people who want self-determination, but we must put that aside and ask whether there is a cause and a justification. The answer is yes, there is a justification—and I am sick and tired of telling my Government that there is. This is my fourth speech on the issue in three or four years. My Government do not want to know because of their damned cosy relationship with the Indian Government.
  Some hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), belong to the curry club. They pop off to India every other week, have a dose of curry and chips and come back saying that India is a wonderful place. I just know that my hon. Friend will say that when he speaks in a minute or two.
  The Government should now take three steps. The first is not to sign the treaty until there is clear, practical evidence from the Indian Government that they are beginning to listen to us. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is a wonderful friend of the Indian Government. They can do nothing wrong. He said to me, "Terry, those people are all terrorists, you know." He virtually implied that anyone who wears a turban is a terrorist.
  That is the view of the Foreign Office, which never does anything in the British interest unless it coincides with the Foreign Office interest. If it does not, the Foreign Office interest comes first. I say to my hon. Friends—if I can call them that tonight—on the Front Bench that the treaty must not be signed until we get guarantees and evidence of good will by the Indian Government.
  Secondly, if we do not get those guarantees, we should cut off overseas aid to India—£104 million of taxpayers' money goes to that dreadful regime so that it can suppress decent people going about their business in the Punjab and Kashmir.
  Finally, if the Indian Government do not learn from that lesson, we should cut off diplomatic relations and say that state terrorism, like individual terrorism, is not acceptable to the British Government. I say to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, "Stand up and be counted. Stop bending over backwards for the Indian Government. Stand by decency, by human rights and by the things that the British people and the British Government have always believed in."
  11.13 pm
  Ms Liz Lynne: I agree wholeheartedly with all hon. Members who have expressed their opposition to the order, for which there is no necessity because extradition provisions are already in place. The Government are introducing this measure only to give a pat on the back to the Indian Government—to give them a seal of approval.
  I have no idea how the Government can do that, when human rights abuses—especially in Indian-held Kashmir —are continuing on a daily basis. The Indian forces allegedly moved into one village and raped every woman there—from young girls to old women—and murdered the young men. To give such a regime a pat on the back is absolutely horrendous.
  Human rights abuses are being committed thoughout Indian-held Kashmir. The Indian Government are totally opposed to the international covenant on civil and political rights, which they signed and to which they committed themselves—but to which they do not adhere.
  Article 3 of the Geneva convention says that the wounded and sick should be collected and cared for, but Asia Watch has already reported a number of cases in which sick people—even those on life support machines —have been arrested and taken into custody.
  The Indian Government do not allow the International Red Cross to give aid, and so much for their assurance that Amnesty International will be allowed to enter the area. Unless Amnesty International is able to monitor the situation and to move freely around the entire country, I for one shall not believe the Indian Government's reassurances. According to official estimates alone, 7,000 people have died, but I believe that the true figure is nearer 22,000.
  Time and time again, the all-party parliamentary group on Kashmir has been refused permission to enter Indian-held Kashmir. The Indian Government should now bow to pressure from right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, but our Government are giving the Indian Government a pat on the back because they want more trade contracts with India. We should say no to any new extradition treaty.
  At a meeting with the former Home Secretary, I asked the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) whether there had ever been an occasion in the past few years when, under the existing treaty, the Indian Government could not have extradited someone from this country. He said that no such case came to mind. If that is so, why is a new extradition treaty needed? The order merely gives a seal of approval to the Indian Government, and we should reject it.
  11.17 pm
  Mr. Toby Jessel: I declare an interest in that for the past 22 years I have served as an officer of the all-party Indo-British parliamentary group—first as secretary, then as vice-chairman and chairman. I may tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) that I have never been served with curry and chips. I do not know whether that is what they eat in Hayes and Harlington.
  It is the purpose of the Indo-British parliamentary group to uphold good relations with India—that is, with the whole of India and with all the peoples of every province throughout that republic.
  462
  The heading to this business in the Order Paper is:
  "Prevention and supression of terrorism".
  The House should never sanction or condone terrorism or terrorists from any country or in any part of the world. The terrorist is the most vicious type of criminal. He cares nothing for the sanctity of human life, the victim or the victim's family, however innocent they may be. He tries by bomb or bullet to achieve political objectives that he cannot achieve through the ballot box.
  The terrorist is therefore the enemy of free democracy, which is a cherished ideal both in India and Britain. He is the enemy of human rights, because the most important human right is the right to stay alive. There has been little mention so far in this debate of the human rights of the terroist's victims.
  We should never give any quarter or safe haven to any terrorist, wherever he may come from.
  Mr. Watts: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that people who have committed terrorist crimes could not be extradited under the existing arrangements? How can that be squared with the former Home Secretary's comment that he could not recall any case in which extradition was sought but could not be obtained under the existing arrangements?
  Mr. Jessel: That is the whole point. Extradition exists for other types of crime, but does not work in respect of terrorism. If a terrorist says that he has a political motive, he is not extradited. The purpose of this measure is to catch suspected terrorists, bring them to justice and put them out of harm's way. If that is right within any free democracy, it must be right between free democracies—and that means extradition.
  I asked the Library which crimes that would apply to, and the Library provided me with a much longer list than that read out by my hon. Friend the Minister. According to that information,
  "For the purposes of this Treaty the following offences shall not be regarded as offences of a political character."
  It goes on to mention the unlawful seizure of aircraft, acts against the safety of civil aviation, taking of hostages, offences against diplomatic agents, murder, manslaughter, culpable homicide, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, the causing of an explosion likely to endanger life, the making or possession of an explosive substance by a person who intends to endanger life or cause serious damage to property, the possession of a firearm or ammunition by a person who intends either himself or through another person to endanger life, the use of firearms, damaging property with intent to endanger life, kidnapping, abduction, false imprisonment or unlawful detention and incitement to murder.
  Anyone who commits any of those acts ought to be brought to justice, whether it is within a country or whether it entails the crossing of a boundary and thus requires extradition. It is absurd that the situation has been allowed to continue for so long without extradition. The order should be approved, and approved quickly.
  11.21 pm
  Mr. Max Madden: While the Minister was telling us about his confidence in the Indian judicial system, I was recalling my remarkable visit in 1990 to Amritsar high security prison in the Punjab. I was told before I entered that I would find no one there under 18; in the event, I met 500 prisoners—they were arranged in a

  463
  circle under the noonday sun, which was extremely hot even in March—among whom were half a dozen young men under 18. The youngest was 12. I also found a man who had been in the prison for six years. He had been released at the end of each six months, re-arrested at the entrance to the prison and re-imprisoned. In India, it is called the "revolving door" judicial policy.
  At present, 50,000 people are in Indian prisons without trial. In 1992, the Government issued an official brief which said:
  "The violence in Punjab has had a profound and damaging effect on the lives of Sikhs and others. The Indian Government admit that human rights violations against innocent civilians, including many Sikhs have occurred. The British Government have regularly expressed concern about the situation in Punjab."
  On 17 July, in The Guardian, John Rettie wrote—referring to Kashmir, which I also visited in 1990 —
  "But the rule of law does not exist—the Indian security forces simply ignore the courts—and to an outsider the valley feels like an occupied country. Delhi contends that the Kashmiri militant groups enjoy no popular support except what they enforce by 'fear of the gun'. This is inconceivable. No insurgency could last so long or be so effective without widespread popular sympathy. The sense of alienation from India among Kashmiris is overwhelming."
  My hon. Friends and many Conservative Members have testified to that point of view.
  I believe that the treaty is wholly unnecessary. To be implemented, it will require the approval of both Houses. I have no doubt that the payroll vote will ensure that the order is approved tonight, but the other place will presumably consider whether to approve it in the autumn.
  I challenge the Indian Government, between now and the autumn, to give us some confidence in their determination to combat the gross human rights violations taking place, and to allow Amnesty International, the International Red Cross and Asia Watch free access to all parts of India, especially the Punjab, Kashmir and Assam, so that they can freely investigate the catalogue of gross human rights violations reported in all those states. If the Indian Government were prepared to do that immediately, that would go a considerable way towards dispelling the concern about the situation in which the treaty is being agreed.
  No doubt the Indian Government desperately desire the treaty as a political weapon. They will be able to say to Indians in India and to the international community,. "Look here, we would not have this treaty unless the British Government agreed with us that our terrorist problem is almost unique." They will even be able to go further and say that, by agreeing the extradition treaty, the British Government not only recognise their terrorist problem but endorse their anti-terrorist policy and give a seal of approval to the methods and tactics that they use to combat terrorism.
  That is a dangerous signal for this country to send, at a time when our Prime Minister tells us that good government and the observance of human rights are priorities for his Administration. Like other hon. Members, I attended the Indian parliamentary group meeting on Monday, which was addressed by the Prime Minister. He spent all his time emphasising the benefits of investment, and of trade and business with India. He did not utter a single word about the gross abuse of human rights in India. That was a remarkable omission.
  Mr. Corbyn: Did my hon. Friend get an inkling from the Prime Minister's talk that there had been any linkage between the order which we are being asked to approve and the enormous volume of arms sales now being made to India? Those arms could, of course, be used in both the Punjab and Kashmir.
  Mr. Madden: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that the Prime Minister made no such reference, but clearly it is well known to all of us that a major part of the trade between Britain and India consists of armaments and that the second biggest item in the Indian budget is defence.
  Many other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, so I shall finish by saying that I believe that the treaty represents a major political blunder. We should not have agreed to it unless there had been a dramatic improvement in the human rights situation in India. I hope that the Government will insist that India take positive action. There are numerous cases, many of which I have referred—
  Mr. Heppell: Is my hon. Friend aware that we are in danger of endorsing a treaty even though democracy has effectively broken down in parts of India, such as Kashmir, where there have been no elections since 1990 and there are no plans for any elections on a local, regional or national basis? The judicial system, too, has broken down altogether. Martial law effectively exists in many parts of India.
  Mr. Madden: My hon. Friend is right.
  I also hope that the Minister will give us some information about the conditions for those against whom an extradition application is made. Will the person be held in custody in the United Kingdom? Will he or she be subject to strict bail and reporting conditions?
  The agreement on terrorist funding which has also been made adds to the powers which already exist. There are seven pieces of legislation which give the authorities powers to investigate financial holdings. Will the police be encouraged to undertake inquiries into the financial affairs of Gudwaras and other United Kingdom-based Indian organisations because it creates an environment of intimidation and harassment?
  Mr. Jessel: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Madden: The hon. Gentleman has spoken already and I am about to conclude.
  It is quite wrong for the treaty to be approved at this time. It is saying to many people in Britain that we are equating all turbans with terrorism. That has been the victory of Indian propaganda.
  I have to say, particularly to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), whom I respect completely, that the mother and father of terrorism is state terrorism. State terrorism, suppression and repression breed militancy and terrorism. Therefore, it is in the interests of the Indian Government to ensure that human rights abuses are not perpetrated, particularly by Indian security forces.
  I hope that that message will be given firmly by the British Government. We have had enough of fine words and expressions of concern. Before we give approval to such treaties, we want positive and immediate action from the Government of India to combat the gross human rights violations which are taking place in many parts of India.
  11.31 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): We are debating emotive issues. I am aware, and have been for some time, of hon. Members' concerns about human rights in India. I have reflected them in my dealings as the Minister responsible for our relations with the Indian Republic and explained hon. Members' concerns to Indian Ministers and to the contacts I have. I have added that the Kashmir, Punjab and Sikh problems are legitimate subjects for debate in the United Kingdom because they affect the lives of United Kingdom citizens.
  I know that it is wrong to refer by name to individuals in the Gallery, but one may do so collectively and we are all aware that this debate is being watched and listened to and will be read about by a large number of British citizens.
  However, we must consider the offences that we are talking about. Members of the Jammu and Kashmir liberation front abducted and later assassinated the assistant Indian high commissioner in Birmingham in February 1984. Six extremists were later convicted and gaoled in the United Kingdom for his murder. The Sikh militant, Paramjit Singh Sidhu, was arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and sentenced to 11 years after conviction on an explosives charge in 1990. Other Sikh militants were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment on conspiracy charges in July 1991. There have been several assassination attempts in Britain against prominent Sikh moderates. That is the British situation, but let us consider some of the international problems.
  In 1985, Canadian-based Sikh militants caused a mid-air explosion on an Air India flight from Toronto to London; 329 people were killed. There was a related bomb at Tokyo airport which killed two airport staff. Those are some of the problems that we will be facing. Canada has concluded a similar extradition agreement with the Republic of India.
  Mr. Richard Caborn: Have any perpretrators of those acts been brought to justice without this extradition treaty?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The purpose of this extradition agreement is for the House and the Government to say that, in such cases, it would be an outrage in this day and age for people to say that they acted with political intentions and therefore should avoid extradition and trial for alleged offences of that magnitude. The sort of offences about which we are talking—my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jesse]) referred to this—must be clarified. We are not talking about trivial offences—far from it. We are talking about offences involving hijacking, taking hostages, serious crimes of violence, murder, manslaughter, serious assaults, kidnapping, explosives, firearms offences and financing of terrorism.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) has strong views on this subject. We have often discussed those views privately—we often discuss things privately. Can he say that it is right that the argument that such offences were politically induced should be available in this day and age, when air travel is so easy and so available, which is what we are talking about?
  Mr. Watts: Is my hon. Friend arguing that, in such cases, the defence of political purpose has been used successfully in a British court to resist an attempt by the Indian Government to obtain extradition? In his earlier remarks, has he not recited a number of instances of crimes committed in the United Kingdom where people have been properly convicted and punished by the courts? What is his argument for the need for this repulsive treaty?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Those crimes were committed in the United Kingdom. The treaty is mutual. There will be mutual recognition of rights of extradition—it works both ways.
  It is right that the House should be so concerned about the protection of individuals. First, the matter must be considered by a British Home Office Minister. He must make a decision as to whether it is appropriate for the case to go to the Bow Street magistrates court. The decision of that court is appealable. The matter must then be considered by the Home Secretary, whose decision is open to judicial review. Indeed, the first decision of the Minister is open to judicial review if any applicant wishes to appeal. The Home Secretary must be satisfied that all the matters have been appropriately considered.
  Mr. Terry Davis: How cart people of Kashmir origin in the United Kingdom have any confidence in assurances of scrutiny from a Government who deported a Kashmir leader, Mr. Amanullah Khan, after he was twice acquitted of all charges by British courts?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with the conduct of Ministers, he should remember that the Bow Street magistrates court must consider the matter. Any decision is appealable on a writ of habeas corpus. The Minister's first and second decisions are subject to the process of judicial review. Ministerial decisions can be considered up to four times by a British court.
  Hon. Members have expressed their concerns dramatically and extensively. It is fortuitous that this debate should be this week, because next Monday, the Indian Parliament is commencing its committee on legislation to set up an independent Indian human rights commission. It is good timing to have the debate today. I have no doubt that the views expressed by hon. Members will be noted by the Indian high commission in London, and that copies of the Official Report will be made available to parliamentarians in India. I defy hon. Members to assert that there are not parliamentarians in India who take human rights interests strongly to heart and express concern about them.
  I wish to reply to the questions of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) about access to India for human rights organisations and the signs in recent days of the Indian Government modifying and changing their policy in that regard. It has been one of my tasks to urge the Government of India to allow access to international human rights organisations and other groups. Therefore, I am particularly pleased by their recent statement on the issue.
  Ms Joan Walley: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If I may, I shall make clear what the Indian Government said and my views on it; then, if there is time, I will give way.
  It may be helpful if I read out the precise passage. In a statement, the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs said:
  "In furtherance of the earlier initiatives, Government has now decided to allow certain human rights organisations to visit India to see for themselves how human rights safeguards operate in various parts of the country."
  Hon Members will dispute some of the phraseology in that statement, but it clearly says "India" and does not exclude any part of India. It simply states that India will be open to human rights organisations. I hope, and I shall certainly press, that it will not be too long before Amnesty International and other human rights organisations may be able to visit Kashmir and all parts of India to carry out investigations that they may legitimately seek to follow.
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).
  The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 38.

  Division No. 357]

  [11.42 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Cran, James

  Alexander, Richard

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

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Amess, David

  Day, Stephen

  Ancram, Michael

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Arbuthnot, James

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Dover, Den

  Ashby, David

  Duncan, Alan

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Baldry, Tony

  Eggar, Tim

  Bates, Michael

  Elletson, Harold

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Boswell, Tim

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bowis, John

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Brazier, Julian

  Forth, Eric

  Bright, Graham

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Gallie, Phil

  Burns, Simon

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Burt, Alistair

  Gorst, John

  Butler, Peter

  Greenway, John (Ftyedale)

  Cash, William

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Clappison, James

  Hague, William

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Harris, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Coe, Sebastian

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Conway, Derek

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jack, Michael

  468

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jessel, Toby

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knapman, Roger

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Sims, Roger

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Legg, Barry

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lidington, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Lightbown, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Luff, Peter

  Stephen, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sweeney, Walter

  Maclean, David

  Sykes, John

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Merchant, Piers

  Thomason, Roy

  Milligan, Stephen

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Trend, Michael

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Page, Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  Paice, James

  Whittingdale, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Willetts, David

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wood, Timothy

  Pickles, Eric

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Sydney Chapman and Timothy Kirkhope.

  Richards, Rod

  Riddick, Graham

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Loyden, Eddie

  Barnes, Harry

  Mahon, Alice

  Cann, Jamie

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Cohen, Harry

  Pike, Peter L.

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Cousins, Jim

  Purchase, Ken

  Cox, Tom

  Rendel, David

  Cryer, Bob

  Rooney, Terry

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

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dicks, Terry

  Spearing, Nigel

  George, Bruce

  Spellar, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Turner, Dennis

  Godsiff, Roger

  Waller, Gary

  Graham, Thomas

  Walley, Joan

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Watts, John

  Hardy, Peter

  Wise, Audrey

  Heppell, John

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Leighton, Ron

  Mr. Max Madden and Ms Liz Lynne.

  Lewis, Terry

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 (Application of Provisions) (India) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.

  Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices)
  11.53 pm
  Mr. Michael Alison: I beg to move,
  That the Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) (Amendment) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
  At this comparatively late hour, I need not detain the House too long in advocating the measure. It is both reasonable and desirable and, for the Church of England in its official councils, quite uncontroversial. The measure received final approval in the General Synod last year—it was unanimously approved in all three Houses.
  That is to say that no bishop, no clergyman and no layman voted against it. The voting figures are on page 7 of the Ecclesiastical Committee's report now before the House, if anyone wants to look at them.
  I have stressed the unusual unanimity because the measure touches on sensitive issues in the life of the Church of England. It deals with cases in which a major problem arises in a parish not because of any grave misconduct on the part of the rector or vicar—the Church of England has separate disciplinary procedures for dealing with that contingency—but because the rector or vicar has a serious health problem or there is a serious breakdown in the relationship between him and the parishioners.
  In such cases, where the work of a parish church cannot go forward effectively, some sort of action has to be taken to resolve the problem. The synod attempted to set up a mechanism for doing that in the parent of the present measure as long ago as 1977. The 1977 measure laid down a carefully formulated procedure and provided for a judicial tribunal to investigate the breakdown and recommend what should be done to resolve it. The earlier measure envisaged the possibility, as a last resort, of recommending that the rector or vicar should be required to leave the parish. Hence my reference to the sensitivity of the matter that we are considering tonight.
  However, the original 1977 measure, like other attempts to tackle difficult and sensitive problems which have not been dealt with in a formal way before, was found to have some shortcomings. Hence the amendment measure that we are considering tonight, which seeks to remedy the earlier defects. I shall give just a few examples.
  The earlier measure proved unsatisfactory on compensation, about which I shall say a few words presently. Above all, the 1977 measure did not lay sufficient emphasis on seeking to secure a preliminary reconciliation between the rector or vicar and the parishioners in cases where the relationship between them had broken down and before invoking more formal judicial procedures. That shortcoming is the first matter which the amending measure before us tonight seeks to remedy.
  The amending measure provides that before any formal legal process is set in motion, there should be a carefully structured reconciliation process following a code of practice laid down by the House of Bishops. The bishops have already published a draft of the code, which is set out in the Ecclesiastical Committee's report before the House tonight but which the bishops have expanded a little to take on board some of the suggestions made by our colleagues in the House who are members of the Ecclesiastical Committee.
  470
  Among other things, the code provides for a third party who is acceptable to both sides, so to speak, to act as a conciliator, and for the parties to have a trial period of working together, where that seems both feasible and desirable. Only after that conciliation has failed can the more formal tribunal procedure, with various penalties up to enforced resignation, be invoked. Then the procedure can be invoked only if the relevant bishop approves—that is, it is at his discretion. The penalties recommended by the tribunal can in turn be imposed only if the bishop, at his discretion, authorises it.
  The measure improves the procedure under the 1977 legislation in several further important ways. One example is that, in ill-health or disability cases, the tribunal will now have power to direct that the rector or vicar involved should have a proper medical examination and to draw the appropriate inferences if he refuses. Another example is that, in cases of the breakdown of the relationship between the rector or vicar and parishioners, it will now be possible to abort or withdraw the formal proceedings, even after they have started, if there is any hope of more informal reconciliation procedures taking effect. Under the 1977 measure, once a procedure had reached a certain stage, the only way to stop it was the resignation of the rector or vicar. To that extent, we have made things very much more flexible and sensitive.
  Three points caused some concern or dissent among a minority of our colleagues on the Ecclesiastical Committee. First, some colleagues—including, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans)—thought that the Church of England should change to a system more like the law on unfair dismissal which applies to secular employment, and that the clergy should have clear performance criteria with dismissal as the penalty if they fail to meet those objective requirements.
  I concede that it is important that everything possible be done to help the clergy to work effectively, and to work to objective standards if possible. Only a few days ago, the General Synod passed a motion asking the bishops to implement a system of regular review and work development for all clergy, and a group has been set up to examine the terms and conditions of service which might apply to them. However, most hon. Members will agree that the work that a clergyman does is of a special kind, and depends for its effectiveness on the quality of his relationship with his parishioners.
  The parishioners are not employees of the Church; they are partners, with the clergy, in carrying forward the Church's mission. Thus, cases where the relationship breaks down are not on all fours with cases where an employee is dismissed. What is needed is a procedure for putting a disrupted relationship back on its feet, if possible. It is only as a very last resort that it should be deemed irreparable and the clergyman concerned required by the bishop to leave the parish.
  One or two colleagues on the Committee were concerned about the compensation provisions in the measure. When a vicar or rector has resigned on grounds of ill health, or has been required to resign on those grounds, he receives the same pension and other benefits as any other member of the clergy who retires owing to ill health. The measure makes no change in that respect.
  The 1977 measure also provided for very generous compensation in cases of a serious breakdown of relationships—so generous that many dioceses could not afford it, and clergy who received it had no incentive to

  471
  find other work. That was unsatisfactory, because it was inconceivable that a clergyman would be removed from office under the measure on grounds of a breakdown in the relationship with his parishioners unless there had been some fault or failure on his part.
  The amending measure sets out to strike a balance between treating vicars and rectors justly and the wider interests of the Church of England and of the lay people who contribute to its finances. It does so by providing that the rector or vicar and the diocese agree whatever compensation terms they wish. We would certainly encourage dioceses to be generous if the clergyman concerned had special needs—for instance, a need for retraining.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: My right hon. Friend says that it is inconceivable that the relationship would break down unless there had been some fault or failure on the part of the incumbent. Could it not break down because of a dispute over some theological point which could not easily be resolved but which could hardly fairly be described as resulting from fault or failure on the part of the incumbent?
  Mr. Alison: I shall come to that later, when I describe how the measure defines such breakdowns in relationships.
  The measure lays down that if the parties fail to agree the incumbent should be provided with reasonable compensation in the form of financial support and reasonable help with housing costs. The details are spelt out in schedule 2 to the measure. The word "reasonable" may seem to beg a question, but the clergy in the Synod, who are the category primarily affected, as well as all the other categories in the Synod, accepted that the schedule 2 formula for compensation struck a fair balance between the interests of all concerned. They did not vote against it. The unanimity of the vote, including that of the clergy, is a reflection of the fact that it was felt that the compensation provisions were reasonable.
  In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies), a number of our colleagues on the Ecclesiastical Committee—my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth may have been among them—felt that the new definition of a serious breakdown in pastoral relationships, which appears in the new measure, was too wide and could leave almost any rector or vicar open to being proceeded against, perhaps by some local crank.
  The original 1977 legislation contained no definition at all, which made it difficult to interpret. The Synod has now tightened matters considerably by providing that the provisions on the breakdown of a relationship will apply only where the situation is impeding the whole mission of the Church of England in the parish. The legislation therefore cannot be invoked because of a trivial dispute or a disagreement between the rector or vicar and a small minority of the parishioners.
  The actual trigger mechanism is formulated under paragraph 10 of the measure and refers to the impeding
  "of the whole mission of the Church of England, pastoral, evangelistic, social and ecumenical"
  in the parish in question. Nothing trivial or secondary would be caught by it. Matters relating to theology or doctrine could not have the effect of impeding that whole mission in such a way as to be caught by the definitition.
  472
  That definition relates to the kind of breakdown which occurs when the clergyman is seriously ill or mentally disturbed. It goes far too wide for a mere theological dispute to trigger the judicial procedures involved.
  The new definition also highlights the real purpose of the measure, which is to further, positively and constructively, the mission of the Church of England in the parishes. The Synod wholeheartedly accepted it as something which would help to achieve that aim. I hope that the House will add its support to the Synod by supporting the measure.
  12.7 am
  Mr. Peter Hardy: I do not need to speak for long, because the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) has spelt out to the House the flexible nature of the measure and its infinitely superior quality in comparison with that of 1977. The right hon. Gentleman has reminded the House that the 1977 measure did not command the same support and unanimity in the Synod as that shown for the new measure.
  Hon. Members may believe that matters concerning the Church should not be considered in the Chamber. While the Church is established, however, Parliament has the obligation to consider such matters.
  We should respect the measure because it provides for fair dealings for members of the clergy. Conservative Members may not share my opinion and that of my hon. Friends that the role of the good priest in many parishes is far more stressful than it has ever been. When society is dominated by greed, and when it is entirely materialistic in its political evaluation, the stress facing the good priest is enormous.
  The majority of people may never give much thought to the priest or to the Church, but at times of crisis, both individual and community, the Church is seen as relevant and the priest must be there. Many of our priests are readily available. They share grief and anxiety. They share the very real economic and social burdens that affect the people in their pastoral charge.
  The strain on many of the clergy can be enormous. It is perfectly appropriate for the House to ensure that clergy who suffer a breakdown of health as a result of being at the interface of stress within their parishes should be treated decently. I hope that the House will approve the measure for that reason.
  As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may recall, I was brought up in nonconformity. I recall that, on occasions, my parents were very angry when they returned home from chapel business meetings. It sometimes seemed that the qualities of Christian charity were not always readily exhibited. In the operation of the management of the established Church, I suppose that sometimes personal animosities and irritations are taken to such an excessive point that an outside influence seeking to pour oil on troubled waters would be desirable.
  I think that the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) is a member of the legal profession. He may be much more well disposed to bureaucracy than I am. He may well wish to see a tightly bureaucratic, structured arrangement that may well be very profitable or more interesting to members of the legal profession than to the rest of the laity serving the Church.
  Mr. Roger Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hardy: I will give way in a moment.
  When we deal with human relationships in our surgeries, many of us would not dream of advising constituents to go off and consult their legal advisers. We would not do that for many reasons, not least because of the cost. I would prefer a more flexible arrangement. The quality of this measure is one of flexibility and reasonable generosity.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Monmouth shares my view that there is a place for flexibility rather than for the more bureaucratic approach which, I suspect, he may favour rather more than I do.
  Mr. Evans: Surely the hon. Gentleman has, at his surgery, advised people who have been unfairly dismissed that the way to get justice and fairness is to go to an industrial tribunal? Why should we treat the clergy of the Church of England to a much lower standard and give them much less protection than ordinary employees and trade unionists who have been unfairly dismissed? That is the injustice of this proposal.
  Mr. Hardy: One would hope that no one employed by the Church, as clergy or in any other capacity, would be treated in the way that many of my constituents have been treated when they have claimed unfair dismissal.
  One is entitled to expect the Church to conduct itself in a way that would avoid that degree of confrontation, which would not serve the Church or the person who appeals to the tribunal well. I do not believe that there is a need for such confrontation. If that arrangement were made, it would be a confession that the Church was incapable of applying Christian practice and approaches. For that reason, I would not like to see the Church in that position. That is why I could not possibly support the approach that the hon. Member for Monmouth appears to advocate.
  We must make it clear in the House that we recognise the stress and demands placed on the conscientious clergyman. Such a clergyman would not wish to expose the Church to the attention that would follow a case for unfair dismissal. The hon. Member for Monmouth may have acted for clients in those tribunals. He will be aware that pretty sordid tales often appear in the media after such cases. I do not think that the human relationships involved are best dealt with in such a tribunal.
  The structures that the right hon. Member for Selby has presented are admirable. They are far better than the 1976 measure, for the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman gave. We have a duty to ensure that the clergy serving the Church, while it is an established organisation, should be treated as decently as the measure proposes. I certainly trust that the measure will be approved.
  12.14 am
  Mr. Roger Evans: The speech of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) was powerful, persuasive; humane and trusting of the Church of England. I regret to say, from my professional experience as a member of the Bar advising clergymen in difficulties, that I have seen grossly unchristian behaviour. I have seen the behaviour of Mr Gradgrind—exactly the kind of conduct from which our system of industrial tribunals protects workmen and employees. If a Conservative Member proposed to abolish protection from unfair dismissal, Opposition Members would be outraged. This
  474
  proposal weakens the position of an incumbent clergyman and puts him in a worse position than an employee. That is startling and wrong. It is unjust and unworkable.
  Mr. Hardy: The hon. Gentleman should consider that the House of Clergy did not provide a single vote against the measure. When considering the same arrangements in the early 1970s, the House of Clergy managed to secure a majority of six. That suggests that, in the intervening years, the Church has produced a much more acceptable arrangement. If the clergy who might be the hon. Gentleman's clients are prepared to vote for the measure, it appears that the hon. Gentleman is taking his representations too zealously.
  Mr. Evans: I am afraid that that is not a fair observation. The point at stake is that there might be a touch of unworldliness in debates in the Synod. The English Clergy Association is certainly concerned about these matters now that it has had a chance to examine them.
  The first difficulty with the proposals is simply that the 1977 measure upon which they are based and are meant to reform has not worked. The Legislative Committee described it in quite brutal terms in its remarks to the Ecclesiastical Committee: the 1977 measure has
  "major defects in practice… It was found to be complicated, difficult, and very expensive to operate and to result in serious adverse publicity for the Church."
  Upon questioning, we discovered that it has been used only twice since 1977. Synod debated it in 1981, because there was extreme disquiet about it. In fact, the arrangements of the measure which we are seeking to amend have not been used, because the system is fatally and completely flawed.
  I shall go back to basic principals. Vicars and rectors, who are still the great majority of Anglican clergymen, hold a freehold office until retirement. They can ordinarily be removed only for a proven criminal ecclesiastical case proved in court. That very rarely happens. The late Mr. Michael Bland, hon. Members might recall, succeeded as a result of the effects of Lord Howe of Aberavon. Apart from that case and one or two unhappy incidents of adultery, proven cases of clerical misconduct have been noted for their absence.
  There are situations—this is what the 1977 measure was directed at—in which a parson's church congregation dwindles, the quota is not paid, the parochial church council is at war with itself, and the parishioners are not talking. Something must be done as a practical matter to deal with that, as a matter of sense and justice. If we were running a voluntary organisation or a political party and things went backward to that extent, we would want to see what could be done.
  The Church of England's solution in 1977 was to set up a fudge. We are talking about the reform of a fudge. There are two vital features of the 1977 measure. The first was irretrievable pastoral breakdown. What on earth does that garbage mean? It is taken from the no-fault divorce phraseology of the statute—irretrievable breakdown of marriage—and it means what anybody wants it to mean. This was a basic, fundamental problem of definition.
  The second fault was that, if one was dispossessed and deprived under the 1977 measure, one was compensated for one's whole loss. That was a job for life until death. It was large and generous compensation, much better than a workman would get.

  475
  What happened? The Church of England discovered that, in the two cases where proceedings were brought under the 1977 measure, they were either wholly embarrassing and the pastoral inquiry a matter of scandal for the popular press, or, if the parson was actually deprived, the cost was appalling and prodigious. So be it, the thing failed.
  What are we to do now? One might have thought that the Church of England would see fit to reconsider the basic premise of the 1977 measure and produce some new scheme. It might have come to Parliament saying that the whole system was wrong, which might have been rather controversial. It might have come to us and said that parsons should hold their office only for a limited number of years. It might have said that there should be performance criteria or standards that they should observe —.[Interruption.] We can assess, to some extent, whether a church is emptying, the quota not being paid and the funds not being raised. There must be fairness.
  If there is a problem, there must be a system by which the people concerned can be removed and compensation should be adjusted according to the degree of fault. A blameless parson, or one who is only partly to blame, should get much more than one who is wholly at fault. That is what an industrial tribunal decides—it adjusts the compensation according to the contributory fault. That is the approach that the Church of England could have adopted.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: There should be a minimum wage.
  Mr. Evans: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the national minimum stipend is not very attractive. I suspect that it is rather less than the national average wage.
  Instead of dealing with the problems, we are being asked to build on the 1977 measure. There are two striking and fundamental faults. I do not mind the extra ACAS-type provisions such as reconciliation and dealing with the sick, but the fundamentals of the proposals are as follows.
  First, there is a new definition of "irretrievable pastoral breakdown", which my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) read out and which refers to
  "the whole mission of the Church of England, pastoral, evangelistic, social and ecumenical."
  What on earth does that mean? Let us put it in the party political context. Would we want constituency associations of hon. Members to get rid of those who failed the whole mission of the Conservative party or the Labour party? We can see immediately how that sort of wild language could be twisted to the detriment of the person there at the moment. It is pliable language: it is not precise, fair and good legislation.
  Is anyone saying that if there is a pastoral mission it is not always possible to find a cause—doctrinal disputes have already been mentioned—for gossip against the vicar if someone disapproves of the sermon, for whatever reason? Are we really intending to create a position in which troublemakers can cause difficulty in the parish and have the parson removed simply by citing a breakdown of pastoral relationships? That cannot be just or fair.
  If I were to be very rude to those who drafted the measure before us, I would say that the new section 19A
  476
  is almost the equivalent of charging somebody with un-Anglican activities. It is as bad as the activities of the late Senator McCarthy, and it is unworthy of legislation.
  The second fundamental failure is that if a parson is deprived under these proposals, regardless of his fault or contribution to his deprivation, he gets very much reduced compensation. He gets a buy-out that is not conspicuously generous. Instead of the whole loss for the rest of his life, it is a basic award of one year at the minimum stipend and the next year at three quarters, if he is aged 49 and started at 25. There are resettlement and housing allowances.
  Those are modest sums to give an almost blameless parson, who is turfed out of his home and loses his living and his professional respect.
  There is a fundamental moral difficulty about which the code of conduct is remarkably coy. If the parson suffers because no one gets on with him, is he to blame or is he not?
  The draft code says that it is not necessarily blameworthy, even if one is deprived of one's living. It is wholly unjust to give the same modest compensation to the man who has fallen out with the gossips in the parochial church council and the women's institute as to the mad, bad vicar who justly deserves to be removed.
  In a different context, an industrial tribunal can apportion blame, decide contributory fault and reduce the compensation accordingly, fairly and in balance. We have known that system for years. My right hon. Friend asked whether it was wrong to apply the model of unfair dismissal, but I thought that that model would be particularly attractive to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who might have regarded it as an achievement in the history of the working man.
  In another place, the Lord Bishop of St. Albans took the same point as my right hon. Friend. He said:
  "the work of a clergyman in a parish is a special kind of calling which takes special qualities and needs the active co-operation and support of parishioners. The parishioners themselves are not employees of the Church but partners with the clergy in carrying forward the Church's mission."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 July 1993; Vol. 584, c. 509.]
  He went on to say that cases where the relationship breaks down are not on all fours with unfair dismissal.
  Imagine yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the full-time paid secretary of a charity and you have volunteer workers with whom it is difficult to deal. Charities fall out like parishes. Party political agents in our constinuencies are full-time workers, and they are known to fall out with the volunteer side. But I say to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) that many full-time charity workers do the same sort of job as an ordained clergymen, pursuing God's mission—but such people in secular employment are protected by the law of unfair dismissal. Why should parsons be treated any less well?
  One cannot, as a private body or as a disestablished church, tear up arrangements such as the parson's freehold without an Act of Parliament. The Church of England enjoys a special, convenient legislative privilege of delegated legislation and the procedure that we are observing now.
  Mr. Skinner: And it is wrong.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is wrong if provisions slip through in this fashion without the full examination that would occur at all stages if they were the subject of a proper Bill.
  Mr. Skinner: I have often remained to hear measures affecting the Church of England debated, but the truth is that we should not debate the actions of the General Synod. There are many faiths in Britain, but for some reason or another Church of England measures come before the House late at night. Frankly, I do not think that we have any business discussing them. If the General Synod makes a decision, that is its business.
  Mr. Evans: I am greateful for that wholly unsympathetic and unfair intervention. The hon. Gentleman does not care beyond a certain point about parsons' civil liberties and rights. He is interested only in his own constituents
  —some of whom may be parsons.
  Wherever the Methodists, Baptists or Congregationalists want to unify, alter their trusts or terms of contracts, or change the law, it is not a case of ignoring Parliament. They must come to Parliament and face the full difficulty of getting a Bill passed. The Church of England has a convenient system that benefits and assists the Church. But if matters are to be dealt with in that way, the highest standards of legal drafting for legislation must be observed, using systems that are fair, just and workable. At the same time, the Church of England in particular has a moral obligation to observe the highest standards towards those who serve it. It is wholly wrong for parsons to be treated in an unfair and unworkable way.
  I do not usually use the language of civil liberties, which is not my cast of mind or the temper of my political prejudice. However, on whichever side of the House one may sit, this measure is either a back-door attack, in Tory terms, on the parson's freehold or, viewed through left-wing glasses, an attack on the civil liberties of parsons. These proposals are fatally flawed, and I invite the House to reject them.
  12.29 am
  Mr. Alison: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) could not have presented more vividly, convincingly and perfectly the reason for which we want to try to exclude this kind of litigious, legalistic, confrontational, adversarial advocacy from the breakdown of relationships in a parish. Let us imagine, for instance, the parish of Bolsover, presided over by the rector, the Rev. Dennis Skinner. Believe it or riot, the rector has fallen out with his parishioners. What does he do? He gets hold of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth to defend him before a tribunal.
  Can hon. Members think of anything more calculated to bring the Church of England into disrepute than a public row when a rector has fallen out with his parishioners in very sensitive and difficult circumstances, perhaps because he has lost his mental balance—[Interruptioni]—or perhaps, as the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) suggested, because he has had a nervous breakdown? There may be any number of reasons.
  478
  The rector then persuades my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth to defend him, in the style and with the legalistic approach that we observed earlier. That is precisely why we have introduced a Measure to exclude —I am trying to be kind to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth—the legalistic ranting that we have heard from him tonight, in the context of the provocation that the Rev. Dennis Skinner might have exercised on his unfortunate parishioners.
  The Measure contains provision for flexibility, conciliation, compensation and moderate attempts at definition. We want to retain a fair, reasonable arrangement, unexposed to lawyers' jargon and a militant drive for the rights of the individual that is entirely inappropriate in this context. No wonder the House of Clergy did not raise a dissenting vote against the Measure. One might have thought that, with such advocacy, all its members would vote in favour of my hon. Friend's proposals, if there had been any merit in what he said; but there is not. He has demonstrated by his style tonight exactly what we are trying to avoid.
  I urge my hon. Friend to accept that, following this good-humoured and important debate, he need not divide the House, which could cause a good many people a good deal of trouble. Will he accept that, although this has been a reasonable debate, the case for rejecting the Measure has not been made? I urge my hon. Friends to support it if we are forced into a Division.
  Mr. Roger Evans: Section 7(5) of the report states:
  "At an enquiry under this Measure the parties may be represented by a barrister or solicitor."
  Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend ignores the fact that the inquiry is at the discretion of the bishop. It may not happen at all if the bishop decides that it is not suitable —precisely to keep advocates, solicitors or barristers like my hon. Friend out of the court in such circumstances. My hon. Friend's point is not well taken.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) (Amendment) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Thursday 22nd July, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Speaker shall not later than Ten o'clock put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, Section 7.— [Mr. Conway.]
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Monday 26th July, Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall have effect as if for the words 'nine o'clock in the morning', in line 15, there were substituted the words 'eight o'clock in the morning'.—[Mr. Conway.]

  Leather Industry
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
  12.36 am
  Mr. Peter Fry: At the commencement of the debate, I declare an interest in that, for some years, I have been the parliamentary adviser to the British Leather Confederation. The industry has been facing several problems—environmental problems and problems involving trade and raw materials. Tonight I shall concentrate on the last category—the deteriorating raw stock quality and the decline in animal welfare.
  The United Kingdom tanning industry has an annual turnover of about £400 million, and has consistently exported a higher value of leather than it has imported. Last year, the industry had a balance of trade surplus of about £50 million, with total exports worth about £200 million. However, in order to survive and to enjoy that success the industry, like those in the rest of the European Community, has specialised in quality, performance, fashion and service to customers. To service that top sector of the market it needs a supply of good quality raw material, in the form of cattle hides and sheepskins.
  Unfortunately, the quality of raw hides and skins from United Kingdom animals is deteriorating to an alarming extent. That is not unique to the United Kingdom, but I shall mention later a number of specific examples that demonstrate the ways in which hide and skin quality in this country is deteriorating.
  The European Tanners Association, COTANCE, has produced a document on the subject, which has been submitted to the European Commission. It makes a number of important points, including the following. First, the leather industry is based on the processing of raw cattle hides and sheepskins, which are by-products of the meat and dairy industries. Secondly, because those are by-products, their quality is too often neglected by those involved in the production process. Thirdly, the quality of raw material for the leather industry is increasingly important. Finally, unnecessary damage to hides and skins causes an estimated loss to the EC economy of more than £500 million annually, of which about £50 million is lost in the United Kingdom.
  Although that money is lost in the chain from farmer to tanner, and is therefore eventually reflected in prices paid, the financial impact on the farmer is indirect. That is because the market mechanism is imperfect. There is a market price for the live animal, and a separate market price for the hide or skin at the abattoir gate. Those markets are separately driven, and are linked only indirectly. Furthermore, the economic value of a hide or skin, reflecting the end use for which it is suitable, can be fully assessed only after several stages of the tanning process.
  Damage to hides and skins takes place either while the animal is alive, on the farm or in transport, or in the abattoir. The main types of damage occur while the animal is still alive. In general terms, what is good for hide and skin quality is good for animal health and welfare. The major factors which affect the hide and skin quality are husbandry methods on the farm and regulations on animal welfare, animal health and meat hygiene.
  480
  There is concern in the trade that national regulations are being relaxed and that hide and skin quality is deteriorating and that affects the decline in animal health and welfare.
  An important current example is the threefold increase in ectoparasite damage to sheep since the progressive relaxation and finally the abolition last year of compulsory sheep dipping. Not only is the deterioration of sheepskin quality a serious matter for the United Kingdom sheepskin tanning industry; it also provides objective evidence of what many in the industry suspected but could not measure: that there has been a substantial and worrying increase in the infestation of sheep. That in turn has serious animal welfare implications.
  It is not overstating the case to stress that this could reach crisis proportions in the near future not only in terms of lost revenue, but also in the unacceptable suffering caused to the sheep population. Investigation by the British Leather Confederation is producing evidence to support that view. It is no wonder that its contentions are supported by organisations such as the Meat and Livestock Commission, the National Farmers Union, the National Sheep Association, the National Office of Animal Health, the Federation of Fresh Meat Wholesalers and the British Wool Marketing Board. The concern of those and other organisations must be taken into account.
  The current situation raises the following main issues. The increased number of outbreaks of sheep scab and the higher levels of infestation by other parasites is raising serious animal welfare implications in the national flock. It is a problem not only for the animals but also for the general public, for whom animal welfare is a major issue in their attitude to farming and meat consumption.
  The growing animal welfare problem of increased infestation needs to be addressed by effective policing of flocks to ensure consistent implementation of existing regulations for improving animal welfare.
  Apart from reducing animal growth rates, infestation also reduces the value of sheepskins causing a major financial loss to the United Kingdom. Throughout the chain from farmer to leather manufacturer, this is estimated to reach up to £20 million a year.
  The nature of the markets for sheep and sheepskins is such that there can be no direct incentive to farmers to improve skin quality. The imperfect market mechanism cannot be used as an effective means of persuading farmers to dip sheep as in other countries such as New Zealand, where direct payments are made to farmers for skin quality.
  The shortage of good-quality material is putting at serious risk the whole sheepskin tanning industry, which must sell to the quality fashion market if it is to survive. Even at today's relatively depressed prices, that section of the leather industry, with a turnover of £80 million per annum, exports of £70 million and directly employs about 1,000 people. It is the view of all sectors of the trade that the only effective means of addressing the situation is a return to some form of compulsory dipping along with notification of sheep scab outbreaks to give an objective measures.
  I am pleased to note that the interested sectors of the sheepskin and leather trade are in discussion with officials of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about practical ways in which this might be achieved and leather industry is in discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry with regard to the threat to their sector.

  481
  I am only too well aware of the current controversy over organophosphorus dips, and so is the industry. There is no intention on my or the industry's part that farmers and workers should be exposed to undue danger that will affect their health. I understand the feelings of those who feel such dipping should be banned. I understand, and I feel that the whole picture should be made clear.
  Effective control of ectoparasites relies upon the availability of suitable products. The OP dips at present have an important role in that. They are widely produced and used and have the benefit of being effective against the widest range of ectoparasites. No comparable alternatives exist. Any move to end the use of such products without the availability of an alternative with equivalent efficiency would further exacerbate the already worrying animal welfare problems.
  Dips contain insecticides and need to be treated with respect. It is important that farmers involved in the dipping process follow the correct procedures and wear appropriate protective clothing. Safety trials have been conducted on the effect of dipping in accordance with correct procedures. It is important that any decisions roust be taken on a scientific basis, taking account of the full implications.
  That is why the industry has made two suggestions. The first is that compulsory dipping should be reintroduced. Reinstatement of statutory control is considered most appropriate because it will ensure that most producers dipped at least once. However, it is recognised that policing of the dipping programme is a critical feature and neither the Government nor local authorities can provide the necessary resources at present.
  Therefore, as a second option, it is suggested that if the Ministry cannot respond to the first suggestion, legislative controls should be introduced based on the phased-in introduction of more acceptable dipping treatments and the mounting of a national campaign to publicise and encourage voluntary control, possibly supported by a code of practice.
  I turn briefly to the question of cattle hides. The quality of cattle hides is deteriorating. It is a Europewide problem but it has been particularly noted in the United Kingdom. It should be recorded that, while we have an overall surplus of raw hides, material for the top quality end uses must be imported from, for example, Scandinavia. United Kingdom tanners who sell to the top quality section of the market report that a decreasing proportion of their purchases of hides from United Kingdom sources can be used for the high-value outlets to which they sell. In 1991, only 50 per cent. could be used. A year later, it was reduced to 40 per cent., compared with an average of 65 per cent. of imported hides.
  The main types of damage are, first, scratched hides from barbed wire and horn clipping. Scratches are aggravated, by ectoparasite infestations. For both animal welfare and economic reasons, there is a case for a ban on barbed wire as the only means of fencing farm animals, plus the compulsory dehorning of all calves.
  Secondly, ectoparasites in cattle are a significant problem for hide quality. The ending of widespread treatment of cattle for such parasites has led to an increase in other parasites, especially lice. That is an animal husbandry and animal welfare issue at the farm level.
  482
  Thirdly, ringworm affects about five per cent. of cattle in the United Kingdom. It is a significant skin disease because it is transferable to man, so there is a case for making the vaccination of all cattle obligatory.
  Fourthly, there is the problem of dung contamination. Dirty hides and skins raise not only quality problems for tanners but health, safety and environmental problems for other trades and industries. This is a problem in both the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Community. It is viewed primarily as an issue of hygiene in abattoirs and proper implementation of the rules for preventing dirty animals from entering the abattoir. There would seem to be a need for a payment method to farmers to be devised, which would ensure that cleaner animals arrive for slaughter.
  The final matter to which I shall refer is the export of live animals. This is a further animal welfare issue because it is felt that there is a significant economic impact on the leather industry. At the same time, it affects the way in which animals are sent overseas and the number of them. There has been a rapidly increasing level of exports, especially of live sheep.
  There is a feeling that, as we have moved to the single European market, there has also been a move to the lowest common denominator in terms of animal welfare controls as national regulations are relaxed or removed and EC controls are more relaxed or non-existent. This has an effect not only on animal welfare but on other sectors, including the hide, skin and leather trade. The relaxation of rules on transport times for animals has coincided with a rapid increase in the export of live sheep from the United Kingdom, mainly to France. During 1992, the total almost doubled to over 1.4 million. There are reports of further increases during 1993.
  Exports on this scale need to be carefully monitored, to ensure that the animals are not subject to unnecessary suffering. I question whether that is taking place. It should be acknowledged that, although there may be some short-term commercial benefits to live sheep exports on this scale, it leads to a loss of added value within the United Kingdom and creates economic problems for downstream industries, including the hide, skin and leather trade.
  To conclude, tonight I have attempted to highlight some problems being faced in just one sphere: raw material supply by the British leather industry. I know that discussions and negotiations are taking place with Ministry officials. All I am asking is that there should be a true recognition of the contribution of the industry to the British economy, that the Ministry will look in favour at least at some of its suggestions, and take positive steps to assist it to continue its high level of quality and exports.
  12.50 am
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) on identifying a subject on which he is an expert, as the House knows. It is of considerable importance to this country, and therefore to many hon. Members.
  As my hon. Friend and the House will know, for centuries the leather and associated industries have made a substantial contribution to the economic well-being of this country. The leather industry now has a turnover of

  483
  some £400 million. The industry exports more than half of that to buyers throughout the world, and regularly makes a positive contribution to our balance of payments. Its products are of the highest quality and rightly attract premium prices in sophisticated and discerning markets such as the United States of America, France and Italy as well as the United Kingdom.
  Today, tanning is no longer a parochial, craft-oriented business serving the local community, but a capital-intensive, technologically-driven industry trading its products across the world. British tanners face intense competition both at home and overseas. Inevitably, the United Kingdom industry has had to adapt and change to the new environment in which it must operate. The United Kingdom has not been alone in this. Throughout Europe, we have seen in recent years a substantial shrinkage in the tanning industry, both in employment in the sector and in the number of firms. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that probably two main worldwide factors are responsible for this.
  The first is the shift of footwear and other leather manufacturing industries from the north to the south and from the west to the east. The transfer of activity has been driven largely by the relative cost of labour, in this as in so many other industries.
  The second factor which has speeded the transfer of activity is the building up of considerable tanning capacity in countries which have traditionally been the suppliers of raw material—India, Pakistan, Brazil, the Argentine and others. I regret to say that in many cases—my hon. Friend is right to suggest this—the development of these new industries has been and continues to be supported by export bans on raw material and Government subsidies on investments and exports.
  The comparative international disadvantages of high labour costs, and the increasing environmental requirements which European society now insists upon, have forced the leather industry to introduce a high degree of mechanisation into the production process. Another important feature to improve competitiveness has been the training of the work-force and the introduction of increased flexibility in production. However, my hon. Friend has correctly pointed out that the most important strategy has been the shift from the production of standard quality items to products with higher value added—in other words, concentrating on the top quality end of the market.
  Clearly, an important element in this drive towards top quality production must be access to top quality raw material—that is the skins and hides. This is where the farming industry plays its part. I am extremely grateful to my honourable Friend for giving us such a clear analysis of the reasons why farmers should treat their sheep in order to control sheep scab and other parasitic conditions.
  I should perhaps make it clear that I fully agree with my hon. Friend on the benefits of dipping sheep for scab. They are clear for all to see, and I would encourage all sheep farmers to dip their animals regularly, as well as to apply other appropriate anti-parasitic treatments.
  I am equally grateful to the Meat and Livestock Commission, which has recently sent my Department a report that details its concerns about the effect of the removal of sheep scab controls on the quality of skins
  484
  supplied to the leather industry. The report has been prepared in conjunction with a number of interested bodies, including the British Leather Confederation. It makes many of the same points that have been made tonight, and we shall study it with great care and interest.
  However, I have no doubts that simply encouraging farmers to dip and otherwise treat their sheep will not satisfy my hon. Friend, or the authors of the report. they would like the Government to go much further and regulate again for the compulsory dipping of sheep. That is a different matter altogether and one on which I am afraid I cannot agree with my hon. Friend.
  The purpose of compulsory national dipping was to control and eradicate sheep scab, particularly on premises where the existence of infestation had not been recognised. Compulsory national dipping, once or twice a year was an important part of the sheep scab controls since 1976.
  However, 15 years later, in 1991, scab was still confirmed in 116 flocks, and 28 per cent. of farmers failed to co-operate by returning their dipping forms. This was no golden egg. The policy was not going to eradicate sheep scab. After widespread consultation, it was decided last year to remove the requirement compulsorily to dip.
  I have heard nothing tonight that makes me think it was wrong to deregulated the sheep scab controls. As my hon. Friend knows, scab can be cured by the farmer simply and effectively by using a licensed medicinal product in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations, combined with care in the purchase of replacement animals and management of his flock to prevent reinfestation. To reintroduce controls now would fly in the face of the Governmnent's deregulation policy.
  Legislation is now used only as a last resort. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that there is no reason why diseases of sheep should be treated any differently from other policies, when there is a perfectly acceptable means at hand to control them.
  Although I fully understand the concerns of the leather industry about the quality of its raw materials, it is for the marketplace, not Parliament to determine the quality of supply. I am sure that the leather industry would not want the Government to regulate its operations so that it was prevented from making what it saw as the right commercial decisions in the marketplace.
  Farming is no different. We are firmly committed to trying to move away from unnecessary controls throughout British industry, and that applies as much to farming as to any other industry, in the land.
  We have heard tonight about deterioration in the quality of skins supplied to the leather industry and the need for legislation because of failures in the market. I appreciate that the current structure of the industry makes it difficult for price signals to move back through the chain from the leather industry to the farmer, but that is something that the industry can and must sort out for itself.
  The Government should not interfere to force the livestock industry to incur extra costs to improve the quality of skins if the livestock industry itself concludes, on commercial grounds, that the extra costs are not justified by the extra reward for the quality achieved. The remedy must lie in the leather industry improving the price signals that it sends to farmers, combined, if the industry chooses, with the sort of promotional campaign which the M LC told my officials in June that it was considering.

  485
  I would certainly be happy to consider with the British Leather Confederation, the Meat and Livestock Commission and other interested parties what practical action might be taken to encourage farmers to improve the quality of the raw material reaching the tanning industry. As my hon. Friend mentioned, I am pleased to say that discussions have already been initiated at official level.
  My hon. Friend has also raised animal welfare as an area of concern, both because of the increased incidence of sheep scab, and the export of live animals. Although I cannot confirm or deny the number of new outbreaks of sheep scab since the disease is not longer notifiable, I can confirm that the Government take this, and all issues of animal welfare, extremely seriously.
  We already have legislation which makes it an offence to cause unnecessary pain or distress to farm livestock. We know that the sheep scab mite causes irritation and distress to affected animals. Prosecution action will be taken by the local authority, or the state veterinary service against any producers who create animal welfare problems by failing to treat infested sheep. But that is no different from the action that we would take for any other welfare problem caused by poor husbandry.
  There is, as my hon. Friend rightly says, a strong market demand on the continent for British animals. Live exports alone were worth about £160 million in 1992. The choice between sending live animals or carcase meat is a matter for market forces, subject to the necessary welfare safeguards when live animals are transported. I note the points raised by my hon. Friend about animal transport, which we will, of course, bear in mind.
  I am also fully aware of the concerns in some quarters about the possible effects of those dips which contain organophosphorous compounds, on the farmers using them. The House may be aware that, in March, following a request from the previous Minister, the independent Veterinary Products Committee gave careful consideration to whether a moratorium on the use of organophosphorous sheep dips should be introduced. At its meeting, the VPC took into account reports of increased outbreaks of sheep scab in formulating its advice to Ministers. The committee concluded that those dips should continue on the market during the summer period.
  It made specific mention of the fact that, if sheep scab and blowfly strike were left untreated, serious welfare problems would follow. The VPC will be returning to the
  486
  subject of organophosphorous dips again in October, when it wishes to complete the review of products which is currently under way. Comments from the British Leather Confederation have been received, and those are being put to the VPC, along with all the other information that it will consider.
  We are doing all we can to try to establish the facts —we want to be able to make an informed decision based on as much scientific evidence as possible. In the meantime, sheep can continue to benefit from proven effective treatment to safeguard against distressing diseases. Sheep are, of course, not the only source of skins to the leather industry. My hon. Friend mentioned cattle, which are also important—their skins can suffer from warble fly infection. In Great Britain, great progress has been made in eliminating warble fly in recent years—it has been eliminated. Unfortunately, recent imports of cattle have shown evidence of warble infestation. We acted swiftly to deal with those outbreaks; and national rules for combating the spread of the fly were speedily and fully implemented.
  My hon. Friend will no doubt be pleased to hear that we are seeking additional trade safeguards from the Community to help protect our hard-won disease-free status, and that we shall do all that we can to preserve it. My hon. Friend also mentioned ringworm. I am sure that he is aware that drugs are available to treat ringworm, and it is up to the farmer to ensure that the condition is treated.
  In conclusion, I once again congratulate my hon. Friend on the succinct and imaginative way in which he voiced his concerns about the leather industry. In these technologically advanced days, it is all too easy to forget the value and significance of traditional industries such as that one. I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend that the Government are seized of the need to do all they can to maintain the quality of the raw materials used in the leather industry, without burdening the industry with unnecessary regulations. We shall pay great attention to the issues raised by my hon. Friend, but he will be aware that farmers themselves also have an important and integral part to play in the process. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to watch the position extremely carefully.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past One o'clock.

Home Department

  Immigration (Medical Examinations)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passengers arriving at United Kingdom ports of entry during 1992 and the first quarter of 1993 were referred to port medical inspectors for examination; what are the most common diagnoses made; and how many people have been(a) refused entry (i) wholly or (ii) partly on medical grounds and for what medical reason or (b) required to report for further medical treatment after entry, for what medical reason.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Nine passengers were refused entry principally on medical grounds in 1992 and none during the first quarter of 1993. The other information requested is not available centrally.

  Immigration Offences
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were recommended for deportation with no custodial sentence during(a)

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1 January to 31 March

  —

  856

  688

  735

  2960

  995

  1 April to 30 June

  —

  658

  644

  759

  2793

  3946

  1 July to 30 September

  1285

  829

  634

  781

  761

  —

  1 October to 31 December

  692

  729

  744

  778

  710

  —

  1From 1 August.

  2Revised figure.

  3 Provisional figure.

  EUROPOL
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further progress has been made recently towards bringing the European Community joint criminal intelligence office, EUROPOL, on to an effective basis and towards establishing a joint anti-drugs squad.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Ministers of the Interior and Justice of the member states signed a ministerial agreement on the establishment of the EUROPOL drugs unit on 2 June 1993, in Copenhagen. The agreement will come into force as soon as a decision has been made on a site for EUROPOL by the European Council.

  Work is continuing under the Belgium presidency on the draft convention establishing EUROPOL. EUROPOL will exchange and analyse intelligence relating to serious crime, focusing initially on drug trafficking, but there is no intention that its officers should have any operational
  powers.
  206
  and (b) 1993 to the latest convenient date; and in how many such cases the courts directed release (i) subject to conditions and (ii) without conditions.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  During 1992, 27 people were recommended for deportation by the courts with no custodial sentence and seven during the first half of 1993. The other information requested is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many decisions to make a deportation order, by nationality of the potential deportee, where there is only a right of appeal as provided under section 5 of the Immigration Act 1988, have been made in each quarter since 1 August 1988; and on what basis these decisions have been made.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The total numbers of decisions to deport affected by the provisions of section 5 of the Immigration Act 1988 in each of the quarters since 1 August 1988 are shown in the table. All these decisions were made under section 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971, which provides that a person who is not a British citizen is liable to deportation if, having only a limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, he does not observe a condition attached to the leave or remains beyond the time limited by the leave. Information about the nationality of those affected could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Immigration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many outstanding immigration applications there are at Lunar house from(a) students, (b) family members in the United Kingdom applying for variation of stay, (c) settlement entry clearance applications referred from overseas posts and (d) asylum seekers; and what are the average times applicants in each category might expect to wait before a decision.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information is that at the end of June 1993 there were in total about 16,700 cases in the general immigration caseworking groups— including referred entry clearance applications—the majority of which were under consideration or the subject of further inquiries, and about 46,300 cases in the asylum and special cases division.

  The estimated average length of time between the receipt of an application and the decision, for cases decided in caseworking groups and the public inquiry offices, in the first quarter of 1993, was one and a half months for students and 20 months for asylum applications. The latter figure reflects the increase in staffing in the asylum and special cases division which has

  207
  enabled work to proceed on the resolution of older and more complex cases. Information on average waiting times for family members in the United Kingdom for variation of leave and for settlement entry clearance applications referred from overseas posts is not available.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) British nationals and (b) holders of certificates of identity from Hong Kong have been admitted to the United Kingdom in each quarter

  Admissions to the United Kingdom of BDTCs and BN(O)s from Hong Kong

  1992

  19931

  Admission category

  1st quarter

  2nd quarter

  3rd quarter

  4th quarter

  Year

  January, February

  Visitors:

  Ordinary

  7,700

  12,300

  22,000

  7,030

  49,100

  5,220

  Business

  1,590

  1,470

  1,610

  1,450

  6,120

  1,090

  Students

  490

  500

  7,290

  940

  9,230

  470

  Husbands and fiancés2

  10

  10

  20

  10

  60

  Wives and fiancées2

  30

  40

  50

  30

  140

  20

  Parents and grandparents2

  10

  —

  10

  —

  Children2

  20

  30

  100

  10

  170

  10

  5 or fewer.

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 Seeking, or accepted for, settlement in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for(a) single entry and (b) multiple entry visit visas were (i) received, (ii) granted and (iii) refused at each post in the Indian sub-continent, Ghana, Nigeria, the Philippines and Jamaica in each quarter of 1992 and the first quarter of 1993; and what was the delay between application and interview for those whose applications were felt to need a

  Applications received for single entry and multiple entry visit visas and the numbers granted, refused and those interviewed on a date subsequent to the date of application in specified posts in 1992

  Applications

  Received1

  Granted

  Refused

  Number not interviewed on day of application

  Islamabad

  single entry

  30,036

  19,099

  8,393

  1,389

  multiple entry

  8,192

  6,295

  43

  Karachi

  single entry

  14,736

  11,244

  2,256

  1,951

  multiple entry

  8,082

  7,516

  308

  New Delhi

  single entry

  25,879

  19,852

  2,938

  0

  multiple entry

  11,326

  10,764

  43

  Bombay

  single entry

  17,943

  14,661

  3,291

  0

  multiple entry

  16,488

  15,890

  363

  Calcutta

  single entry

  3,574

  3,346

  175

  109

  multiple entry

  3,304

  2,950

  24

  Madras

  single entry

  4,709

  4,499

  207

  0

  multiple entry

  4,485

  4,443

  25

  Colombo

  single entry

  6,382

  4,734

  1,054

  0

  multiple entry

  2,037

  1,995

  15

  Dhaka

  single entry

  10,207

  7,606

  2,751

  0

  multiple entry

  2,985

  2,985

  0

  208
  since January 1992 as (i) persons of independent means, (ii) self-employed persons, (iii) business people, (iv) visitors, (v) students, (vi) husbands and fiancées, (vii) wives and fiancées and (viii) other dependent relatives.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information for British dependent territories citizens and British nationals (overseas) from Hong Kong is given in the table. Data on admissions of holders of certificates of identity from Hong Kong are not available.

  second or long interview at each of the above posts in (1) June 1992, (2) January 1993 and (3) June 1993 or the nearest available date.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Only annual data are available centrally for single visit and multiple entry visit visas and the only information available on the delay between application and interview is of the number of people not interviewed on the day of application.

  The available information for 1992 is given in the table.
  209

  Applications

  Received1

  Granted

  Refused

  Number not interviewed on day of application

  Accra

  single entry

  11,664

  6,901

  4,844

  0

  multiple entry

  4,464

  4,135

  49

  Lagos

  single entry

  27,717

  15,632

  9,959

  0

  multiple entry

  17,715

  14,447

  724

  Kaduna

  single entry

  4,878

  3,194

  1,509

  0

  multiple entry

  1,913

  1,827

  42

  Manila

  single entry

  10,066

  8,970

  994

  0

  multiple entry

  2,509

  2,314

  80

  Kingston

  single entry

  2,527

  1,897

  652

  0

  multiple entry

  103

  103

  0

  1 These will include cases dealt with in a later period and also those subsequently withdrawn.

  Tyre Dump Fires
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions are issued to fire service authorities in dealing with fires at tyre dumps; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Home Office has issued detailed guidance to chief fire officers on, among other things, the need to use the most effective available techniques for dealing with fires at tyre dumps. Revised guidance on the storage of used tyres in the open air is also being prepared.

  Registration and Naturalisation
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of time taken to process applications for(a) registration and (b) naturalisation; and how long those applying in both of those categories in June 1993 can expect to wait.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In June 1993 the average waiting time for certificates granted under the British Nationality Act 1981 was 19 months for naturalisation and 13 months for registration applications. It is expected that most applications made in June 1993 for naturalisation will be decided within 12 months and for registration within six to nine months.

  Operation Boxer
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) immigration officers, (b) police officers and (c) police dogs were involved in Operation Boxer; how the officers had obtained the allegations and information on which they were acting; how many of the people detained on 24 June were found to be (i) legally in the United Kingdom, (ii) in breach of immigration conditions, (iii) alleged illegal entrants and (iv) British citizens; how many requested and were granted legal advice before interview; how many were detained for (x) one day or less, (y) between a day and a week and (z) over a week; and how many have left the United Kingdom.
  210
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Forty-nine immigration service staff, assisted by about 80 police officers, were involved in Operator Boxer on 24 June. No police dogs were used.

  The information on which the officers were acting was received from a number of sources. Of those people interviewed on 24 June, five were found to be legally in the United Kingdom, of whom two were British citizens. Seventeen were dealt with as illegal entrants. Thirteen were found to be in breach of their conditions of entry to this country. Of these, 10 were overstayers and three were working without permission. One person was found to be the subject of an extant deportation order.

  All those arrested were given the opportunity to receive legal advice and representation in accordance with the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

  Of those detained, 31 were detained for one day or less, five were detained for between one day and one week, arid one was detained for over one week.

  Thirteen people have so far left the United Kingdom as a result of this operation.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the report of the West Midlands police on the Birmingham pub bombings.

  Mr. Howard
  The investigation of these serious offences is being conducted under the auspices of the Director of Public Prosecutions to whom a report will be sent at its conclusion. It is not possible to say when the report will be ready.

  Charities
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will implement part II of the Charities Act 1992 to tackle fraudulent charity fund-raisers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  As indicated in the answer to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) on 23 March, column 532, I intend to implement part II—control of fund-raising —by the end of March 1994. To that end I have recently

  211
  issued a document on part II which includes draft regulations and guidance; a copy is being placed in the Library of the House.

  Parking Tickets
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) prosecutions and (b) fixed penalty parking tickets were issued to motorists in (i) Westminster and (ii) the remaining London boroughs during each of the past five years for illegal parking on (1) a single yellow line and (2) a parking meter; what was the average penalty levied in the case of (a) fines and (b) prosecutions; what considerations underlie the choice of penalty for such offences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information is not available in the detailed form requested. A total of 7,696 non-endorsable obstruction, waiting and parking offences were dealt with by prosecution in the Metropolitan police district in 1991 and 1,844,595 by fixed penalty notice. The average fine imposed following prosecution was £31 and the standard amount imposed after a fixed penalty was £16.

  Fixed penalty levels are set by the Home Secretary and are reviewed periodically. They are intended to provide a penalty which is proportionate to the offence.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Murder Trials
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what records are kept of the witnesses called at a murder trial; and for how long they are retained.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  All records of a murder trial in which a life sentence is imposed are preserved permanently.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what arrangements are made for the preservation of a judge's notes made during a trial for murder.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Judge's notes are retained for five years from the date of the last entry in each volume. No special arrangements exist for the preservation of judge's notes made during a trial for murder after the five-year period. Verbatim transcripts made for the appeal are kept indefinitely by arrangement with the Public Record Office.

  Magistrates' Training
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the result of the review announced in February 1992 of magistrates' training in the criteria contained in the Bail Act 1976.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Judicial Studies Board has reviewed the training given to magistrates on bail matters and on 31 August 1992 the chairman of the magisterial committee of the board wrote to all training officers giving advice on best practice. A copy of this letter has been placed in the Library.
  212

  Legal Education and Conduct
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellors' advisory committee on legal education and conduct intends to publish its second annual report.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal education and conduct has today published its second annual report, and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

HEALTH

  Nurses and Midwives
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many practising midwives there are in each grade in each region, 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 region.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information will be placed in the Library.

  Emergency Admissions (North-West)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the number of emergency admissions to(a) Burnley health care trust and (b) the North West regional health authority for 1991–92.

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1991–92 purchasers in the North Western region bought 331,000 non-elective admissions to hospitals. In the same year the predecessors of the Burnley health care trust provided 17,292 such admissions.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) of 21 June,Official Report, column 34, if he will list the grants so far made to voluntary organisations under the section 64 general scheme of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 in the financial year beginning 1 April.

  Mr. Bowis
  Section 64 general scheme grants continuing into 1993–94 from previous years and new grants for which approval had been notified by 15 July 1993 total over £16.5 million. Details will be placed in the Library. The budget for 1993–94 is £19.2 million, an increase of £0.9 million over 1992–93.

  Elective Surgery Treatment Centres
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to establish treatment centres for elective surgery in England for(a) cataract surgery, (b) major joint surgery and (c) hernias and varicose vein surgery.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no plans to do so. It is for health authorities to decide whether the establishment of treatment centres providing certain surgical procedures would be in the best interests of the populations they serve.
  213

  Psychiatric Care
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many mother and baby beds there are in psychiatric units in the country;

  (2) how many women-only psychiatric wards there are in England.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) male and (b) female psychiatrists are currently practising.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information is shown in the table. Information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Numbers of psychiatrists in national health service hospital sector by sex England—30 September 1991

  Consultants

  All staff1

  Male

  1,490

  3,760

  Female

  535

  2,097

  Total

  2,025

  5,857

  Note:

  Specialties included are mental illness, child and adolescent psychiatry, forensic psychiatry, mental handicap, old age psychiatry and psychotherapy.

  1 Grades included: consultants, associate specialists, staff grades, senior registrars, registrars and senior house officers, house officers, hospital practitioners and clinical assistants working in the specialty.

  Accident and Emergency Units
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what figures she has on the percentage of women of reproductive age who visit accident and emergency units because of domestic violence.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Secure Accommodation
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her Department's policy on the provision of secure accommodation for 15 and 16-year-old offenders by social service authorities.

  Mr. Bowis
  Secure accommodation provided in community homes is for any child being looked after by a local authority who meets the statutory criteria for restriction of liberty, whether as an offender or as a non-offender.

  We are working closely with local authorities to ensure that sufficient additional secure accommodation is made available to ensure that the practice of remanding 15 and 16-year-old alleged offenders to penal establishments can be abolished as quickly as practicable.

  NHS Reforms
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is her estimate of the total cost of administering the internal market in the health service in each of the last two years;
  214
  (2) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the NHS reforms.

  Mr. Sackville
  The national health service reforms are now firmly in place. It is impossible to put a figure on the relative cost of services under this system compared with any particular alternative, such as the previously directly managed arrangements, but there is no doubt that the NHS is now more effective in identifying local health needs and providing more efficient health care services.

  Paracetamol Overdoses
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people died from paracetamol in each of the last five years; how many recorded overdoses of paracetamol there were in each of the last five years; and what plans she has to decrease morbidity and mortality from paracetamol overdose.

  Mr. Bowis
  The table shows the number of deaths from poisoning where paracetamol is mentioned in the deaths' records. Information on the number of recorded overdoses of paracetamol is not available centrally.

  "The Health of the Nation" mental illness key area handbook gives guidance to professionals on how to meet the specific suicide reduction targets. The advice covers the labelling of paracetamol bottles to warn of toxicity and reviewing the storage and availability of poisonous over-the-counter medicines.

  Deaths from poisoning where paracetamol is mentioned in the deaths' records, England and Wales, 1986–90

  Paracetamol without mention of other drugs

  Paracetamol with mention of other drugs

  1986

  208

  (15)

  299

  (69)

  1987

  212

  (19)

  301

  (58)

  1988

  184

  (21)

  312

  (77)

  1989

  163

  (16)

  295

  (59)

  1990

  223

  (16)

  288

  (60)

  Figures in brackets are deaths where there was no mention of alcohol.

  Note This table is compiled using the information available in table 10 of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) publication "Mortality statistics: injury and poisoning" series DH4 Nos. 12–16, which lists all substances mentioned in the records of deaths assigned to accidental and other poisoning by solid or liquid substances. The inclusion of a substance in this list does not, however, imply that it is necessarily toxic. Where two or more substances are mentioned togther the contribution, if any, of each to the death is unknown; even where one substance is listed alone there may well be other factors with an important bearing on the death. Copies of the OPCS DH4 series are avaiable in the Library.

  Paediatric Nurses
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses trained as specialists in paediatrics in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The figures give the numbers starting paediatric nurse training and the numbers completing paediatric nurse training in England at year ending 31 March.

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Intakes to training

  710

  810

  850

  1,090

  1,180

  Completing training

  780

  700

  770

  850

  890

  Note: The number completing training in 1988 is greater than the number of intakes to training in the same year because those completing refer to intakes in previous years.
  215

  Electro-convulsive Therapy
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will estimate the number of(a) women and (b) men receiving ECT each year; and what is the ratio between them.

  Mr. Bowis
  The number of electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) treatments in 1990–91 was 105,466 but a patient could receive more than one treatment during the year. It is estimated that five women receive ECT for every two men.

  Mid-Staffordshire Health Authority
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she proposes to take following the Peat Marwick report on the financial management of Mid-Staffordshire health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  This a matter for the health authority concerned who are working in close conjuction with West Midlands regional health authority to resolve their financial position. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. B. Liss, the chairman of Mid-Staffordshire health authority, for details.

  Elderly People (Abuse)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to place a legal duty on social workers to investigate cases of suspected abuse against those elderly and disabled people who are unable to take decisions for themselves.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on 12 July at col.385.

  HELIOS II Proposals
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement outlining the progress made by her Department to date in determining an official response to the HELIOS II proposals.

  Mr. Bowis
  The European Community's HELIOS II programme was adopted by the Council of Ministers on 25 February this year. The Department is currently consulting in the United Kingdom with other interested Government Departments and with a United Kingdom forum of voluntary bodies representing a wide range of disabilities on the content of the programme.

  Patient Waiting Times
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she will publish the provider waiting lists and waiting times for each Thames region of the NHS.

  Mr. Sackville
  Provider based information on waiting lists and waiting times by trust, district health authority, special health authority and regional health authority is given in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England". This is published twice a year and copies are available in the Library.
  216

  Home Helps
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received about the level of charges for home helps; whether she will carry out an inquiry into the differences in charges between local authorities; when she plans to issue guidelines to local authorities on levels of charges; and if she will make a statement, with particular reference to the role that voluntary groups and the private sector can play in providing home helps in the Bolton area.

  Mr. Bowis
  A number of representations have been received. Local authorities have a discretionary power to make charges for non-residential services. We have no current plans to carry out an inquiry. It is the Government's view that a full economic charge should be recovered where this can be done without causing hardship to the service user. Advice on detailed aspects will be disseminated where appropriate.

  One of the main objectives of the community care reforms is to encourage the development of a flourishing independent sector in the provision of domiciliary servics. It is for each local authority to identify local needs and opportunities, and their progress will be monitored. We understand that independent sector involvement in the provision of domiciliary services in Bolton is currently minimal. It is our view that such involvement should be encouraged.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she has issued to NHS trusts with regard to the specifications of contracts for ambulance and patient transport services and the minimum levels of training required for ambulance personnel.

  Mr. Sackville
  Guidance on contracts was included in "Health Service Guidelines (HSG(91)29): Ambulance and other patient transport services—Operation, use and performance standards". Subsequent circulars FDL(92)82 and FDL(93)07 set out the finance arrangements recommended to those contracting for non-emergency patient transport services. Further guidance on these matters is to be issued very shortly. Copies of guidelines and circulars are available in the Library.

  The level of training given to ambulance personnel will depend on the nature of their duties. For example, ambulance paramedics must, as a minimum, achieve the standards currently set by the national health service training directorate.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the policy of her Department with regard to the maximum geographical area which can appropriately be covered by one ambulance service.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no restriction on the area for which an ambulance service may tender for service contracts.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations have been received by her Department from groups representing private ambulance operators, with regard to the need for increased regulation or self-regulation of such operators.

  Mr. Sackville
  Representations have been received from a number of organisations representing private ambulance
  217
  services. A representative of one organisation had discussions with the Department of Health's ambulance policy advisory group earlier this year. The advisory group has agreed a code of practice for prospective purchasers and providers setting out minimum standards for non-national health service patient transport services.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trusts in each regional health authority in England and Wales presently have one or more contracts with private operators for ambulance or patient transport services.

  National Health Service qualified midwives employed full-time and part-time by region—September 1988 to 1991

  Whole-time equivalents

  1988

  1989

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  Northern

  960

  370

  1,320

  920

  370

  1,290

  Yorkshire

  1,240

  360

  1,610

  1,240

  380

  1,630

  Trent

  1,380

  440

  1,820

  1,410

  440

  1,850

  East Anglia

  670

  160

  830

  630

  180

  820

  North West Thames

  960

  220

  1,180

  970

  230

  1,200

  North East Thames

  1,300

  270

  1,580

  1,300

  270

  1,570

  South East Thames

  880

  160

  1,040

  660

  120

  780

  South West Thames

  780

  240

  1,030

  780

  270

  1,040

  Wessex

  880

  270

  1,150

  860

  300

  1,150

  Oxford

  720

  240

  960

  750

  230

  980

  South Western

  810

  210

  1,020

  940

  260

  1,200

  West Midlands

  1,670

  540

  2,210

  1,700

  550

  2,250

  Mersey

  750

  270

  1,020

  780

  310

  1,090

  North Western

  1,690

  480

  2,170

  1,580

  530

  2,110

  Special Health Authority

  140

  10

  150

  140

  10

  150

  Total

  14,840

  4,250

  19,080

  14,660

  4,460

  19,110

  Whole-time equivalents

  1990

  1991

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  Full-lime

  Part-time

  Total

  Northern

  920

  370

  1,280

  910

  400

  1,310

  Yorkshire

  1,270

  370

  1,640

  1,210

  410

  1,620

  Trent

  1,410

  470

  1,880

  1,390

  490

  1,880

  East Anglia

  640

  170

  810

  610

  180

  780

  North West Thames

  980

  230

  1,210

  880

  250

  1,130

  North East Thames

  1,340

  270

  1,610

  1,280

  310

  1,600

  South East Thames

  1,150

  250

  1,400

  990

  320

  1,310

  South West Thames

  740

  240

  980

  780

  260

  1,040

  Wessex

  820

  310

  1,130

  790

  350

  1,140

  Oxford

  760

  250

  1,010

  730

  300

  1,030

  South Western

  950

  280

  1,230

  10

  1,180

  1,180

  West Midlands

  1,750

  570

  2,320

  1,650

  570

  2,220

  Mersey

  800

  320

  1,120

  770

  340

  1,110

  North Western

  1,580

  570

  2,150

  1,580

  620

  2,190

  Special Health Authority

  80

  0

  80

  90

  0

  90

  Total

  15,200

  4,660

  19,860

  13,670

  5,980

  19,640

  Source: HAP(STATS)B Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  2. Figures exclude student and pupil midwives.

  3. Figures exclude Senior Midwives (Midwives in administration).

  4. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

EDUCATION

  Examinations
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 13 July,Official Report, column 824, when he expects to be in a position to give the cost of examiners used to invigilate and/or mark tests for English and technical studies in spring 1993 to
  218
  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

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

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is given in the table.

  replace teaching staff who refused to administer the tests; and whether he will list those costs by authority which incurred them.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not collected by the Department.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the ratio of schoolchildren aged between three and 19 years old to speech therapists in each local education authority in England.
  219
  Mr. Forth
  The figures requested are not held centrally.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list those schools by local education authority that have achieved grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The schools which have been approved for self-governing status as of 20 July, or which my right hon. Friend is minded to approve, are as follows.

  Avon

  Oldfield School

  Beechen Cliff School

  Barnet

  Queen Elizabeth's GM School For Boys

  Mill Hill Grant-Maintained High School

  St. Mary's CE High School

  Hendon School

  Bedfordshire

  Lea Manor High School and Community College

  Crawley Green Grant Maintained Infant School

  Holywell School

  Thomas Whitehead CE School

  Ashcroft High School

  Quensbury School

  Ashton St. Peters (VA) Lower School

  Sharnbrook Upper School

  Icknield High School

  Manshead School

  Stopsley High School and Community College

  Wootton Upper School

  Lincroft Middle School (Grant Maintained)

  Berkshire

  Herschel Grammar School

  Slough Grammar School (Formerly Upton Grammar)

  The Downs School

  Denefield School

  Priory School

  Cippenham Middle School (Grant Maintained)

  Reading School

  Whitelocke Infant and Nursery School

  Langley Grammar School Desborough Comprehensive School

  Holy Family RC School Castleview Combined School

  St. Bartholomew's School Westgate School

  Southlands School

  Bexley

  St. Columba's RC Boys School

  St. Catherine's RC School for Girls

  Bexley Erith Technical High School for Boys

  St. Mary and St. Joseph's Grant-Maintained School

  Barnehurst Infant Grant-Maintained School

  Barnehurst Junior Grant-Maintained School

  Birmingham

  Handsworth Grammar School for Boys

  King Edward VI Handsworth School

  Ninestiles School

  King Edward VI Aston School

  Hall Green School

  Baverstock Grant-Maintained School

  King Edward VI Camp Hill School for Girls

  Small Heath School

  Great Barr Grant-Maintained School

  The Fairfax School

  Deanery Junior School

  Deanery Infant School

  King Edward VI Camp Hill School for Boys

  King Edward VI Five Ways School

  Bolton

  George Tomlinson School

  220

  St. James' CE School

  Canon Slade School

  Crompton Fold Primary School

  Bradford

  Oakbank School

  Bingley Grammar School

  Laisterdyke Grant-Maintained Middle School

  Thornton School

  Hanson Grant-Maintained School

  Killinghall School

  Brent

  Claremont High School (Grant-Maintained)

  Kingsbury High School

  Convent of Jesus and Mary GM High School

  Queens Park Community School (GM)

  Copland Community School and Technology Centre

  Bromley

  Beaverwood School for Girls Crofton Junior School

  Holy Innocents Roman Catholic Primary School

  Newstead Wood School for Girls (GM)

  Bullers Wood School for Girls Hayes School

  Charles Darwin School

  St. John Rigby School

  Ravens Wood School for Boys

  Langley Park School for Boys Coopers School

  Kelsey Park School

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

  Buckinghamshire

  Castlefield Combined School

  Hamilton Combined School

  Bridgewater Hall School, Stantonbury Campus

  Beaconsfield High School

  Overstone Grant-Maintained Combined School

  Brindley Hall School

  Wycombe Royal Grammar School

  Lord Grey School Wing School

  Beechview Middle School (Grant-Maintained)

  The Chalfonts Community College (GM)

  The Radcliffe School

  Brookmead School

  Brushwood Middle School

  Bury

  Peel Brow County Primary School

  Calderdale

  Rastrick High School

  Salterlee Primary School

  The North Halifax Grammar School

  Holy Trinity CE Senior School (GM)

  The Crossley Heath School

  Cambridgeshire

  Jack Hunt School, Peterborough

  Deacon's School

  The King's School (Peterborough Cathedral Sc)

  Sawston Village College

  Sawtry Village College GM School

  St. John Fisher RC Comprehensive School

  St. Peter's School

  Longsands Community College

  The Village College, Comberton

  Gamlingay (Grant-Maintained) Village College

  Bassingbourn GM Village College

  Stanground College (Grant-Maintained)

  Orton Wistow Primary School

  Wheatfields Junior School

  The Queen's School

  St. Helen's Primary School

  Crosshall Junior School

  Ailwyn Community School

  The Park Lane Primary School

  Crosshall Infant School

  221
  Cheshire

  Henbury County High School

  Fallibroome High School

  Bankfield High School (GM)

  Mottram St. Andrew Primary School

  Kettleshulme St. James CE GM Primary School

  Croydon

  St. Joseph's College

  Thomas More Grant-Maintained School

  Riddlesdown Grant-Maintained School

  Edenham School

  Cumbria

  Hayton CE Grant-Maintained School

  Appleby Grammar School

  Warwick Bridge (GM) Primary School

  Dallam School

  Scotby CE Grant-Maintained Primary School

  Harraby School

  Kirkby Stephen Grammar Schol

  Parkview School

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School

  Kirkbie Kendal School

  Cartmel Priory CE School

  The Queen Katherine School

  Brampton Junior School

  St. Aidan's County High School

  Trinity School, Carlisle

  Derbyshire

  Murray Park Community School

  The Pingle School

  Chellaston School

  Belper Grant-Maintained School

  Heanor Gate School

  Linton Primary School

  Noel-Baker Community School (GM)

  Repton Primary School

  Netherthorpe School

  West Park Community School

  Lady Manners School

  The Merrill Community School

  Friesland School

  Belmont Primary School

  John Port School

  The Ecclesbourne School

  Chellaston Junior School

  Borrow Wood Junior School

  Devon

  St. Boniface's College

  Teign School

  Knowles Hill School

  Colyton Grammar School

  Torquay Boys' Grammar School (GM)

  Dorset

  St. Peter's RC School

  The Woodroffe School

  Highcliffe Comprehensive School

  Parkstone Grammar School

  Budmouth School

  St. Walburga's RC Primary School

  Poole Technical High School (Ex Henry Harbin)

  Bournemouth School

  Bournemouth School for Girls

  Avonbourne School

  Dudley

  Alder Coppice Primary School

  Old Swinford Hospital

  The Ellowes Hall School

  The High Arcal School

  The Kingswinford Grant-Maintained School

  Ealing

  Wood End Middle School

  Wood End First School

  222

  Greenford High School

  Drayton Manor High School

  Brentside High School

  Northholt High School

  The Ellen Wilkinson School for Girls

  Enfield

  The Latymer School

  Albany School

  Broomfield School

  Essex

  The Rickstones School

  Beauchamps Grant-Maintained School

  Colbayns High Grant-Maintained School

  Katherines Primary School

  The King John School

  Bromfords School, Wickford

  King Harold Grant-Maintained School

  The Greensward School

  Rodings Central Primary School

  St. Martin's Grant-Maintained School

  Tendring High School

  Torells Grant-Maintained School

  St. Katherine's CE VA Primary School

  Holland Haven Grant-Maintained Primary School

  Rolph CE VA Primary School

  Chelmsford County High School for Girls

  Chelmer Valley High School (Grant-Maintained)

  St. Clare's RC Primary School

  St. Helena School

  Southend High School for Boys

  Southend Girls High School

  St. Clere's School

  South Benfleet Primary School

  Thurstable School

  Hassenbrook School

  Sir Charles Lucas School

  Chalvedon School

  Newlands Spring Grant-Maintained School

  Takeley Grant-Maintained Primary School

  Cecil Jones High School

  The Gilberd School

  Newport Free Grammar School

  Saffron Walden County High School

  Westcliff High School for Girls

  Holland Park County Primary School

  Castle View School

  The Grays School (Grant-Maintained)

  Great Totham Primary School, Essex

  St. Osyth CE Aided Primary School

  Colchester Royal Grammar School

  Rainsford School

  Gable Hall Grant-Maintained Comprehensive School

  Anglo European School (Ingatestone)

  Furtherwick Park School

  Millfields County Primary School

  The Plume School

  St. Thomas More High School for Boys

  Elmstead County Primary School

  Davenant Foundation School

  Belfairs Community College

  Eastwood County High School and 6th Form Centre

  Northwick Park Grant-Maintained Junior School

  Northwick Park Grant-Maintained Infant School

  Northlands Grant-Maintained Junior School

  North Crescent Primary School

  King Edward VI Grammar School (GM)

  The Bramston School

  The Appleton School

  William Edwards School

  William De Ferrers School

  Westcliff High School for Boys

  Westborough County Primary School

  West Hatch High School

  St. Thomas More RC Primary School

  Thorpedene Infant School

  The Boswells School

  Clacton County High School

  The Thorpe Bay School

  The Philip Morant School

  223

  All Saints Church of England Primary School

  The King Edmund School

  Woodville County Primary School

  St. Andrew's Grant-Maintained CE Primary School

  Jotmans Hall Primary School

  The Fitzwimarc School, Rayleigh

  The Elmwood Primary School

  The Deanes School

  The Cornelius Vermuyden School

  The Hedley Walter High School (GM)

  Coppins Green Grant-Maintained Primary School

  The Harwich School

  Kingswood Junior School

  Kingswood Infant School

  Gloucestershire

  Katharine Lady Berkeley's School

  Stroud High School

  Balcarras School

  Churchdown Grant-Maintained School

  Chosen Hill School, Gloucester

  Chipping Campden School

  Cheltenham Bournside School and 6th form Centre

  Tewkesbury Grant-Maintained School

  Saintbridge GM Technology School

  St. Benedict's RC School

  Robinswood Primary School

  The Cotswold School

  Ribston Hall High School

  Picklenash Junior School

  Pate's Grant-Maintained Grammar School

  Andoversford Primary School

  Wyedean School, Grant-Maintained Status

  Winchcombe Community School

  Newent Community School

  Marling School

  The Rednock School

  The Crypt School

  Blue Coat CE Grant-Maintained Primary School

  The Catholic School of St. Gregory the Great

  Hammersmith

  London Oratory School

  Hampshire

  The Arnewood School

  Bohunt Community School

  Testwood School

  Testbourne Community School

  All Hallows RC School

  Hordle CE (c) Grant-Maintained Primary School

  St. Joseph's RC Primary School

  St. Edmund's Catholic School

  Hardley School (Grant-Maintained)

  Applemore Technology School

  Ringwood School (GM Comprehensive)

  Blackfield Middle School (Grant-Maintained)

  Calmore Grant-Maintained Middle School

  Front Lawn Middle School

  Bay House Grant-Maintained School

  Oaklands Itc Comprehensive School

  Burgate School

  Abbotswood Grant-Maintained Middle School

  The Priory School

  Crofton School, Fareham

  The City of Portsmouth Boys' School

  Havering

  Abbs Cross School

  The Frances Bardsley School for Girls

  The Coopers' Company and Coborn (GM School)

  Hereford and Worcester

  Blessed Edward Oldcorne RC High School

  St. Bede's Catholic Grant-Maintained School

  St. Augustine's Catholic GM School

  Prince Henry's Grant-Maintained High School

  Bromsgrove CE Middle School

  224
  Hertfordshire

  The Bishop's Stortford High School

  Ashlyns Grant-Maintained School

  Christ Church CE School

  St. Mary's Catholic Primary School

  Hertingfordbury Cowper JMI Schoo

  Watford Grammar School for Girls

  Rickmansworth School

  Goffs School

  Queens' School

  Francis Bacon School

  Parmiters School

  Parkside First School

  Bushy Meads Grant-Maintained School

  Bushey Hall School

  Nicholas Breakspear Roman Catholic GM School

  Mount Grace (GM) School

  Watford Grammar School for Boys

  Dame Alice Owen's School

  Marlborough School

  The Leventhorpe School

  The John Henry Newman School

  Hillingdon

  Swakeleys School

  Mellow Lane School

  Bishopshalt School

  Abbotsfield School

  Haydon School

  Grange Park Junior School

  Grange Park Infant School

  Queensmead School

  Oak Farm Junior Mixed School (G.M.)

  Oak Farm Infant School (Grant-Maintained)

  Northwood School

  Uxbridge High School

  The Hayes Manor School

  The Douay Martyrs School

  Vyners School

  Hillside Infant School

  Hounslow

  Gunnersbury Catholic School for Boys Gumley House Convent School

  Humberside

  Wold Newton Grant-Maintained Primary School

  Kensington

  Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School

  Kent

  The Canterbury High School

  The Bradbourne School

  Borough Green Primary School

  The Archbishop's CE Grant-Maintained School

  Thamesview School

  Allington County Primary School

  Sutton-at-Hone CE GM Primary School

  Homewood School

  St. Simon Stock School

  Holy Trinity CE Primary School

  Holy Family RC Grant-Maintained Primary School

  The Skinners' School, Tunbridge Wells

  The Mailing School

  St. John Fisher Catholic Comprehensive School

  Hillview School for Girls

  Cheyne Middle School

  St. George's Church of England School

  St. George's CE High School

  St. Francis' RC Primary School

  St. Edmund's RC Comprehensive School

  St. Botolph's CE Primary School

  Herne Bay Junior School (Grant-Maintained)

  Herne Bay High School

  St. Anselm's RC School

  Southlands Comprehensive School

  Chatham Grammar School for Girls

  Southfields School

  225

  Snodland CE Primary School

  Sir Roger Manwood's School

  Simon Langton Grammar School for Boys

  Senacre Technology School

  Sandown Court Community College

  Roseacre Junior School

  Rochester Grammar School for Girls

  Rainham Mark Grammar School

  Queen Elizabeth's School

  Fulston Manor School

  Angley School

  Oldborough Manor Community College

  Oakwood Park Grammar School

  Barton Court Grammar School

  Wrotham School

  Ditton CE Primary School

  Dartford Grammar School

  Wilmington Grammar School For Boys

  Westlands High School

  St. Gregory's Catholic Comprehensive School

  Minster College

  Dartford Grammar School for Girls

  Meopham Grant-Maintained School

  Tonbridge Grammar School for Girls

  Mascalls School

  The Wildernesse School

  The Thomas Aveling School

  The Robert Napier Grant-Maintained School

  The Maplesden Noakes School

  Aylesford School

  The Hugh Christie School

  Cranbrook School

  The Grammar School for Girls Wilmington

  The Frank Montgomery School

  The Folkestone School for Girls

  The Cornwallis School

  The Charles Dickens School

  Chaucer Technology School

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  Holy Cross Convent School

  Beverley School

  Richard Challoner School

  Tiffin School

  Kirklees

  Heckmondwike Grammar School

  Castle Hall Grant-Maintained School

  Knowsley

  The St. Thomas Becket School

  Lambeth

  Bishop Thomas Grant School

  St. Bernadette RC Junior Mixed School

  Archbishop Tenison's School

  Dunraven Grant-Maintained School

  La Retraite R. C. Girls, (GM) School

  St. Martin-in-the-Fields High School

  Lancashire,

  Clitheroe Royal Grammar School

  Archbishop Temple School (Ex William Temple)

  Newton Bluecoat C of E GM Primary School

  Baines School

  Bacup and Rawtenstall Grammar School

  Lancaster Royal Grammar School

  Lancaster Girls Grammar School

  Leicestershire

  South Wigston High School

  Abington High School

  Bushloe High School, Grant-Maintained

  Uppingham Community College

  Long Field GM High School

  Lewisham

  Turnham Primary with Nursery GM School

  226
  Lincolnshire

  The Ancaster High School, Lincoln

  Huttoft County Primary School

  Washingborough School

  St. George's Grant-Maintained School

  St. Andrews CE Primary School

  Spalding County Primary School

  Skegness Grammar School

  Chapel St. Leonards County Primary School

  The Malcolm Sargent Grant-Maintained School

  Robert Pattinson Grant-Maintained School

  Carre's Grammar School

  Rauceby School CE GM

  Gleed Girls Grant-Maintained School

  Queen Elizabeth's GM Grammar School

  Queen Elizabeth's GM Grammar School

  Caistor Grammar School

  Ermine Junior Grant-Maintained School

  North Kesteven Grant-Maintained School

  William Farr CE Comprehensive School

  William Alvey CE Junior School

  Monks' Dyke High School

  The Magdalen School

  Branston School and Community College

  Yarborough High School

  The Kings School Grantham

  Lincoln Christ's Hospital School

  Cranwell County Primary School

  The Gartree Grant-Maintained School

  Lacey Gardens Junior School

  Bourne Abbey Primary School

  King Edward VI School

  The Castle Hills GM School, Gainsborough

  Liverpool

  St. Francis Xavier's College

  Newham

  Stratford School

  Norfolk

  Cliff Park High School (Grant-Maintained)

  St. Clement's High School

  Heacham Middle School (GM)

  South Wootton Grant-Maintained Junior School

  Sheringham High School

  Gresham Village School (Grant-Maintained)

  Robert Kett Grant-Maintained Middle School

  Great Yarmouth High School

  Redgate Grant-Maintained Middle School

  Flegg High School

  Norwich Road School

  Wymondham College (GMS)

  Downham Market High School Grant-Maintained

  Dereham Church CE Grant-Maintained School

  West Flegg Middle School (GM)

  Marshland High School

  Lynn Grove VC High School

  Cromer High School - Grant-Maintained

  Acle High School

  Loddon Middle Grant-Maintained School

  Costessey High School, Grant-Maintained

  Barnham Broom Primary School

  Northamptonshire

  Collingtree CE Primary School

  Southfield School for Girls

  Sir Christopher Hatton Grant-Maintained School

  Beanfield Junior School (GM)

  Queen Elizabeth (Grant-Maintained) School

  Northampton (GM) School for Boys

  Wrenn School

  Woodnewton Way Junior School

  Moulton Primary School (Grant-Maintained)

  Weavers School

  Montagu School

  Millbrook Infant School

  Danesholme Junior School

  The Windmill County GM Primary School

  Manor School, Northamptonshire

  227

  Lodge Park School

  The King John School

  Kingswood School

  Kingsley Park Middle School

  Nottinghamshire

  Greenwood Dale School

  Ravensdale Grant-Maintained Middle School

  The George Spencer School

  Oxfordshire

  Shenington CE Primary School

  Redbridge

  Chadwell Heath High School

  Rochdale

  St. James CE Primary School

  Smithy Bridge Primary School

  Wardle High School

  Crossgates Primary School

  Sandwell

  Manor High School, Sandwell

  Sheffield

  Clifford CE Grant-Maintained School

  St. John Fisher RC (VA) Primary School

  Notre Dame School

  All Saints RC Secondary School

  Shropshire

  Abraham Darby School

  Holy Cross CE Junior School

  Charlton School

  Ercall Wood School

  Adams' Grammar School

  The Corbet Grant-Maintained School

  Solihull

  Hatchford Grant-Maintained Primary School

  Somerset

  Sexey's School

  Bruton Primary School

  Southwark

  St. Michael's School

  St. Francesca Cabrini Grant-Maintained School

  Notre Dame High School

  The St. Thomas the Apostle GM College

  London Nautical School

  Staffordshire

  St. Thomas More RC High School

  Hollinsclough CE Primary School

  Chasetown High School

  Rising Brook Grant-Maintained School

  Cardinal Griffin RC Comprehensive

  Cannock Chase High School (GM)

  Surrey

  The Beacon School

  Thamesmead School

  Stoneleigh First School (Grant-Maintained)

  St. Paul's Catholic School

  Holy Trinity CE Middle School

  St. John the Baptist School

  Heathside Secondary School

  Hawkedale First School

  Send C of E First School (Grant-Maintained)

  Guildford County School

  Rosebery School

  Gordon's Grant-Maintained School

  Glyn School

  Pewley Down County First School

  Park Mead County First School

  Epsom and Ewell High School

  de Stafford School

  The Manor County First School

  228

  Collingwood Grant-Maintained School

  Sutton

  Sutton Grammar School for Boys

  St. Philomena's Catholic High School for Girls

  Cheam High School

  Nonsuch High School for Girls

  Wilsons School

  Wallington High School for Girls

  Wallington High School for Boys

  The John Fisher School

  All Saints CE Primary School

  Tameside

  Fairfield High School

  West Hill School

  Audenshaw High School

  Tower Hamlets

  Raines Foundation School

  Trafford

  Ashton on Mersey School

  Sale Moor School

  New Wellington School

  Blessed Thomas Holford School

  Walsall

  Streetly School

  St. Thomas More RC Comprehensive GM School

  Aldridge School

  Shire Oak Grant-Maintained Community School

  Queen Mary's High School

  Queen Mary's Grammar School

  Waltham Forest

  Chingford School

  Highams Park School

  Wandsworth

  John Paul II RC School

  Hillbrook Primary School (Grant-Maintained)

  Southfields School (GM)

  Salesian College

  Graveney School

  Ethelburga Primary School (Grant-Maintained)

  Elliott School (GM)

  Burntwood School

  Warwickshire

  The Avon Valley Grant-Maintained School

  Studley High School

  Ash Green Grant-Maintained School

  Hartshill Grant-Maintained School

  Alcester Grammar School

  Rugby High School for Girls

  Queen Elizabeth School, Atherstone

  Myton School

  Wiltshire

  Highbury Secondary Boys' School

  St. Augustine RC (GM) Comprehensive School

  Sheldon School

  Pewsey Vale School (Grant-Maintained)

  Downton CE (VC) Primary School

  Aloeric Grant-Maintained School

  Lowbourne Grant-Maintained Infants' School

  Lavington Comprehensive School

  Wirral

  Calday Grange Grammar School, West Kirby

  Wirral Grammar School for Boys

  Wolverhampton

  Wolverhampton Girls High School

  Moseley Park GM School

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what measures he is taking to ensure that the
  229
  timetable for organising grant-maintained status ballots is sufficient for consultation purposes; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will take measures to ensure that the distribution of ballot papers on grant-maintained status occurs at the end of the consultation period rather than the middle;

  (3) if he will draw up a code of conduct to cover all those involved in the organisation of ballots and consultations on grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Education Bill will streamline the procedures for acquiring grant-maintained status. Both the existing and prospective statutory provisions offer scope for local consultation and debate before a ballot on grant-maintained status is initiated, in the period prior to a ballot and during the ballot period itself. Individual governing bodies are best placed to determine the most appropriate timing for a ballot in their school's circumstances, within the statutory time scale.

  The Department provides detailed guidance on the conduct of ballots and any significant deviation from that may lead to the Secretary of State declaring the ballot void. We are currently discussing with local authority interests the promulgation of a common code of conduct on the provision of information about grant-maintained status; this would cover the activities of the Department, local authorities and the grant-maintained schools centre.

  Unqualified Teachers
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many teachers are teaching subjects they have no qualifications to teach; and what progress has been made and measures taken to reduce the numbers.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The latest information is provided by the 1992 secondary school staffing survey. The table shows the percentage of full-time secondary teachers in England who gave some tuition in a subject in which they held no post-A level qualification, and the percentage of tuition this represented. About half of this tuition was by teachers with five or more years' experience of teaching the subject.

  Subject

  Percentage of teachers without a qualification

  Tuition by these teachers as a percentage of all tuition in subject

  Mathematics

  22

  10

  Biology

  14

  11

  Chemistry

  5

  3

  Physics

  6

  4

  General Science

  16

  9

  CDT

  50

  34

  English

  27

  14

  French

  18

  9

  German

  24

  13

  Other Languages

  34

  19

  History

  28

  11

  Geography

  29

  10

  Music

  19

  5

  Art

  24

  7

  230

  Subject

  Percentage of teachers without a qualification

  Tuition by these teachers as a percentage of all tuition in subject

  Physical Education

  32

  9

  Religious Education

  54

  25

  Compared with the results of the 1988 secondary school staffing survey, these figures show a slight improvement.

  The Department has funded a range of measures which have enhanced the skills of existing teachers and improved the supply of secondary subject specialists. These include £170 million currently being spent on in-service training, and specific support for upgrading non-specialist teachers of physics, chemistry and French. There has been a 44 per cent. increase in recruitment to secondary teacher training since 1990.

  Teachers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many teachers took early retirement, and for what reason, during each of the last five years.

  Mr. Forth
  The number of teachers from England and Wales who took early retirement and claimed retirement benefits during each of the last five years is shown in the table.

  The figures include teachers in FE and PCFC colleges and the independent sector as well as maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools.

  Retirements on grounds of efficiency or redundancy include those teachers who were over the normal retirement age of 60 when benefits were paid.

  Reason for retirement

  Financial year

  Interest of efficiency

  Redundancy

  Ill-health

  1988–89

  8,971

  3,389

  3,412

  1989–90

  9,633

  2,675

  4,123

  1990–91

  8,981

  2,691

  4,938

  1991–92

  7,357

  2,932

  4,656

  11992–93

  8,360

  3,833

  4,775

  1 Provisional.

  Higher Education, London
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what resources are being made available in 1993–94 to the Higher Education Funding Council to cover the additional costs of providing higher education in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government do not separately identify London costs in its grant to the Higher Education Funding Council for England. It is for the funding council to determine allocations for London and other institutions within its overall grant.
  231

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Regional Development Funds
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the British contribution to the European development fund is(a) being used for projects that directly benefit the poorest people in developing countries and (b) helps meet the goals established at the world summit for children.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The European Commission does not produce statistics in the form requested. The Commission and member states are currently working on a common approach to poverty alleviation, which will be presented to the Council of Development Ministers in December.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 July,Official Report, column 85, why United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees cash grants for host families accommodating refugees do not apply to displaced persons or refugees accommodated in Serbia; what access these families have to additional support; what efforts are made to ensure that displaced Bosnians remain with host families in Serbia rather than seeking asylum overseas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The UNHCR finds it impractical at present to operate a system of cash grants for host families who accommodate displaced people in Serbia. Instead it provides food and other essential humanitarian supplies to displaced people through the Serbian Red Cross and the EC family parcel programme.

  UNHCR provided over 35,000 tonnes of humanitarian supplies for displaced people in Serbia in the first six months of 1993. These measures are designed to help to meet the basic humanitarian needs of displaced people so as to enable them to remain in Serbia, as close as possible to their homes in Bosnia-Herzegovina, until such time as they are able to return.

  Aid
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if she will make it her policy to publish before the end of the year criteria by which Her Majesty's Government will judge their performance on targeting aid at the reduction of poverty and meeting basic needs.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The overall aim of our aid programme is to promote sustainable economic and social development, in order to improve the quality of life and reduce poverty, suffering and deprivation, in developing countries. Our six priority objectives for the aid programme support this overall aim. They are:

  to promote economic reform and longer term economic growth;

  to promote good government;

  to help developing countries to define and carry out poverty reduction strategies;

  to promote human development, including better education and health, and children by choice;

  to promote the social, economic, legal and political status of women in developing countries; and

  to help developing countries tackle national environmental problems.

  232
  We are currently developing a new policy information markers system, as part of a further improvement to our monitoring systems, which will enable us to provide reports on progress against each of these objectives. If the trials are successful, we hope to have produced the first reports by the end of 1994.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to secure a balance of bilateral and multilateral expenditure on oveseas development aid.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our aid allocations through both bilateral and multilateral channels are kept under regular review. Most of our multilateral aid commitments result from negotiated agreements covering several years ahead.

  Angola
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been Her Majesty's Government's response to the United Nations appeal for US $226 million to fund relief and emergency work in Angola.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 20 July 1993]: We have allocated 3,000 tonnes of food aid and up to £2 million of humanitarian assistance. The food aid is now being shipped to Angola through the world food programme, and some £800,000 of humanitarian assistance has already been committed to support proposals by Save the Children Fund and CARE.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the number of prison camps currently understood to be operated by(a) Bosnian-Croats, (b) Bosnian-Muslims and (c) Bosnian-Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina; and if he will indicate the size of each and publish the names of those prisons where the International Committee of the Red Cross, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, or other international agencies have been unable to gain access.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The International Committee of the Red Cross—ICRC—regularly visits 2,200 people held by Bosnian Croats in six places of detention, 1,023 held by Bosnian Muslims in 15 places of detention and 1,023 prisoners held by Bosnian Serbs in eight places of detention. The ICRC suspects that further places of detention in unknown locations may exist.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment has been made of the economic and diplomatic sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro on the infant mortality rate in those republics; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None. Supplies of essential humanitarian relief, including medical supplies and foodstuffs distributed by the international humanitarian aid agencies are exempted from United Nations sanctions imposed on Serbia and Montenegro under United Nations Security Council resolution 820 of 17 April.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 14
  233
  July, Official Report, column 455, if he will place a copy of Dr. Karadzic's letter to the Prime Minister of 31 March in the Library together with the Prime Minister's reply.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) on 14 April at column 542 about Dr. Karadzic's letter. I do not plan to elaborate further; it is important to maintain the confidentiality of such correspondence.

  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contributions the United Kingdom has made to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for its activities in former Yugoslavia since the beginning of the year; and what contributions have been made by other major donors.

  Mr. Hurd
  Since January 1993 the United Kingdom has given £27.8 million in cash and kind to UNHCR for its work in former Yugoslavia. On 12 July we announced a further £12..5 million for projects directly in support of UNHCR plus £6 million in kind for the world food programme. This makes Britain the leading bilateral donor to UNHCR's programmes in the former republics this year. We are aware that, as winter approaches, there must be a major effort by the international community to meet the needs of the people of Bosnia. Contributions by major donors for 1993 are:

  UNHCR figures, as of 6 July 1993, in US dollars

  Country

  US$

  European Community

  16,447,538

  Denmark

  3,542,673

  France

  12,074,030

  Germany

  3,680,981

  Italy

  857,143

  Netherlands

  5,586,592

  Switzerland

  10,489,510

  United Kingdom

  163,814,433

  United States

  23,000,000

  Japan

  10,000,000

  1 Sterling equivalent approximately £42.5 million. This is higher than the £27 million in United Kingdom records because some "in kind" contributions, made at the end of 1992, were not logged by UNHCR until 1993.

  Mostar (Ethnic Cleansing)
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on new ethnic cleansing of Muslim women and children by Croats in Mostar; what is the effect of these developments. on his policy towards Croatia's exemption from economic and diplomatic sanctions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There are continuing reports of ethnic cleansing by all sides. European Community Foreign Ministers agreed to consider withdrawing Croatia's preferential trading benefits with the European Community, in view of continued Croatian involvement in the conflict in Bosnia.

  Fundacion Collegio de Inglaterra, Colombia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much British Government finance has been given to the Fundacion 234
  Collegio de Inglaterra in Bogota, Colombia, in the past five years; for what purpose; and from what budget heading.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None directly.

  The British Council has provided books and equipment to the school over the past five years to a total value of £30,000.

  Research Projects
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 1 December 1992,Official Report, column 86, if the university scientists working on the research projects mentioned have been able to publish the results of these projects in open scientific literature.

  Mr. Hurd
  As made clear in the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the hon. Member on 1 December 1992, at column 86, the research commissioned is confined to unclassified subjects. We retain proprietary rights over the research, but the results may be published by the relevant academic institution, if it wishes.

  Armenia
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the prevailing economic situation in Armenia; and what recent discussions he has had to resolve matters.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Armenian economy continues to suffer from the disruption of links with the other republics of the former Soviet Union, and from the economic blockade resulting from the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The United Kingdom has contributed over £1 million bilaterally, and the EC over £3 million, to alleviate suffering in Armenia in the last year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met the Armenian Prime Minister, Hrartt Bagratian, during his visit to London in May and urged him to seek a peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict so that the process can begin of rebuilding the Armenian economy.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how United Kingdom diplomatic links with Armenia are organised; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We are in full diplomatic relations with Armenia, which we recognised on 31 December 1991. Sir Brian Fall, who resides at Moscow, is accredited as Her Majesty's ambassador to the Republic of Armenia. He has presented his credentials in Yerevan and both he and his staff visit Armenia frequently. We are keeping the possibility of opening an embassy in Yerevan under review. The Republic of Armenia opened an embassy in London last year. The Armenian ambassador, Dr. Armen Sarkissian, presented his credentials to Her Majesty the Queen in March.

  Angola
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if the United Kingdom supported the removal of the UNAVEM II mandate in Angola when it was debated by the Security Council; and if he will make a statement;
  235
  (2) when Her Majesty's Government last held talks on the Angolan war with other members of the Security Council.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 20 July 1993]: The Security Council discussed Angola and adopted Security Council resolution 851 on 15 July. The resolution, which the United Kingdom helped to prepare, extends the mandate of UNAVEM II until 15 September. The Security Council will consider appropriate action against UNITA if an effective ceasefire is not in force in Angola by that date. Meanwhile, we shall continue to support efforts by the United Nations to persuade UNITA to agree with the Government a peaceful negotiated settlement to the tragic conflict in Angola.

  We shall also continue to support humanitarian relief operations. In response to the most recent United Nations appeal we have pledged up to £2 million of emergency assistance and, through the world food programme, 3,000 tonnes of food aid.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of state for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards peace in Angola; and what initiatives Her Majesty's Government have taken in this area.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answers 20 July 1993]The new United Nations Secretary-General's special representative, Mr. Beye, who replaced Miss Margaret Anstee last month, met President dos Santos on 5 July and the UNITA leader Jonas Savimbi on 8 July to discuss the resumption of peace talks under United Nations auspices.

  We took an active part in preparing Security Council resolution 851, which the Security Council adopted on 15 July. This extends the mandate of UNAVEM II and provides for the Council to consider taking action against UNITA if an effective cease-fire is not established by 15 September.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Research Councils
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the report on the detailed allocation of responsibilities between the new research councils will be completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I asked Sir David Phillips to conduct this study acting as if he were fulfilling the role of the new director general for the research councils. He has now submitted his report and copies have been placed in the Library. I have accepted all of Sir David's recommendations and, I have invited him to continue to oversee the further work of the Office of Science and Technology designed to effect a smooth transition to the new research council system by 1 April 1994.

  Sir Giles Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who is to be the new director general of research councils.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [pursuant to the reply, 19 July 1993, c. 42]: In the recent White Paper "Realising our Potential" I announced my intention to appoint a new director general of research councils to support me in the exercise of my statutory functions in so far as they relate to the research councils.
  236
  I am pleased to announce that this new post is to be advertised in journals and newspapers over the next week or so. The open recruitment competition, which will be supplemented by executive search, will be run by the recruitment and assessment services. My aim is to announce an appointment, to take effect from 1 January 1994, at the end of October.

  In the meantime, I am most grateful to Sir David Phillips, chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, for the excellent support which he is giving me as acting director general of research councils.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Bank of England
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for separating the banking regulation and supervisory roles of the Bank of England from its banking functions.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have no such proposals at this time.

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland the (i) highest, (ii) lowest and (iii) average weekly and annual income of (1) per household, (2) per wage or salary earner and (3) per capita and indicate for each country the percentage of each category below the official poverty line.

  Mr. Nelson
  The figures are derived from the 1991 family expenditure survey. The information is available only on a weekly basis. The average weekly income (1) per household, (2) per wage or salary earner and (3) per capita for each country is given in the table. There is no officially defined poverty line in the United Kingdom.

  Average weekly income (£)

  per household

  per wage or salary earner

  per capita

  England

  373.20

  250.90

  153.30

  Scotland

  316.20

  259.70

  140.70

  Wales

  297.40

  221.70

  123.80

  Northern Ireland

  296.50

  211.70

  107.20

  The figures are rounded to the nearest 10p.

  Incomes
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 572, what was the average equivalised disposable income at (a) current and (b) April 1993 prices for 1979, 1987, 1990 and 1991 of (i) single-parent households, (ii) two-parent households with (1) one child, (2) two children and (3) three or more children and (c) other households with children by quintile groups of households.

  Mr. Nelson
  The figures are available only at current prices and are as follows:
  237

  Average equivalised disposable income by household type and by quintile groups

  £ per year Quintile groups of all households ranked by equivalised disposable income

  Household type

  Bottom

  2nd

  3rd

  4th

  Top

  All Households

  1979

  One adult with children

  1,772

  2,713

  3,625

  4,713

  7,705

  3,151

  Two adults with one child

  1,882

  2,812

  3,664

  4,696

  7,206

  4,281

  Two adults with two children

  2,000

  2,794

  3,656

  4,744

  7,649

  4,081

  Two adults with three or more children

  1,898

  2,800

  3,579

  4,715

  7,278

  3,308

  Other households with children

  2,032

  2,811

  3,666

  4,739

  6,841

  4,080

  1987

  One adult with children

  3,751

  5,268

  7,168

  9,981

  17,605

  5,386

  Two adults with one child

  3,600

  5,516

  7,465

  10,178

  17,318

  9,627

  Two adults with two children

  3,644

  5,562

  7,446

  10,138

  18,607

  8,996

  Two adults with three or more children

  3,610

  5,440

  7,452

  10,007

  16,886

  7,041

  Other households with children

  3,556

  5,432

  7,542

  10,122

  16,125

  7,900

  1990

  One adult with children

  4,466

  6,651

  9,817

  14,835

  22,630

  7,086

  Two adults with one child

  4,126

  7,044

  9,921

  14,578

  26,635

  14,215

  Two adults with two children

  4,302

  7,113

  10,080

  14,206

  23,712

  12,022

  Two adults with three or more children

  4,138

  6,948

  9,713

  13,943

  31,631

  10,157

  Other households with children

  4,302

  6,953

  9,870

  14,419

  24,198

  11,708

  1991

  One adult with children

  5,105

  7,477

  10,830

  15,434

  23,108

  7,867

  Two adults with one child

  4,469

  7,688

  11,088

  15,488

  26,878

  14,841

  Two adults with two children

  4,759

  7,830

  11,046

  15,379

  26,645

  12,993

  Two adults with three or more children

  4,571

  7,809

  11,026

  15,347

  26,471

  11,223

  Other households with children

  4,743

  7,774

  10,990

  15,423

  26,276

  12,572

  The quintile groups are based on all households ranked by equivalised disposable income. Thus any difference between the average equivalised disposable income of household types within each quintile group is likely to result from sampling errors.

  These figures are not strictly comparable over time because of changes in classification of both income and taxation and because of changes in the family expenditure survey.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 28 April,Official Report, columns 402–4, what was the average equivalised disposable income of (a) the top and the bottom quintile groups and (b) the top and the bottom decile groups at current prices, and at April 1993 prices in 1979 and 1991.

  Mr. Nelson
  The figures are available only at current prices.

  The figures for 1979 were given in the answer of 28 April 1993, Official Report, columns 402–4.

  The figures for 1991 are as follows:
  238

  Average equivalised disposable income for all households ranked by equivalised disposable income

  Using the McClements equivalence scale with a household of a married couple = 1

  Quintile groups

  Decile groups

  £ per year

  Bottom

  Top

  Bottom

  Top

  1991

  4,877

  28,472

  4,044

  35,689

  These figures are not strictly comparable with those for earlier years because of changes in classification of both income and taxation and because of changes in the family expenditure survey.

  European Community
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the purpose of the agreement made at the ECOFIN meetings of June and July 1992 in relation to zero rates for VAT; and if the agreement is legally binding.

  Sir John Cope
  No agreement was made at the ECOFIN meetings of June and July 1992 in relation to zero rates for VAT. The ability to retain our zero rates was agreed at the ECOFIN meeting on 24 June 1991. This subsequently formed part of Council directive 92/77/EEC of 19 October 1992 supplementing the common system of value added tax and amending directive 77/388/EEC on approximation of VAT rates. This agreement is legally binding.
  239

  Yorkshire and Humberside
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has for the gross domestic product for Yorkshire and Humberside and for each constituent area for the most recent financial years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nelson
  Regional estimates of GDP are compiled only on a calendar year basis, not financial year. The latest available estimates for the Yorkshire and Humberside region are for 1991 and were published in the December 1992 issue of "Economic Trends". The latest figures available for the constituent counties are for 1989, which were published in the November 1991 issue of "Economic Trends". These articles contain a breakdown of GDP in £ millions and £ per head of population and economic trends and are available in the House Library.

  Securities and Investments Board
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received a report from the Securities and Investments Board on the exercise of its functions under the Financial Services Act 1986.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The board's report for 1992–93, made in accordance with section 117 of the Act, was laid before Parliament today. Copies are being placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Government Stock Purchases
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate, for the latest available financial year, of the proportion of the public sector borrowing requirement which was funded with purchases of Government stock by the pension funds and life assurance companies.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 19 July 1993]: The PSBR was £36.5 billion in 1992–93. Data for 1992 in the financial statistics table 3.5 of the Central Statistical Office's database show that net purchases of gilts by British pension funds and life assurance companies were £15.5 billion. Gilt sales to pension funds and life assurance companies were therefore 42 per cent. of the PSBR.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Public Interest
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will now publish the definition of the public interest used by the Crown Prosecution Service.

  The Attorney-General
  The general principles applied by the Crown Prosecution Service in respect of the public interest are set out in the code for Crown prosecutors. The code is published and laid before Parliament each year in the annual report of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  The annual report for 1992–93 was published on 13 July 1993.

  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the lowest grade of officer in the Crown Prosecution Service authorised to discontinue cases on the grounds of public interest.
  240
  The Attorney-General
  The power under section 23 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 to discontinue proceedings may, by virtue of section 1(6) of the Act, be exercised by any Crown prosecutor subject to any directions given by the director. Those with management responsibilities in the service are responsible for ensuring that cases are assigned to lawyers having both the experience and authority necessary to take decisions to continue or terminate proceedings. The level of authority will depend upon the nature, seriousness or complexity of the case.

  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Attorney-General what percentage of cases the Crown Prosecution Service discontinued on grounds of public interest in the latest year for which figures are available; and how many defendants were neither very elderly, frail nor suffering from some injury.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service does not record centrally the proportion of cases that are discontinued on public interest grounds as opposed to evidential grounds, nor therefore is any information available about whether the defendants were very elderly, frail or suffering from injury. Such information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  International Investments Ltd., Gibraltar
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the progress of the judicial hearing which was scheduled to take place on 12 July in Gibraltar in response to the letter of request for evidence in relation to the affairs of International Investments Ltd., Gibraltar —in liquidation—first submitted to the Gibraltar authorities on 5 November 1990 from Belfast magistrates court of 15 November 1990.

  The Solicitor-General
  As a result of the letter of request for evidence in relation to the affairs of International Investments Ltd.—in liquidation—issued by Belfast magistrates' court on 1 November 1990, the Supreme court of Gibraltar made an order on 16 June 1993 requiring witnesses named in the letter of request to attend before a special examiner on 12 July 1993 to give evidence on oath and produce documents.

  A hearing took place on 12 and 13 July 1993. A number of witnesses were examined and their depositions recorded. The hearing has been adjourned to allow consideration to be given to certain documents which have now become available. It is anticipated that the hearing will recommence in October 1993.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) of 7 July,Official Report, column 163, what assessment she has made of the adequacy of (i) the existing enforcement of the common fisheries policy and (ii) the European Commission's present powers to ensure that Community rules are properly implemented; what is her estimate of the scale of cheating and overcatching: and what analysis she

  241
  has made of the effect on the effectiveness of fisheries policy enforcement of the new regulations coming into effect on 1 January 1994.

  Mr. Jack
  The Commission's report on monitoring implementation of the common fisheries policy published in March 1992 identified various weaknesses in the present enforcement of fisheries policy in the EC. I agree with much of the Commission's assessment, and many of our concerns are being addressed by the proposed new control regulation expected to take effect from 1 January 1994. EC catch returns for 1992 show that there were 48 recorded instances of member states overfishing their individual quotas in Community waters but these do not refer to individual breaches of regulations by fishermen.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) of 7 July,Official Report, column 163, what proportion of surface waters in north European waters are British territorial waters under the Fishery Limits Act 1976; which are the seven main species caught in those British waters; what estimate she has made of the annual British catch in Icelandic waters; and what provision has been made under the common fisheries policy as compensation for the loss of Icelandic fishing by the British fishing industry.

  Mr. Jack
  The United Kingdom fishery limits established by the Fishery Limits Act 1976 account for about 20 per cent. of the north Atlantic fishery limits of the 12 EC member states. The seven main species used in 1983 in the calculation of member states' shares—"relative stability"—were cod, haddock, plaice, whiting, saithe, mackerel and redfish or, for some purposes, herring The United Kingdom secured 37 per cent. of the EC quotas for these species, a figure higher than our historical level of catches. Part of the calculation involved assessing the losses for each member state arising from the extension of fisheries jurisdiction by third countries in the 1970s and calculating compensation in fish stocks still available to the Community. The United Kingdom's losses at Iceland were calculated for this purpose at 133,927 tonnes cod equivalent.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment has been made of the extent to which(a) Dutch firms transporting live animals through the United Kingdom and (b) Dutch slaughterhouses dealing with British animals comply with relevant required EC and United Kingdom standards.

  Mr. Soames
  Spot checks on transport standards are carried out by local authority and Ministry inspectors. These have revealed some deficiencies which we have taken up with the member states concerned.

  As regards slaughter, all member states are required to have implemented Council directive 74/577/EEC on the stunning of animals before slaughter. It is the responsibility of the EC Commission to ensure that member states fulfil their legal obligations; if we became aware of any failure to comply by another member state we would notify this to the Commission and, if necessary, take the matter up with the other country. We are satisfied that the Netherlands has implemented the requirements of directive 74/577/EEC in its national laws.
  242

  Fishing Nets
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many United Kingdom vessels have been engaged in(a) gill net fisheries and (b) tangle net fisheries in United Kingdom waters in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Jack
  Available information relates only to vessels with an overalll length exceeding 10 m. In 1992, 18 United Kingdom fishing vessels reported using tangle nets and 352 vessels reported using gill nets at least once. Corresponding figures for 1988 are 26 and 226 respectively. Information for all the years requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what length of(a) monofilament netting and (b) other fishing gear has been lost or discarded by United Kingdom fishermen in United Kingdom waters in each year since 1988;

  (2) what measures her Department has adopted to monitor and regulate the loss and discard of fishing nets in United Kingdom waters.

  Mr. Jack
  No information is available about the quantities of netting or fishing gear lost or discarded. Discard of all types of fishing gear at sea is an offence unless undertaken in accordance with a licence under part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what measures her Department has adopted to monitor the impact of fisheries using set monofilament gill nets and tangle nets in United Kingdom waters on(a) target species and (b) non-target species including marine mammals;

  (2) what measures her Department has taken to monitor the distribution and effect of monofilament gill net and tangle net fisheries in the United Kingdom in order to qualify the risk of by-catches of marine mammals.

  Mr. Jack
  Fishing practice varies in the waters around the United Kingdom but monofilament gill nets and tangle nets are widely used. These fisheries are monitored for catch and effort by the fisheries departmentss and the results are included in the relevant stock assessments.MAFF has commissioned work to examine the distribution, character, catch and effort in gill and tangle net fisheries for both target and non-target species. On 1 January 1992, the fisheries departments introduced a voluntary scheme for fishermen to report incidental catches of marine mammals including the location of the incident and the type of fishing activity involved.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  National Asthma Campaign
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the national asthma campaign to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 8 to 12 November.
  243

  Exploring Parenthood
  Mr. Scott
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to exploring parenthood to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 13 to 17 December.

WALES

  Derelict Commercial Properties
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken to encourage the conversion of derelict commercial properties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Assistance is available through the urban programme, urban investment grant and the rural initiative capital grant scheme for building conversion schemes.

  All local authorities in Wales are eligible to apply for urban programme—strategic development scheme from 1 April 1994—assistance for areas which have been declared by the local authority as commercial or industrial improvement or renewal areas under the enabling legislation. The grants are intended to help stimulate economic regeneration and create or safeguard jobs. Grants are approved through local authorities to a maximum of 50 per cent. of eligible costs, with the private sector applicant meeting the balance. Urban programme allocations to Welsh authorities from 1990–91 to 1992–93 amount to nearly £9 million; assisting the improvement of 912 premises. Urban investment grant is a property grant designed to promote the redevelopment of derelict sites in urban areas throughout Wales. It is available only to the private sector and is designed to bridge the gap between the gross development costs of a project and its end value. Since the scheme's introduction in April 1989 there have been 44 approvals, totalling some £16.3 million grant.

  Since 1991, assistance under the rural initiative capital grant scheme has been available to fund a series of social, environmental and economic projects to help create a self-sustaining market economy in rural Wales. Under this scheme in 1991–92 and 1992–93, 11 conversion schemes have been funded.

  The Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales also operate schemes to bring redundant buildings in rural areas back into beneficial business use. To date 473 projects have been assisted by the two agencies, at a total grant cost of approximately £4 million. In 1993–94, the two agencies plan to spend £700,000 on conversion schemes.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking to enhance the prospects of the steel industry in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government are committed to creating an economic framework in which the steel 244
  industry in Wales can prosper. To this end, we support the EC restructuring initiative which aims to reduce overcapacity elsewhere in Europe, much of it supported by state subsidies. It is for the Welsh steel industry to continue to reduce costs and improve efficiency.

  Agri-Environmental Plan
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to publish copies of the agri-environment regulations zonal plan for Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  My proposals for the implementation of the agri-environment regulations will be submitted, as part of the United Kingdom plan, to the EC Commission in Brussels by 30 July and I shall make an announcement at that time.

  J.P.M. (Automatic Machines) Ltd.
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial assistance has been given to J.P.M. (Automatic Machines) Ltd. in each of the last five years by(a) the Industry Department of the Welsh Office and (b) the Welsh Development Agency.

  Mr. Redwood
  To comment on the Department's relationship with this, or any other individual company, would be a breach of commercial confidentiality.

  Working Women
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many women in Wales worked 16 hours or more per week in paid employment at the last available count.

  Mr. Redwood
  It is estimated from the 1991 census that 390,500 female residents of Wales aged 16 or over worked 16 hours or more per week in paid employment.

  Employees (Sickness)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what estimates he has on the average number of working days (1) lost per employee through sickness annually(a) by local authority area, (b)according to employment sector and (c)according to category of employee in each year in Wales since 1985;

  (2) what has been the total number of days lost per year in Wales and the estimated annual cost to the Welsh economy of working days lost through sickness in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to place a statutory duty upon all local education authorities and future funding agencies in Wales to provide nursery education.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No.

  Bus Deregulation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement outlining the main outcomes of his Department's consultation on bus deregulation guidelines
  245
  indicating the main findings on (a) timetabling, (b) bunching of services, (c) travel card schemes, (d) parking at bus stops and (e) registration of services.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The consultation document on the operation of local bus services outside London was issued by the Department of Transport. Responses from 'Wales were routed through the Department. All comments are being considered but it is too early to predict any conclusions.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what offers in lieu of tax have been accepted or allocated since his last announcement of 25 May,Official Report, column 482.

  Mr. Brooke
  Since my last announcement on 25 May 1993 at column 482, I am pleased to inform the House that two paintings, "Le Dejeuner" and "Femme assise, tasse de cafe" by Edouard Vuillard, have been accepted in lieu of tax. Also, I have pleasure in announcing that a Charles I silver gilt standing cup and cover, accepted in lieu of tax, will be allocated to the Victoria and Albert museum.

DEFENCE

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the sites(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) abroad where his Department stores depleted uranium; and if he will make a statement on the safety precautions taken in storing depleted uranium.

  Mr. Aitken
  Depleted uranium is stored in a variety of forms at several Ministry of Defence sites in the United Kingdom. The main sites include those of the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, Burghfield and Cardiff; the test and evaluation ranges at Eskmeals and Kirkcudbright; and the Defence Research Agency site at Fort Halstead, together with a few minor holdings at other DRA sites. In addition it is held at a small number of military munitions stores and depots both in the United Kingdom and abroad. All materials are held in safe and secure facilities in accordance with the requirements for radioactive materials.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what methods of transport are used to move depleted uranium in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Aitken
  Movement of non-military uranium within the United Kingdom is a matter for the Department of Transport. My Department for this purpose uses containers which are designed, manufactured and tested in conformity with the appropriate International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) transport regulations.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what documents are published by his Department containing information on quantities, locations and uses of depleted uranium owned or used by his Department(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) abroad.

  Mr. Aitken
  Two documents have been published which refer to depleted uranium. The first is the memorandum on 246
  anti-armour ammunition, which was placed in the Library of the House in March 1979; the second is a publicity document produced by the then Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment at Chertsey—now part of the Defence Research Agency—entitled "Kirkcudbright Range Facilities", published in January 1986.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 9 July,Official Report, column 317, what steps his Department plans to take to recover the additional costs incurred as a result of United Nations Security Council resolution 816; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (M r. Hamilton) gave to the hon. Member for East Lothian (M r. Home Robertson) on 21 May,Official Report, column 348.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contingency plans have been made to ensure the safety of British forces in the event of the continuing use of noxious gas by Muslim forces in central Bosnia; how far British forces were from the villages of Busovaca arid Prosje when last week's alleged attacks by Muslims against Croats took place; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Protective equipment and clothing are available to all British Army personnel wherever they deploy worldwide. The threats in a specific deployment area are kept under constant review and plans made accordingly. Busovaca and Prosje are within the British battalion's operating area and are often transited by United Nations personnel. We are not aware of any incident involving the use of noxious gas, although we are aware of an incident where a Bosnian-Croat soldier was treated, at a hospital in Novi Bila, for suspected gas poisoning. Following investigation at the alleged scene by the 1st Battalion, Prince of Wales Own Regiment, however, no trace of use of noxious gas was found.

  Cruise Missiles
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he is giving to equipping Royal Navy warships with cruise missile-type weapons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement gave the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 2 July at column 639.

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the outcome of the review announced on 21 October 1992,Official Report, columns 307–8, into arrangements for the co-ordination of the military response to search-and-rescue incidents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  On 21 October 1992, my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces announced our plans, following a review carried out in consultation with the Department of Transport, for the
  247
  future deployment of the Royal Air Force search and rescue (SAR) helicopter service, employing a highly capable all-Sea King fleet. Under the terms of an agreement with the Department of Transport, RAF and Royal Navy SAR helicopters assist in the civil SAR task.

  Following a detailed review of arrangements for SAR co-ordination, I have concluded that these aircraft, and all military SAR operations, should be controlled from a single centre in the United Kingdom, to be located at RAF Pitreavie Castle in Fife. This national military rescue co-ordination centre (RCC) will be equipped with a comprehensive mission support system (MSS), comprising the most modern communications and computer equipment. The MSS will provide an intergrated communications and search planning capability, relieving RCC controllers of numerous routine tasks, and enabling the RCC to discharge its role in the most effective way possible.

  We intend that the new single RCC will be operational by the end of 1994. Once this RCC is fully proven, which should be during the first half of 1995, the existing second RCC, which is manned by service personnel at the maritime headquarters at Mount Wise in Plymouth, will close, releasing those personnel for other duties.

SCOTLAND

  Optical Services
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many references from general practitioners and optometrists to hospital ophthalmology out-patient clinics have been made since 1985.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information is available only for new out-patient referrals from general practitioners to ophthalmology out-patient clinics for the years ended March 1992 and 1993. The information for these two years is as follows:

  Number

  March 1992

  67,143

  March 1993

  65,831

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines are issued to health boards for record keeping and collating statistics in hospital ophthalmic departments; and what data health boards are required to collate from hospital ophthalmology departments.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information about hospital activities in Scotland, including information about the ophthalmology specialty, is published annually in sections 4 and 6 of the Scottish Health Statistics. A copy of the 1992 volume is in the Library. No special guidelines about record keeping are issued to health boards in respect of ophthalmology departments, which are expected to maintain the same standard as any other hospital department.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has regarding the incidence in Scotland of eye disease leading to blindness or NHS hospital treatment.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information is not held centrally on the incidence in the general population of eye disease which 248
  leads to blindness. The following table shows the main disorders responsible for admission to ophthalmology units in Scotland in 1992.

  All discharges of in-patients and day cases from the specialty ophthalmology for the year 1992 by diagnosis group

  Diagnosis

  Discharges

  Eye cancer

  243

  Diabetic eye disease

  268

  Retinal disorders

  992

  Glaucoma

  2,125

  Cataract

  13,084

  Corneal disorders

  648

  Disorders of conjunctiva

  273

  Disorders of eyelid

  3,070

  Strabismus

  2,461

  Other disorders of eye and lacrimal system

  1,702

  Injury to eye

  788

  Other disorders associated with eye disease

  2,925

  Total eye disorders

  27,579

  Salmon and Grilse
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) salmon and (b) grilse were taken by each type of net in Scottish fisheries in each of the last 10 years; and how many fish were taken by anglers in the same years.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The numbers of fish caught by the methods indicated are as follows:

  Net and Coble

  Fixed Engine

  Rod and Line

  Salmon

  Grilse

  Salmon

  Grilse

  Salmon

  Grilse

  1983

  54,275

  82,029

  39,725

  113,479

  51,961

  14,109

  1984

  33,006

  68,412

  31,077

  129,124

  43,130

  15,543

  1985

  26,685

  55,348

  29,522

  85,015

  58,441

  17,649

  1986

  51,154

  68,284

  37,801

  118,835

  59,443

  15,742

  1987

  27,136

  56,880

  23,792

  89,845

  53,066

  18,060

  1988

  27,569

  52,199

  15,914

  69,090

  68,679

  27,809

  1989

  29,409

  63,857

  16,139

  81,415

  58,338

  29,669

  1990

  21,542

  28,013

  14,102

  33,715

  52,280

  19,366

  1991

  9,528

  21,208

  10,529

  35,086

  45,136

  17,314

  1992

  16,005

  28,942

  11,810

  44,863

  55,026

  27,871

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) salmon and (b) grilse were taken by each drift net fishery in Scotland in each of the last 10 years; and what was the average weight of each category of such fish.

  Sir Hector Monro
  None. Drift netting for salmon anywhere in Scotland has been illegal since 1962.

  Nursing Homes
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what requirements are laid down on nursing homes with respect to(a) the provision of at least one sitting room for use by all residents and (b) the extent to which patients may be sedated.

  Mr. Stewart
  Regulation 13(2)(b) of The Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Regulations 1990 requires the provision, to an adequate standard, of"accommodation and space for each patient in the home including, where appropriate, day-room facilities separate from sleeping accommodation".
  249
  The amount of any sedation prescribed is a matter for the clinical judgment of the resident's general practitioner.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to oblige Scottish Power and Hydro-Electric to obtain more electricity from renewables sources; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Following publication of my Department's discussion document about a Scottish renewables obligation, the report of the Renewable Energy Advisory Group and the recent "Coal Review" White Paper (Cm 2235), I have now reached a conclusion on how to encourage further the exploitation of energy from renewable sources in Scotland.

  Government policy is to stimulate development of new and renewable energy technologies where they have prospects of being economically attractive and environmentally acceptable in order to contribute to diverse, secure and sustainable energy supplies, the reduction in the emission of pollutants, and the encouragement of the renewable energy industry.

  There is already overcapacity in electricity supply in Scotland. Over 10 per cent. of Scottish demand for electricity is already derived from renewable sources. A number of interests have, however, drawn attention to the potential to develop renewables to a greater extent in the light of certain aspects of Scotland's geography and climate. The extent of that potential is being studied. In the meantime, I have decided that I should introduce a Scottish renewables obligation (SRO) in respect of Scottish Power and Hydro-Electric.

  I currently expect the first order under the SRO to be for some 30–40 MW of new capacity. I will review that figure in the light of the quality and cost of the proposals received. I expect the order to comprise a number of technology bands and I am currently considering including wind power, hydro, landfill gas from existing sites, municipal and industrial waste, and energy crops and agriculture and forestry waste.

  My current intention is that the first order would, subject to satisfactory discussions with the European Commission, run for 15 to 20 years with effect from November 1994. This should enable Scottish Power and Hydro-Electric to offer successful generators contracts for a similar period. I am considering the mechanism for passing on to electricity consumers the additional costs falling on Scottish Power and Hydro-Electric as a result of the order.

  I am discussing certain aspects of my proposals with the Director General of Electricity Supply and with Scottish Power and Hydro-Electric, to which I shall in due course provide further guidance about my initial policy proposals in respect of the first order under the SRO. It is likely that bids for contracts from renewable energy electricity suppliers in Scotland will be called for in the late summer.

  To enable interested parties to plan ahead, I am announcing now that I hope that it will be possible to announce two further orders under the SRO, in 1995 and 1997 respectively. These orders are likely to come into effect in 1996 and 1998. Future orders will not necessarily cover the same technology bands as the first one, but are likely to be somewhat larger.

  The purpose of the SRO is to create an initial market. I expect all bids to be on a competitive basis. The intention
  250
  is that in the not-too-distant future the most promising renewables technologies will be able to compete without the need for special arrangements.

  Howie Report
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the report of the Howie committee on curriculum and examinations in upper secondary education in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The issues raised in the report of the Howie committee are important and complex. They affect the education and employment opportunities of all young people in Scotland and the operation of a significant part of the Scottish education system. The committee's proposals would make radical changes to arrangements which have been in place in some form for over 100 years. There was a healthy response to consultation on the report and over 300 responses were received. We have made good progress in evaluating the proposals in the light of that response and will announce decisions later this year.

  Careers in the Arts
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to widen opportunities for young people to make careers in the arts.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: My right hon. Friend is always concerned to encourage young people to enter careers which make a useful and productive contribution to, and match the demands of, society. It is chiefly for the arts organisations themselves, however, to consider what part they can play, in conjunction with other training providers, in providing career opportunities in that area. Where appropriate, young people may undertake training for careers in the arts through the Government's youth training programme, which in Scotland is delivered by Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, and their networks of local enterprise companies. The enterprise bodies have also provided a range of financial and other assistance to support the business objectives of a number of organisations involved in the arts.

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for. Scotland (1) if he will publish details of total health board expenditure on the promotion of the recent campaign for water fluoridation in the Strathclyde regional council area; if he will break this figure down by health board; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will publish details of the level of annual health board expenditure on promoting the case for the fluoridation of water in each of the last 15 years; if he will break these figures down for each of the Strathclyde region health board areas; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what was the cost to health boards in the Strathclyde regional council area of the publicity and lobbying campaign in favour of the fluoridation of water which was undertaken on their behalf by Michael Kelly Associates; if he will break this information down by health board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 9 July 1993]: Total health board expenditure, exclusive of VAT, on the promotion of

  251
  the recent campaign for water fluoridation in the Strathclyde regional council area was some £108,000. Expenditure by individual health boards was as follows:

  £

  Argyll and Clyde

  18,000

  Ayrshire and Arran

  17,000

  Greater Glasgow

  50,000

  Lanarkshire

  23,000

  The total expenditure included £26,900 paid to Michael Kelly Associates; the breakdown of this expenditure by health board is as follows:

  £

  Argyll and Clyde

  2,600

  Ayrshire and Arran

  2,200

  Greater Glasgow

  18,900

  Lanarkshire

  3,200

  No other significant expenditure was incurred by the health boards on promoting the case for the fluoridation of water in Strathclyde during the last 15 years.

  It is for health boards to decide their own priorities for health promotion within the resources they receive. Expenditure on the promotion of water fluoridation should be viewed in the context of the potential improvements in dental health and the consequent savings in the cost to the NHS and patients of dental treatment.

  Lorries
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will identify, for each road authority area in Scotland, the bridges which would require treatment if the proposal to increase lorry loading from 38 to 44 tonnes is implemented.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 16 July 1993]: Local authorities are still undertaking assessments of the bridges in their area for the higher gross vehicle weight limits of 40 tonnes which come into effect on 1 January 1999. This bridge strengthening programme will take account of the proposed 44 tonne limit.

  It is not yet possible to identify, for each roads authority in Scotland, the bridges which would require treatment for the proposed limits.

  On trunk roads 10 structures have been strengthened out of the 50 identified requiring treatment. One bridge has been superseded by a road scheme. The remaining 39 bridges are being reassessed and those requiring strengthening will be strengthened by the end of 1998.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the cost to each roads authority in Scotland for road and bridge improvements if the proposal to increase lorry loading from 38 tonnes to 44 tonnes is implemented.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 16 July 1993]: Local authorities are still undertaking assessments of the bridges in their areas for the higher gross vehicle weight limits which come into effect on 1 January 1999. Consequently, it is not yet possible to estimate the cost to each roads authority in Scotland for road and bridge improvements.
  252
  Thirty-nine trunk road bridges are being reassessed and until this work is completed it is not possible to estimate the cost of strengthening measures.

  Record of Need
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the appeals lodged with his Department against the decision of Highland regional council not to open a record of need, the dates on which the appeals were received by his Department and when he expects to give his decisions.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 16 July 1993]: The Scottish Office Education Department has before it one such appeal, about which I wrote to the hon. Member on 17 June. This was referred to the Secretary of State by Highland regional council appeals committee on 3 November 1992. The considerations involved in the appeals process are invariably complex but I expect the decision of the Secretary of State in this case will be issued soon.

  Islands Shipping Services
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) of 26 May,Official Report, column 589, what is the overall percentage level of tariff reduction available to P and 0 Scottish Ferries Ltd.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 July 1993]: The percentage rates by which P and O may abate its commercial tariffs are set out in the table. The percentage rates applicable to the carriage of freight also apply to other bulk shipping companies that provide services to the Northern isles.

  Orkney and Shetland Services

  Subvention rate Percentage

  Island residents

  Cars and passengers

  49.0

  Students/disabled/pensioners

  58.0

  Mainland originating traffic

  Cars and passengers

  19.5

  Freight

  Southbound freight

  47.5

  Northbound freight

  10.5

  Asbestos-related Diseases
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many recorded cases there were of the diseases mesothelioma, asbestosis and bilateral diffuse pleural thickening in each year since 1988(a) in the Greater Glasgow health board area and (b) in Scotland as a whole; and of the above totals, what percentage was female.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 20 July 1993]: Data on the incidence of mesothelioma are collected through the Scottish cancer registration scheme. Information derived from this is in the table. Data on the incidence of asbestosis and bilateral diffuse pleural thickening are not available centrally.
  253

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Total

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Glasgow

  Males

  39

  86.7

  52

  94.5

  46

  86.8

  42

  85.7

  179

  88.6

  Females

  6

  13.3

  3

  5.5

  7

  13.2

  7

  14.3

  23

  11.4

  Males + Females

  45

  100.0

  55

  100.0

  53

  100.0

  49

  100.0

  202

  100.0

  Scotland

  Males

  103

  88.0

  119

  90.2

  112

  86.2

  104

  86.0

  438

  87.6

  Females

  14

  12.0

  13

  9.8

  18

  13.8

  17

  14.0

  62

  12.4

  Male + Female

  117

  100.0

  132

  100.0

  130

  100.0

  121

  100.0

  500

  100.0

  Inverclyde Enterprise Zone
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received concerning the proposed economic development of the Parklea site in the Inverclyde enterprise zone.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 20 July 1993]: My right hon. Friend has received two representations regarding the proposed economic development of the Parklea site in Inverclyde enterprise zone, one of which is from the hon. Member.

  Listed Industrial Buildings
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total amount of public moneys given towards the cost of renovation and conservation of listed industrial buildings in each of the past 10 years; what was the average amount of financial assistance given in such cases; of these, how many were owned by private parties; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 20 July 1993]: The total amount of money given by the Secretary of State for Scotland for the repair of listed industrial buildings—including those converted for other uses—under the historic buildings grant scheme in each of the past 10 years is set out in the table. This represents assistance to 29 buildings, of which 28 were privately owned, the majority by charitable bodies. The average amount of financial assistance given in such cases under the grant scheme was
  £109,716.

  Total amount of historic buildings repair grant

  Year

  £

  1982–83

  88,500

  1983–84

  70,000

  1984–85

  128,600

  1985–86

  134,455

  1986–87

  13,500

  1987–88

  124,582

  1988–89

  790,147

  1989–90

  400,259

  1990–91

  473,605

  1991–92

  561,980

  1992–93

  396,150

  Housing Associations
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the proportion of tenants in the public housing sector who live in housing association apartments and houses(a) in Strathclyde and (b) Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
  254
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 July 1993]: The information requested is published in the 1991 census report for Scotland, part 1, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the average levels of income of housing association tenants in each year since 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 July 1993]: This information is not generaly collected centrally, but the socio-economic study carried out as part of the Scottish house condition survey showed that, in 1991, the mean income of housing association tenants was £6,300. This information is contained in table 4.11 of the survey report, which was published on 20 July and a copy is available in the Library.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to create a post of housing association ombudsman.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 July 1993]: I have asked Scottish Homes to prepare proposals for a housing association ombudsman service and it is currently undertaking a consultation exercise on this matter.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the proportion of private sector loan funding which will be required to maintain housing association new construction programmes and renovation progammes in 1993–94 and 1995–96; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 July 1993]: In the current year, Scottish Homes is confident of achieving the target set by my right hon. Friend of a private: public leverage rate of 1:2 for its programme as a whole. It is too early to say what the target will be for the future years.

  Sewage Sludge
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he has given to regional councils concerning the proposed abolition of the dumping at sea of sewage sludge under EC rules.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 20 July 1993]: Regional councils were advised in March 1990 of the Government's decision to terminate the sea disposal of sewage sludge by the end of 1998. At the same time Lothian and Strathclyde regional councils were also advised of changes in the arrangements relating to their annual applications for licences under the provisions of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 which would prevail in the period to 1998.
  255
  Since then my officials have been in routine contact with the regional councils as they have developed their sludge strategies for post-1998.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Coal
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what protection he intends to introduce for the domestic coal consumer in Northern Ireland after the proposed privatisation of British Coal; and what proportion of homes in Northern Ireland depend on coal as a main source of heat;

  (2) what safeguards he will introduce to ensure that the households in Northern Ireland which use coal as their main source of heat are not exploited by monopolies following the proposed privatisation of British Coal; and how many households in Northern Ireland use coal as their main source of heat.

  Mr. Atkins
  Suppliers of coal to households in Northern Ireland are subject to the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973 and will continue to be so. Approximately 321,000 households in Northern Ireland —61 per cent. of the total—use coal as their main source of heat.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he proposes to take to ensure that elderly people with coal as their primary source of heat are not disadvantaged under the proposed privatisation of British Coal.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government's proposals to help secure the future of the coal industry should lead to a more efficient industry producing coal at reduced costs, thus benefiting all coal users.

  Tourism
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many tourists from the Republic of Ireland visited the north during 1991 and 1992; what plans his Department has to increase the numbers of tourists from both Britain and the Republic of Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  A total of 380,000 tourists from the Republic of Ireland visited Northern Ireland in 1991 and 352,000 in 1992. A major drive to increase visitors from Britain and the Republic of Ireland was launched in March with the Northern Ireland tourist board's biggest ever television advertising campaign, "The Northern Ireland you'll never know unless you go", at a cost of £1 million. This has been very well received and is backed up strongly by other marketing activity.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the effect of the numbers of tourists from the United States of America visiting Northern Ireland since the new operation of a direct, scheduled service between New York and Belfast; what steps his Department is now taking to market Northern Ireland in the United States of America; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The new direct scheduled air service between Belfast and New York came into operation on 256
  3 June 1993 and it is too early for meaningful statistical information to have been collected on its effect on the number of tourists visiting Northern Ireland., The Northern Ireland tourist board continues, through its New York office, to participate in a wide range of marketing activities aimed at attracting American visitors, including selective advertising campaigns, participation in consumer and trade exhibitions, development of special interest tour operators and joint marketing initiatives in liaison with Bord Failte, the tourist authority for the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what applications his Department has received from companies wishing to operate a direct scheduled air service between Northern Ireland and Germany; what studies his Department has made of the benefits to the north's tourist industry which the operation of this and other direct scheduled services might have; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  No application has been brought to my attention for a direct scheduled air service between Northern Ireland and Germany. Tourism would undoubtedly benefit from a direct scheduled service link with a key tourism market like Germany.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of tourism in Northern Ireland in 1992–93 came from(a) domestic and (b) overseas sources; and how many of that total were categorised as (i) short stay and (ii) long stay.

  Mr. Atkins
  In the calendar year 1992, domestic sources formed 32 per cent. of total tourism in Northern Ireland of which 63 per cent. were categorised as short stay and 37 per cent. as long stay. Overseas sources for 1992 formed 68 per cent. of the visitor total, of which 48 per cent. were categorised as short stay and 52 per cent. as long stay visitors.

  Salmon and Grilse
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) salmon and (b) grilse were taken by drift nets in (i) the Foyle fisheries area and (ii) the fisheries conservancy area in each of the last 10 years; what was the average weight of each category of fish; and how many fish in each category were taken by fishermen resident in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic.

  Mr. Ancram
  Commercial salmon catch returns do not differentiate between salmon and grilse. The total drift net catch, and average weight of fish, for the areas within the jurisdiction of the Foyle Fisheries Commission and the Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland respectively are as follows:

  Foyle Fisheries Commission

  Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland

  Number

  Average weight (kgs)

  Number

  Average weight (kgs)

  1983

  65,654

  3.44

  1,231

  3.27

  1984

  18,299

  2.94

  662

  3.12

  1985

  24,528

  3.39

  1,010

  3.33

  1986

  32,280

  3.34

  479

  3.15

  1987

  12,587

  2.91

  248

  3.18

  1988

  17,321

  3.21

  675

  3.09

  257

  Foyle Fisheries Commission

  Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland

  Number

  Average weight (kgs)

  Number

  Average weight (kgs)

  1989

  55,108

  3.14

  812

  3.17

  1990

  33,850

  3.14

  252

  3.03

  1991

  20,379

  3.02

  838

  3.10

  1992

  33,321

  2.98

  2,267

  3.08

  Information on the number of fish taken by fishermen resident in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland respectively is not available but for statistical purposes it is established practice to include 50 per cent. of the catch in the Foyle area, in addition to all of the Fisheries Conservancy Board catch, when computing the total Northern Ireland catch.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) salmon and (b) grilse were taken by each type of net in Northern Ireland fisheries in each of the last 10 years; and how many such fish were taken by anglers in the same years; and what sums were paid in licence fees in each of those years by (i) netsmen and (ii) anglers.

  Mr. Ancram
  Salmon catch returns do not differentiate between salmon and grilse. Total commercial catches—inclusive of 50 per cent. of the catches in the Foyle area—by type of net, were as follows:

  Drift nets

  Draft nets

  Fixed engines

  1983

  34,058

  8,260

  14,425

  1984

  9,812

  5,695

  13,077

  1985

  13,274

  7,433

  8,908

  1986

  16,619

  6,381

  12,064

  1987

  6,541

  2,786

  10,808

  1988

  9,335

  8,202

  13,389

  1989

  28,366

  15,619

  17,529

  1990

  17,177

  5,112

  10,135

  1991

  11,028

  2,720

  6,673

  1992

  18,927

  4,515

  7,696

  Accurate information on angling catches is not available. Anglers are not required to make returns in the Fisheries Conservancy Board's area, but such information as is available is published in the board's annual reports. A very low percentage of anglers make the required returns in the Foyle Fisheries Commission area, with reported angling catches and the percentage of licensed anglers who made the following returns.

  Year

  Angling catches

  Percentage return

  1983

  831

  7

  1984

  379

  15

  1985

  1,814

  10

  1986

  1,172

  8

  1987

  390

  4

  1988

  960

  5

  1989

  975

  6

  1990

  927

  4

  1991

  482

  9

  1992

  523

  6

  Licence fees paid by commercial salmon fishermen and anglers respectively to the Foyle Fisheries Commission and the Fisheries Conservancy Board were as follows:
  258

  Year

  Foyle Fisheries Commission1

  Fisheries Conservancy Board

  Angling licences £

  Commercial fishing licences £

  Angling licences £

  Commercial fishing licences £

  1983

  29,800

  32,763

  98,477

  10,188

  1984

  29,454

  35,488

  108,656

  9,140

  1985

  38,942

  36,314

  117,687

  10,873

  1986

  44,113

  37,307

  134,450

  11,520

  1987

  47,907

  35,470

  146,941

  10,839

  1988

  57,658

  35,982

  159,166

  12,050

  1989

  56,147

  38,226

  164,607

  11,818

  1990

  58,893

  40,328

  174,545

  10,473

  1991

  61,994

  43,351

  188,146

  12,116

  1992

  62,622

  42,410

  192,003

  13,658

  1 Full licence revenue included.

  Rate Collection
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many ratepayers have been threatened with prosecution as a result of the Rate Collection Agency computer at Newtownabbey, County Antrim being unable correctly to record more than one direct debit from an individual bank account; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Rate collection operational matters are the responsibility of Mr. David Gallagher, chief executive of the Rate Collection Agency. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. D. Gallagher to Mr. Roy Beggs, dated 20 July 1993:

  I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the number of ratepayers threatened with prosecution as a result of the Rate Collection Agency computer being unable to record more than one direct debit from an individual bank account.

  This is the only occasion on which any indication of a relationship between the unavailability of the direct debit payment facility and the threat of prosecution has come to my attention.

  It is indeed correct that the Agency's existing computer system limits offering the use of the direct debit payment method to those ratepayers who pay rates for one property from one bank account. The structure of the computer system meant that it was not cost effective to avoid this limitation when introducing the direct debit payment facility in 1989 and it has been our practice to identify this fact in all Agency promotional material for direct debit. I enclose for your information a copy of our 1993–94 leaflet where you will find the relevant reference at the bottom of page 4.

  The existing computer system is rapidly approaching the end of its useful life and the Agency at present is developing a replacement system which when operational in 1995 will facilitate the widest use of direct debit.

  There is no reason however, why any ratepayer should be threatened with prosecution for non-payment because direct debit is not available to them. Such ratepayers are offered the Bank Standing Order facility or another payment method suitable to them.

  I hope this will clarify the situation but should you wish me to investigate an individual case please let me know.

  EC Structural Funds
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the persons and bodies to whom he sent his proposals for the EC structural funds.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The list of bodies and individuals who have been sent the consultation draft of the key
  259
  sections of the Northern Ireland structural funds plan to date are set out in the table. It includes Members of the European Parliament and the main Northern Ireland party leaders, the district councils, the Confederation of British Industry, the voluntary sector and other representative bodies as well as a number of organisations and individuals who have expressed an interest in the EC structural funds after 1993. I am arranging for all Northern Ireland Members of Parliament to receive a copy of the plan because of the interest which has been shown in it and in addition for copies of the plan to be placed in the parliamentary Library. Copies of the plan are also made available to any organisation or individual who requests it.

  Action for Women's Employment (Derry)

  Dr. J. Alderdice

  Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union

  Ardboe Development Association

  Ards Small Business Centre

  Armagh Planetarium

  Mr. J. Armstrong

  Arts Council

  Association of Local Authorities

  Ballymoney Regeneration Company Ltd.

  Ballylumford Power Ltd.

  Belfast Centre for the Unemployed

  Belfast Chamber of Trade and Commerce

  Belfast Charitable Trust for Integrated Education

  Belfast City Airport

  Ms E. Collins

  Belfast Common Purpose

  Belfast Freight Ferries Ltd.

  Belfast Harbour Commissioners

  Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education

  Belfast Law Centre

  Professor W. Black

  Professor V. Borooah

  British Airways

  British Midlands

  British Telecom

  Brownlow Community Trust

  Brownlow Ltd.

  Bryson House

  Buddy Bear Trust

  Building Design Partnership

  Burn Development Association

  Carlingford Lough Commissioners

  Centre for Creative Communication

  Charities Evaluation Services

  Chinese Welfare Association

  Civil Aviation Authority

  Coleraine Harbour Commissioners

  Community Development Review Group

  Community Relations Council

  Community Technical Aid

  Confederation of British Industry

  Confederation of Community Groups

  Construction Employers Federation

  Construction Industry Training Board

  Lord Cook

  Coolkeeragh Power Ltd.

  Co-operation North

  Council for Catholic Maintained Schools

  Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside

  Cardinal Daly

  Mr. A. Daley

  Mr. J. B. Davidson (Transportation Monitoring Committee)

  Development Fund for IFI in Omagh and Fermanagh

  Disability Action

  District Councils (26)

  Donaghadee Community Workforce

  Down County Museum

  Du Pont (UK) Ltd.

  East Border Region Committee

  Edco Ltd.

  Education and Library Boards (5)

  Enniskillen Community Development Project

  260

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  Professor W. Ewart

  Extern

  Fair Employment Commission

  Mr. S. Farron

  Fire Authority for NI

  Ford Motor Ltd.

  Mr. A. Frew, Green Party

  Freight Transport Association

  General Consumer Council for NI

  Gingerbread NI

  Mr. J. Girvan

  Mr. J. Goodman

  Mr. A. Gichuke

  Mr. E. Graham

  The Governing Bodies Association

  Health Promotion Agency

  Health and Social Services Boards (4)

  Help the Aged

  Mr. J. Herlihy (Tourism Monitoring Committee)

  Historic Buildings Council

  Historic Monuments Council

  Holywell Trust

  Mr. J. Hume

  Industrial Therapy Organisation

  Institute of Directors

  Inner City Trust, Derry

  Institute of Exports (NI)

  Irish Congress of Trade Unions (Northern Ireland Committee)

  Ivex Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

  Kainos Software Ltd.

  Dr. D. Kennedy

  KPMG Consultants

  Labour Relations Agency

  Laganside Development Company

  Lame Harbour Ltd.

  Law society

  Lisburn Enterprise Centre

  Livestock Marketing Commission

  Local Government Staff Commission for Northern Ireland

  Londonderry Chamber of Commerce

  Londonderry Port and Harbour Commissioners

  Lower Ormeau Residents' Action Group

  Lurgan Voluntary Sector Forum

  Mr. S. Macgrianna

  Mr. P. McErlean, Cambridge University

  Dr. A. Masson

  Manx Airlines

  MARI (UK) Ltd.

  Milk Marketing Board for Northern Ireland

  Mr. J. Molyneaux

  Professor F. Monds

  Mr. E. Montgomery

  Ms J. Morrice, EC

  Dr. J. Moss

  Professor P. Newbould

  Multi-cultural Resource Centre

  National Trust

  Newry and Mourne Carers Association

  Newry and Mourne Enterprise Agency

  Mr. J. Nicholson

  NIGEN Ltd.

  Northern Ireland Advanced Learning Systems

  Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association

  Northern Ireland Airports Ltd.

  Northern Ireland Association of Citizens's Advice Bureaux

  Northern Ireland Association of Community-Based Training Organisations

  NI Bankers Association (contributed to CBI Submission)

  NI Centre in Europe

  NI Chamber of Commerce

  NI Co-operative Development Agency

  NI Council for Integrated Education

  NI Council for Voluntary Action (Umbrella group covering approximately 250 affiliated organisations)

  NI Curriculum Council

  NI Dairy Trade Association

  NI Economic Council

  NI Economic Research Centre

  261

  NI Electricity plc

  NI Environment Link

  NI Federation of Housing Associations

  NI Fish Producers Organisation Ltd.

  NI Housing Executive

  NI Meat Exporters Association

  NI Museums Advisory Committee

  NI Railways Ltd.

  NI Schools Examinations and Assessment Council

  NI Small Business Institute

  NI Tourist Board

  NI Tenants' Action Project

  NI Transport Holding Company

  NI Voluntary Trust

  Norse Irish Ferries Ltd.

  Northern Telecom

  Northlands Institute

  North West Councils' Grouping

  Orchardville Society

  Mr. B. O'Hara

  Mr. J. O'Hara

  Reverend I. Paisley

  Pandoro Ltd.

  P & O Ferries

  Pig Production Development Committee

  Premier Transco Ltd.

  Mr. E. Poulson, EC

  Queen's University of Belfast

  Queen's University (Department of Agriculture and Food Economy)

  Rank Hovis Ltd.

  River Bann and Lough Neagh Association

  Road Haulage Association

  Rosa

  Rotary International

  Royal Society of Ulster Architects

  RSPCB

  Rural Community Network

  Rural Development Council

  Mr. N. Sanders

  Sea Containers Scotland

  Short Brothers plc

  Simon Community

  Mr. J. Simpson

  Professor T. Smith

  Sister Genevieve

  Professor A. Smyth

  Society of Local Authorities Chief Executives (SOLACE)

  Software Industry Federation

  Sports Council

  Springvale Training Ltd.

  Stena Sealink

  Strathroy Milk Marketing Board

  Mr. P. Storey, University of Liverpool

  Mr. C. Stutt

  Suffolk Community Services Group

  Sir John Swinson

  TechEcon

  Textile Allied Products

  Training Council

  Tidy NI

  Tony Brunskill Associates

  Tourism and Hospitality

  Training Council

  Trans Global Freight Ltd.

  Transport Advisory Committee

  Transport Studies Research Group—University of Ulster

  TR Shipping Services

  Tyrone Economic Development Initiative

  Ulster Business School—University of Ulster

  Ulsterbus/Citybus

  Ulster American Folk Park

  Ulster Architectural Heritage Society

  Ulster Development Capital Ltd.

  Ulster Farmers Union

  Ulster Folk and Transport Museum

  Ulster Museum

  Ulster Sheltered Employment Ltd.

  Ultach Trust

  University of Ulster

  Verbal Arts Centre

  Voluntary Service Belfast

  262

  Reverend Wallace, St. Peter's Cathedral

  Mr. C. Ward, CBE (Physical and Social Environment Monitoring Committee)

  Warrenpoint Harbour Authority

  West Belfast Enterprise Board Ltd.

  W. H. Stephens and Sons

  William Fitch and Co.

  Women's Educational Project

  Women's European Platform (NICVA)

  Workers' Educational Association

  Youth Council

  Youth Link

  Zwecker International Transport

  Terrorism
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many terrorist attacks have been carried out in Northern Ireland in each year since 1969; and what percentage of these attacks were carried out by the Republican paramilitaries and Loyalist paramilitaries.

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 13 July 1993]: The available information on the number of terrorist attacks is published in the chief constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary's annual report 1992, a copy of which is in the Library. This gives details of the number of terrorist incidents involving shootings, bombs and incendiaries. Information on how many of these were attributed to Republican and Loyalist terrorist groups is not available.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total cost of the film for television screening which is part of the new campaign against terrorism; how long the film lasts; how many firms were invited to tender for the preparations of this film; and what is the budget allocated for the television screening of this film.

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 19 July 1993]: The total production cost of the three television commercial films launched on Wednesday 7 July was £438,000. The three films last 150, 80 and 40 seconds respectively. Seven advertising agencies were invited to submit proposals for this advertising campaign. The projected expenditure for screening the films in the 1993–94 financial year is £280,000.

ENVIRONMENT

  Council Tax
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what figures are available for the impact of the introduction of the council tax on pensioners, in particular in London.

  Mr. Baldry
  It is estimated that, after allowing for council tax benefit, about 65 per cent. of pensioner households are better off under the council tax in 1993–94 than they were under the community charge in 1992–93. The corresponding figure for London is 50 per cent. Figures for the other regions are shown in the
  table.

  Pensioner households: Percentage gaining from the council tax

  Region

  Percentage of pensioner households gaining

  North

  75

  Yorks and Humberside

  70

  North-West

  70

  263

  Region

  Percentage of pensioner households gaining

  East Midlands

  75

  West Midlands

  75

  East Anglia

  70

  Greater London

  50

  Rest of South-East

  55

  South-West

  60

  England

  65

  Notes:

  1. Figures estimated from the Family Expenditure Survey.

  2. Figures include the effect of council tax benefit.

  3. Figures are subject to sampling error and have been rounded to the nearest. 5 per cent.

  4. A pensioner household is defined as a household including a man aged 65 + or a woman aged 60 +.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what proportion of drinking water inspectorate reports have been released to the public during the last three years;

  (2) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) of 12 July, Official Report, column 325, if he will indicate the criteria which are used to establish whether a drinking water inspectorate report reveals issues of general interest or provides lessons to be learnt.

  Mr. Yeo
  Since the drinking water inspectorate was established on 2 January 1990 it has investigated 127 incidents affecting drinking water quality and made public three reports. In all other cases copies of letters addressed to water companies summarising the inspectorate's conclusions and recommendations have been sent to the local authorities, district health authorities and customer services committees concerned, to the Office of Water Services and others who have expressed an interest. Whether or not reports need to be published is decided against the criteria given in my answer to the hon. Member on 12 July at column 325.

  Tyre Dump Fires
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements are being assessed by his Department to cope with tyre dump fires; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The responsibility for making provision for fire-fighting rests with fire authorities.

  In addition, waste disposal authorities are responsible for licensing the deposit of waste under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Depositing waste tyres without a licence is an offence. A disposal authority may reject a licence application or revoke a licence on grounds of water pollution or danger to public health. Licences are issued subject to conditions, which may include requirements as to the precautions to be taken at the site. Disposal authorities are responsible for enforcing licences. These powers and duties are to be strengthened and extended when the waste management licensing provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 are brought into force.
  264

  Personnel Statistics
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of personnel employed in(a) the National Rivers Authority, (b) the drinking water inspectorate, (c) Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and (d) the Office of Water Services.

  Mr. Yeo
  The current totals of staff in post are as follows:

  Number of staff

  National Rivers Authority

  8,371

  The drinking water inspectorate

  28

  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution

  358

  Ofwat

  163

  Running Costs
  Mr. Michael Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest annual running costs for which figures are available for(a) the National Rivers Authority, (b) the drinking water inspectorate, (c) Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and (d) Ofwat.

  Mr. Yeo
  The costs are broadly as follows:

  1992–93 Total revenue costs (£ million)

  National Rivers Authority

  283.6

  The drinking water inspectorate

  1.3

  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution

  14.5

  Ofwat

  6.7

  Further details can be found in the annual reports and accounts of NRA, HMIP and Ofwat.

  Mineral Reviews
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward proposals to amend section 105 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to ensure five-year reviews of all mineral permissions in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on 17 June 1993 at column 675.

  Bathing Water
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out, in tabular form, how many waters, in each of the EC countries, failed to meet their obligations under the bathing water directive; how many met the mandatory water quality standard; and how many complied with the directive's guideline standards.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 19 July 1993]: Drawing from the latest EC report, "Quality of Bathing Water 1992", the details of compliance with the coliform standards for seawater bathing areas are as follows:

  Meeting standards

  Country

  Failing mandatory standards

  Mandatory

  Guideline

  Belgium

  4

  35

  7

  Denmark

  60

  1,113

  1,009

  Germany

  119

  328

  257

  265

  Meeting standards

  Country

  Failing mandatory standards

  Mandatory

  Guideline

  Greece

  38

  1,165

  1,141

  Spain

  96

  1,239

  988

  France

  413

  1,519

  1,121

  Ireland

  5

  85

  77

  Italy

  342

  3,691

  3,428

  Netherlands

  6

  38

  32

  Portugal

  38

  188

  170

  United Kingdom

  97

  358

  163

  The Commission accepts that there is a degree of imprecision in the results from the different countries, which arises from differences in analytical methods.

  Sea Walls
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what work the interdepartmental group on coastal policy has done on the ownership of sea walls; and what plans his Department has to transfer ownership of the Portland harbour wall.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 20 July 1993]: I have been asked to reply as this Department has overall policy responsibility for coastal defences in England. The ownership of specific lengths of sea wall is a matter for local bodies concerned. In the case of Portland I understand that the Ministry of Defence is reviewing options for the future of the entire base—including the breakwaters—in conjunction with Weymouth and Portland borough council and other interested parties.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Child Labour
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to restrict the import of goods produced by child labour.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  None. Open international trade is more likely to put an end to child labour by strengthening the economies of the countries concerned. There would, in any case, be severe practical difficulties in identifying goods which had been produced with child labour.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next expects to meet the President of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend and I maintain close contact with the CBI and discuss with it a wide range of issues including the competitiveness of British manufacturing industry.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met the Trades Union Congress to discuss manufacturing industry.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend discusses matters affecting industry with the TUC as appropriate.
  266

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what new plans he has to increase the competitiveness of British industry.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The competitiveness of British industry is at the heart of all the Government's policies.

  One-stop Shops
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many one-stop shops he expects to be running by the end of the year.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Nineteen one-stop shops are due to open by the end of this year.

  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made on the one-stop shop initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Good progress is being made by the six one-stop shop pilots, and they have now been joined by two more areas, Leicestershire and Shropshire. This will represent some 31 outlets in all.

  Further applications will be welcomed from other areas ready to achieve the high standards of the pilots. They will all be known as Business Links.

  Defence-related Industries
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further plans his Department has to assist firms in defence-related industries to diversify into new products; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department will continue to provide 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.

  Deregulation
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will ensure that the small business sector is fully involved in consultations on his deregulation initiative.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to ensure that due weight is given to the voice of small businesses during his consultations on the deregulation initiative.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The cumulative burden of regulation bears most heavily on small businesses and ensuring that they are fully consulted is a central objective of the deregulation initiative. The chairmen of the deregulation task forces have taken on the responsibility for giving special consideration to the needs of small businesses and the 14 task force members representing the small company sector have formed a committee to make specific recommendations.

  Following the Prime Minister's meeting on deregulation yesterday, Ministers have committed themselves to greater efforts to involve small companies in Government decision making and to analysing the impact of regulatory

  267
  proposals on the smallest firms affected. The enforcer's code on helping business comply with regulation, also announced yesterday, will be particularly helpful to small companies.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made as to the number of rules and regulations from(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Europe which will be amended or abolished by the deregulation unit in the next six months.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  At the Prime Minister's progress meeting on deregulation, held yesterday, Ministers agreed a list of specific deregulatory prospects to reduce the burden on businesss. The deregulation unit is a division within my Department which co-ordinates Government action on deregulation, but has no powers itself to amend or abolish regulations created either in Whitehall or the EC.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met the chairman of British Coal to discuss the effect of pit closures in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of British Coal as necessary to discuss a range of issues.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many jobs were created or retained as a result of inward investment into the United Kingdom in 1992.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department's Invest in Britain Bureau's—IBB—recent annual report, a copy of which is in the Library, shows that some 56,471 jobs were created or retained between 1 April 1992 and 31 March 1993. The figures are based on information provided by the companies at the time of the announcement to invest. There is no requirement to notify the Department and so the figures include only those projects where the IBB and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many jobs he estimates have come from inward investment since 1979 and in which main areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Since 1979 it is estimated that 526,000 jobs have been associated with inward investment decisions. The largest number of jobs have been in Scotland, 16.5 per cent.; West Midlands, 14.6 per cent.; and Wales, 14.1 per cent. The figures are based on information provided by the companies at the time of the announcement to invest. There is no requirement to notify the Department and so the figures include only those projects where the IBB and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice.

  Package Holidays
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further steps he is taking to ensure improved safety standards for package holidaymakers using European hotels.
  268
  Mr. McLoughlin
  As a result of an EC resolution on fire safety in hotels most member states now have standards similar in general terms to those in the United Kingdom. More generally, the International Federation of Tour Operators has issued two substantial guides, one for operators and the other for owners of holiday accommodation, covering every aspect of safety from fire doors to the depth of swimming pools. These, I believe, will be valuable.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further representations he has had from travel businesses about deficiencies in the package travel regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have received no such representations.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent discussions he has held with British Coal on opencasting.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend and I meet regularly with British Coal to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Lonrho plc
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received calling for an investigation into the affairs of Lonrho plc.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I am unable to discuss the affairs of individual companies. However, any representations my hon. Friend cares to make regarding the affairs of Lonrho plc will be considered.

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his Department is now in a position to publish its own assessment of the prospects for the British aerospace industry.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department maintains a close dialogue with the aerospace industry on its prospects, but I have no present plans to publish any departmental assessment.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the terms of reference of Sir Peter Levene's inquiry into the ECGD.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the second part of the answer my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade gave on 7 June 1993 at column 160.

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, what criteria are taken into account when assessing staffing requirements at the ECGD.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  ECGD's staffing levels are periodically reviewed. They are set with the aim of ensuring that the Department has sufficient resources to meet its objectives.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his Department plans to publish its renewable energy strategy document.
  269
  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss).

  Russia (Trade)
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on United Kingdom trade with Russia.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  United Kingdom exports to the countries of the former Soviet Union amounted to £295 million in the first five months of this year, a rise of 93 per cent. over the same period last year—£153 million. About 70 per cent. of these exports are to Russia.

  Despite this encouraging news, the Russian market remains primarily suitable for larger companies able to bear the costs and risks involved, and for those companies already established there. Nevertheless, there can be opportunities for traders of all sizes and for medium and smaller companies where a niche exists for them or where they can act as subcontractors.

  Inspectors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 5 March,Official Report, column 349, if he will list (a) the name and business connections of the inspector, (b) the date on which he published the interim and final reports in which the individual was criticised, (c) the date on which he referred the criticisms of the accountant inspector criticised in the Ramor report to any of the accountancy bodies and (d) the total cost of the Ramor and Gilgate investigations, showing the fees paid to accountant inspectors.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton

  (a) Mr. P. L. Ainger, FCA of Messrs. Price Waterhouse.

  (b) The interim report dated 23 December 1981 was published on 22 March 1983. The final report dated 11 December 1987 remains unpublished.

  (c) 22 March 1983 immediately on publication of the interim report.

  (d) The total costs of the Ramor investigation were as follows:

  £

  Accountant

  568,762

  Legal

  108,692

  Disbursements

  82,847

  Total

  760,301

  Figures for Gilgate are not now available.

  Supervisory Bodies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the sections of the Companies Acts which affect the duties of the recognised supervisory bodies to shareholders, creditors, employees and the general public.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The duties of the recognised supervisory bodies are set out in sections 35 to 40 of the Companies Act 1989.
  270

  Auditing Practices Board
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the dates of the meetings of the Auditing Practices Board which his representative has attended and the matters which were discussed at each of those meetings.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to his question on 5 March,Official Report, column 348. Since then my Department's representative has attended the meetings of the Auditing Practices Board held on the following dates:

  9 March

  19 April

  11 May

  8 June

  13 July.

  Minutes of the board's meeting may be obtained from the board's secretary.

  Criminal Offences
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criminal offences he has introduced in the last five years under delegated legislation.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information requested can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progess has been made on conducting a job study with British Nuclear Fuels plc on the potential for alternative employment on the thermal oxide reprocessing plant site as recommended in the first report of the Environment Committee of Session 1985–86, HC 191, on radioactive waste; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on 7 July 1993,Official Report, column 149.

  G7 (Balance of Trade)
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of(a) imports and (b) exports of each of the G7 countries in the past year; what were the comparable figures five, 10 and 15 years ago in real terms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The value of imports and exports for each of the G7 countries for 1992 are shown in table 1. Comparable figures in real terms for five, 10 and 15 years ago are not available. Comparable figures for five, 10 and 15 years ago at current prices are shown in table 2. United Kingdom export performance has been impressive in recent years.

  Table 1:

  Visible trade of the G7 countries, 1992

  (Billion US$)

  Exports

  Imports

  Balance

  Canada

  134

  129

  5

  France1

  216

  231

  -15

  Germany

  422

  403

  19

  Italy

  178

  188

  -10

  Japan

  340

  233

  106

  United Kingdom

  191

  222

  -31

  USA

  448

  554

  -106

  271
  1 1991 figures given as 1992 data is not available

  Source: IMF International Financial Statistics

  Table 2: Visible trade of the G7 countries; 1977, 1982, 1987 (Billions US$, current prices)

  1977

  1982

  1987

  Exports

  Canada

  44

  71

  98

  France

  65

  97

  148

  Germany

  118

  176

  294

  Italy

  45

  74

  117

  Japan

  81

  138

  231

  United Kingdom

  56

  97

  131

  United States of America

  123

  216

  254

  Imports

  Canada

  42

  58

  93

  France

  70

  116

  158

  Germany

  101

  155

  228

  Italy

  48

  87

  126

  Japan

  71

  131

  151

  United Kingdom

  63

  100

  154

  United States of America

  160

  255

  424

  Balance

  Canada

  1

  13

  6

  France

  -6

  -20

  -10

  Germany

  17

  21

  66

  Italy

  -3

  -13

  -9

  Japan

  9

  7

  80

  United Kingdom

  -7

  -2

  -23

  United States of America

  -37

  -38

  -170

  Source: IMF International Financial Statistics

  Wind Power
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish estimates for the energy production levels of individual wind power developments in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is my intention to monitor the performance of windpower projects contracted under the non-fossil fuel obligation and to publish aggregated data.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will list the groups and individuals consulted by his Department to date regarding(a) the draft terms of reference of the review of nuclear power, (b) the proposed composition of the committee which will undertake the review and its technical advisers and (c) the powers of such a committee;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to establish an independent committee to undertake the review into nuclear power scheduled for the current year;

  (3) when he plans to make a statement outlining the terms of reference and the timetable for his departmental review of nuclear power.

  Mr. Eggar
  No decisions have yet been taken on the scope, timing and format of the nuclear review. A further announcement will be made in due course.

  Warren Spring Laboratory
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will publish the PA Consultants review on Warren Spring Laboratory.
  272
  Mr. McLoughlin
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on 7 July 1993,Official Report, column 153.

  Tyre Imports
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many part-worn tyres have been imported into Great Britain in the last year for which figures are available; which countries they have come from; what checks are made as to their fitness for use; how sub-standard ones are disposed of; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In 1992 the United Kingdom imported 10,900 metric tonnes of used tyres, worth £5.4 million. The countries from which they were imported are given in the table. Policy on their fitness for use and disposal are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

  United Kingdom imports of used pneumatic tyres1, 1992

  Metric tonnes

  Value (£000)

  Netherlands

  3,674.7

  1,934

  Germany

  4,858.7

  1,620

  Saudi Arabia

  114.7

  353

  Abu Dhabi

  105.6

  256

  Belgium-Luxembourg

  383.2

  177

  Italy

  285.8

  170

  France

  449.4

  166

  Japan

  254.7

  150

  Irish Republic

  249.9

  136

  Sudan

  91.7

  56

  Switzerland

  101.3

  40

  Brazil

  65.1

  38

  Sweden

  2.5

  36

  Malta

  43.2

  32

  Lebanon

  6.0

  24

  Kenya

  3.2

  24

  Zimbabwe

  11.8

  22

  Denmark

  25.3

  21

  Mauritius

  28.6

  18

  USA

  25.5

  18

  South Korea

  9.7

  17

  Iceland

  2.2

  14

  Mozambique

  5.0

  12

  Yemen

  2.8

  12

  Austria

  16.9

  9

  Bahrain

  16.8

  9

  Taiwan

  1.7

  8

  Soviet Union

  15.0

  6

  Botswana

  3.9

  6

  Spain

  1.5

  6

  Portugal

  6.0

  5

  Turkey

  1.0

  5

  Ghana

  7.0

  4

  Thailand

  3.1

  4

  Cyprus

  2.1

  4

  South Africa

  10.1

  3

  Finland

  0.1

  3

  Malawi

  0.8

  2

  Zambia

  0.6

  2

  Seychelles

  0.1

  2

  Dubai

  1.6

  1

  Kuwait

  0.2

  1

  Canada

  0.1

  1

  Philippines

  0.0

  1

  Total

  10,889.2

  5,428

  1 Used pneumatic tyres are defined as Heading 625.93 of the Standard International Trade Classification, Revision 3. Retreaded tyres are not included.

  273

  Life Insurance (Bonuses)
  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, what studies he has made of the way in which life insurance companies are distributing with-profits bonuses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  There is a growing debate within the life insurance industry about the methodologies for assessing bonus distributions on with-profits policies.

  As part of its regulatory responsibility to keep itself informed of developments in the life insurance industry, my Department has asked the Government Actuary's Department to conduct a survey of leading United Kingdom offices which write with-profits business, to obtain more detailed information about companies' bonus philosophies and the actuarial techniques used in assessing bonus payments.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many hours of evidence have been taken and which witnesses have appeared for his Department before Lord Justice Scott.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Only one DTI witness has appeared before Lord Justice Scott. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), gave five hours, 40 minutes of evidence on 19 May.

  Shipbuilding Intervention Fund
  Mr. Godman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list(a) the number, (b) the type and (c) the gross registered tonnage of vessels currently under construction in United Kingdom shipyards which have qualified for financial support under the terms of the European Community's seventh directive on the shipbuilding intervention fund; and what is the amount of such financial assistance in each contract.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 20 July 1993]: Twelve vessels totalling 137,400gt, which have qualified for support from the shipbuilding intervention fund, are under construction in United Kingdom yards. They are:

  Three Chemical Tankers

  Three Tugs

  Two Ferries

  One Bulk Carrier

  One Dredger

  One LPG Carrier

  One Oil Tanker

  Details of individual contracts are commercially confidential.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what safety and security measures his Department intends to take in connection with the return of high-level waste resulting from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel to THORP's customers.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 14 July 1993]: As is the case for other nuclear materials, the carriage of high-level waste is allowed only in special containers which are subject to stringent international safety standards. Appropriate measures are taken to ensure the security of such transport.
  274

EMPLOYMENT

  Sheltered Housing
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what considerations underlie the prohibition on local authorities which operate their own sheltered placement schemes from offering further placements where funding is available from other charitable sources.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Eric Insley, dated 21 July 1993:

  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to him about local authority Sheltered Placement Schemes (SPS). This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  I understand your question refers to local authorities operating their own sheltered placement schemes, and their role in acting as a host organisation for SPS workers.

  Under the rules of SPS voluntary organisations cannot normally sponsor SPS workers into a host which is a local authority with statutory powers to provide sheltered employment. The purpose of this rule is to encourage local authorities to play an active role in developing Sheltered Placement Schemes. However, when a local authority has filled all its own allocation of places and we are unable to allocate additional places to the local authority a voluntary body with unfilled SPS places may then sponsor a place hosted by a local authority.

  I hope this is helpful.

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

  Industrial Deafness
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to help women who suffer from industrial deafness to claim compensation from their employers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 already requires employers to take out insurance to cover claims for compensation from employees who are injured, or who develop an industrial disease, as a result of their employer's negligence. We have no plans to extend this legislation.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the extent of change of the prevalence of the problem of industrial deafness in the past 10 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The most reliable indicator of the change in the incidence of industrial deafness is best drawn from the numbers of workers claiming industrial injuries disablement benefit, administered by the Department of Social Security, as shown in the following table:
  275

  Year

  Number of cases

  11986–87

  1,202

  1987–88

  1,251

  1988–89

  1,170

  1989–90

  1,128

  1990–91

  1,041

  1991–92

  2972

  1 Figures from before 1986 are not comparable as they were compiled on a different basis.

  2 Provisional.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the number of court actions against companies operating in the United Kingdom for infringements of the existing anti-asbestos legislation in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Health and Safety Executive is committed to ensuring that all work with asbestos is carried out safely and that other people affected by the work are not put at risk. Inspectors take whatever action is appropriate to ensure that those responsible comply with their duties under the legislation to prevent or reduce exposure to asbestos.

  Details of court action taken under asbestos legislation during the past five years follows:

  Years from 1 April

  Informations laid

  Convictions

  Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983

  1987–88

  32

  27

  1988–89

  14

  13

  1989–90

  14

  7

  1990–91

  7

  7

  1991–92

  8

  7

  Asbestos Regulations 1969 (Revoked on 1 March 1988)

  1987–88

  14

  8

  1988–89

  4

  3

  Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987 (Came into force 1 March 1988)

  1988–89

  21

  21

  1989–90

  63

  58

  1990–91

  57

  48

  1991–92

  48

  40

  Asbestos (Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 1988

  1989–90

  1

  nil

  Notes: No other prosecutions were brought under these Regulations. Figures relate to Great Britain. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is responsible for the Northern Ireland asbestos regulations.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, what estimates he made of the cost to business and industry of the various provisions of the social protocol in the Maastricht treaty; what breakdown he made of the costs for each measure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No specific proposals have yet been advanced for measures to be introduced under the terms of the social protocol and the agreement of the Eleven. However, the protocol and the agreement of the 276
  Eleven extends Community competence and qualified majority voting into a number of new areas for the other 11 member states, including working conditions, information and consultation, and social exclusion. New legislation in these areas could quite clearly impose very substantial additional burdens on business and damage the competitiveness of the entire Community.

  Much of the impact of action taken under the social protocol and the agreement of the Eleven would be indirect, through a loss of choice and flexibility, leading to lower competitiveness and lower output. However, some types of action would undoubtedly have direct cost implications for employers.

  For the reasons set out, it is not possible to quantify the potential impact of the entire protocol and the agreement of the Eleven if it were to be applied to the United Kingdom. However, in a number of areas, for illustrative purposes, the Department has estimated the potential costs to United Kingdom employers of the type of measures which might result from terms of the social protocol and the agreement of the Eleven.

  (i) Access to Training

  Legislation could be proposed granting all employees the right to a minimum of 10 days training per year, paid for by their employer, regardless of whether or not this meets the needs of the employee or the business. There is some uncertainty about how many employees in the United Kingdom would currently meet the terms of such a requirement. In addition, the proportion of employees currently without 10 days' training who would take up their entitlement is difficult to predict. Using a plausible range of assumptions on current provision and take-up, the additional costs to employers—in terms of salary and lost output—could be between £2 billion and £9 billion at 1992–93 prices.

  (ii) Paternity Leave

  Legislation might require employers to grant all male employees paid leave on the birth of a child. Using a plausible range of assumptions on current provision and take-up, the additional cost to employers of each week of paid leave could be between £30 million and £100 million at 1992–93 prices.

  (iii) Maximum Working Week

  Restrictions on the working week would also be possible. As an illustration, a compulsory maximum working week—including paid overtime—of, say, 45 hours might be imposed. If this were to apply to all employees, and assuming that half the wage costs involved with the reduction in working time were borne by employers, the additional costs, compared with current arrangements, could be about £5.5 billion at 1992–93 prices.

  In all three cases, the cost estimates are subject to margins of error, and, in the absence of specific proposals, should be regarded as purely illustrative. They do, however, provide some idea of the potential scale of the financial burden that could be imposed on United Kingdom employers.

  Asbestos-related Diseases
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many recorded cases there were of the diseases mesothelioma, asbestosis and bilateral diffuse
  277
  pleural thickening in each year since 1988 in England and Wales; and within each figure, what percentage was female.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 20 July 1993]: The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available from the Department of Social Security is contained in the following table:

  Mesothelioma

  Asbestosis

  Bilateral diffuse pleural thickening

  Total

  Per cent. Female

  Total

  Per cent. Female

  Total

  Per cent. Female

  1988

  406

  n/a

  160

  n/a

  109

  n/a

  1989

  386

  n/a

  193

  n/a

  104

  n/a

  1990

  409

  3

  216

  3

  124

  nil

  1991

  461

  4

  262

  2

  127

  nil

  1992

  474

  3

  258

  3

  129

  2

  The information is based on claims for industrial injuries disablement benefit subsequently referred to a medical boarding centre situated in England or Wales.

  The percentage figure for females is not available for 1988 and 1989.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment has been made by his Department of the cost to the housing benefit budget of the deregulation of private rents and reduction in housing association grants.

  Mr. Burt
  None. The impact of the deregulation of private rents and reduction in housing association grants are only two of the many factors which influence the level of housing benefit expenditure. It is therefore not possible to make a reliable estimate of the effect on housing benefit expenditure which could be attributed to these measures alone.

  Government Statistical Service
  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the arrangements for the release of Government statistical service statistics by the Department of Social Security.

  Mr. Lilley
  I attach great importance to the integrity and validity of official statistics, and to ensuring public confidence in the statistics for which I am responsible. To this end, I have agreed standard practices specifically for the release of Government statistical service publications by my Department. The practices which will govern social security statistics from the Government statistical service are:

  (1) Publications are released at the earliest possible date; the date is determined by the director of statistics.

  (2) Publication dates are pre-announced in the central statistical office monthly list of social statistics to be released in the month ahead.

  (3) The time of publication will be 11.30 am except for households below average income and benefit take-up statistics which will be published at 3.30 pm to coincide with an announcement to Parliament.

  (4) Ministerial comment on DSS statistics is issued separately. The contents of statistical press notices
  278
  and all other documents bearing the Government statistical service logo are the sole responsibility of the director of statistics.

  (5) Copies of publications are available to Ministers and officials 48 hours before publication. Ministers have access to work-in-progress between two and four weeks before publication; access before then is limited to the officials responsible for advice on the statistics.

  (6) Some DSS statistical series are published only in "Social Security Statistics", an annual publication. In such cases, the data are made immediately available to officials and Ministers for policy purposes—including answering parliamentary questions—and to the general public and others on request. A list of Government statistical service results statistics which have recently become available will be provided in a quarterly press notice.

  Disability Benefits
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the factors which account for the variation in the numbers of home visits carried out by the disability benefits centres.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Ms Jean Corston, dated 20 July 1993:

  As chief executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking what are the factors which account for the variation in the numbers of home visits carried out by the disability benefit centres.

  The principal reasons for visiting customers, or their representatives, in connection with Disability Living Allowance (DLA) or Attendance Allowance (AA) claims, are when there is a need for appointee action to be undertaken and/or the standard of completion of the claim form is poor.

  Visits that are required to be undertaken for DLA/AA related matters should be done by District Offices (DOs). The ability of the DOs to undertake visits that would otherwise need to be done by the Disability Benefit Centres (DBCs) is the most significant factor in determining how many visits DBCs eventually have to conduct.

  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants were in receipt of invalidity
  benefit in(a) Dundee, (b) Scotland and (c) the United Kingdom in each of the past five years for which figures are available.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. John McAllion, dated 20 July 1993:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary

  279
  Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many claimants were in receipt of Invalidity Benefit in (a) Dundee, (b) Scotland and (c) the United Kingdom in each of the past five yers for which figures are available.

  The information is not available in the exact format requested. This is because the statistics provided are for Great Britain rather than the United Kingdom (the United Kingdom includes Northern Ireland). The national statistics provided which are obtained from a 1 per cent. sample of claimants reflect the number of recipients of Invalidity Benefit at a point in time. The statistics maintained by District/Benefit Offices relate to the number of claimants to Invalidity Benefit.

  The statistics for the Dundee District Office are only available from year ending March 1992. This is because the Benefits Agency was not formed until April 1991 and Districts were created at the same time.

  There were 11,910 people claiming Invalidity Benefit at Dundee District Office at the last working day of March 1992, and 12,995 at the last working day of March 1993. These figures were obtained from a 100 per cent. clerical count of cases in the Office, and include a small number of people who have claimed but are not receiving Invalidity Benefit, eg. because there is underlying entitlement which has been extinguished by the payment of a higher overlapping benefit or where termination action has not been completed. The Dundee District Office deals with areas other than Dundee therefore the figures shown include a small number of people who do not live in Dundee.

  The table shows the number of customers in receipt of Invalidity Benefit in Scotland and Great Britain at a point in time for the last five years for which the figures are available. The statistics are based on a I per cent. sample of claimants.

  Date1

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  4 April 1987

  135,000

  968,000

  2 April 1988

  147,000

  1,047,000

  1 April 1989

  158,000

  1,126,000

  31 March 1990

  169,000

  1,209,000

  30 March 1991

  181,000

  1,306,000

  1 The table figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Lone Parents
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women have been asked to name an absent father at benefit officers in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole; how many have demurred; and how many have been recalled for further interviews.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Mrs. Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 20 July 1993:

  As Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency it is my responsibilty to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many women have been asked to name an absent father at benefit offices in Strathclyde and Scotland as a whole; how many have demurred, and how many have been recalled for further interviews.

  All maintenance application forms (MAFs) issued to parents with care who approach the Agency ask for the name of the absent parent and the great majority of parents with care name the absent parent on the form. However, we do not hold separate information on the number of MAFs issued locally in Strathclyde, or in Scotland as a whole.
  280
  A total of 128 parents with care of children were interviewed in Strathclyde in connection with their maintenance applications during the period 5 April to 30 June 1993. A total of 252 were interviewed in Scotland as a whole. In Strathclyde, 22 parents declined without good cause to co-operate with the Agency in arranging maintenance, while in Scotland as a whole, there were 60. None of the parents concerned have been recalled for subsequent interviews.

  Interviews are not a routine part of the process of arranging child maintenance and more than three-quarters of the Agency's clients choose to.deal with us by post and by telephone without the need for face-to-face contact. However, where necessary, perhaps because a client is unable to complete the Maintenance Assessment Form or is reluctant to do so, arrangements will be made to discuss matters with them at their local office or at their home.

  I wish to stress how carefully we consider such cases and hope that you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Child Support Agency
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) men and (b) women are employed on (i) a full-time basis, (ii) as part-time employees and (iii) on short-term employment contracts by the Child Support Agency in Scotland; and what are the projections for such numbers of employees in 1994, 1995 and 1996.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Mrs. Ross Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Dr. Norman Godman, dated 19 July 1993:

  As Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many (a) men and (b) women are employed (i) on a full-time basis, (ii) as part-time employees and (iii) on short-term employment contracts by the Child Support Agency in Scotland, and what are the projections for such numbers of employees in 1994, 1995 and 1996.

  The numbers of staff currently employed in the Child Support Agency in Scotland are as follows:

  Men

  Women

  Number employed on full-time basis

  147

  311

  Number employed on a part-time basis

  0

  36

  Total

  147

  347

  Of these, two men and six women are employed on short-term contracts of one year.

  I cannot say what the projections will be for 1994 to 1996 in relation to numbers of employees broken down by gender but the projection for the total number of staff in Scotland for April 1994 is 700, remaining constant through 1995 and 1996.

  I hope you will find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Private Pensions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the number of private pension plans taken out each year since 1988 with the benefit of the national insurance rebate incentive; what was the cost of the incentive rebate in each year; what were the year-end total reserves of the national insurance fund
  281
  beginning at 31 March 1988; how many contributors left and joined the state earnings-related pensions scheme in each year; and what was the total number of private pension plans with a rebate outstanding at the end of each year.

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 19 July 1993]: Information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.

  Table 1 United Kingdom

  Year

  Numbers entering a private pension scheme1

  Numbers transferring from a private pension to SERPS at year end1 2

  1987–88

  —

  3,200

  1988–89

  3,428,300

  25,400

  1989–90

  925,600

  22,100

  1990–91

  650,200

  26,400

  1991–92

  543,100

  29,800

  1 Source: 1 per cent, sample of National Insurance contribution records.

  2 Figures relate to any Private Pension holder transferring to SERPS at year end, regardless of entry.

  Table 2 Great Britain

  Year

  Year paid in respect of

  Amount of rebate (£ million)

  Amount of incentive (£ million)

  Year end NI fund reserves (£ million)

  1987–88

  —

  —

  —

  7,288

  1988–89

  —

  —

  —

  10,369

  1989–90

  1987–88

  792

  346

  10,307

  1988–89

  1,074

  370

  —

  1990–91

  1989–90

  1,455

  506

  11,792

  11988–89

  15

  4

  —

  1991–92

  1990–91

  1,734

  583

  8,333

  11989–90

  34

  10

  —

  1992–93

  1991–92

  1,849

  616

  3,677

  11990–91

  45

  12

  Estimated

  1 And earlier.

  Source: Government Actuary's Department.

  Note: Because of the different bases on which the estimates are based the information in Table 2 is not comparable with That in Table 1.

  State Pension
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of those in receipt of the state pension have a total income of(a) £5,000 and below, (b) between £5,000 and £6,000, (c) between £6,000 and £7,000 and (d) between £7,000 and £8,000.

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 19 July 1993]: The information requested is in the table.

  The income distribution of those in receipt of a state pension

  Income of:

  Percentage with gross income in range

  Singles

  Couples

  All units

  £5,000 pa or less

  68

  8

  43

  £5,000–£6000 pa

  9

  14

  11

  £6,000–£7000 pa

  6

  14

  10

  £7,000–£8,000 pa

  3

  10

  6

  More than £8000 pa

  14

  54

  31

  Notes:

  (a) Figures may not sum to 100 per cent. due to rounding.
  282
  (b) Estimates are based on data from 1990 and 1991 Family Expenditure Surveys.

  (c) Amounts are at January 1991 prices.

  (d) Couples are included if either the head or the spouse is in receipt of a state pension.

TRANSPORT

  Red Star Parcels Ltd.
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has held with the chairman of British Rail about safeguards to, ensure that all potential purchasers of Red Star Parcels Ltd. have a fair opportunity to bid for the company and that their probity is adequately assessed.

  Mr. Freeman
  The British Railways Board is handling the sale of Red Star. All bids received by the closing date
  (13 August) will be given equal consideration by the board and its merchant bank advisers. Final terms of sale to the preferred purchaser will require the Secretary of State's approval.

  Traffic Forecasts
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 1 July,Official Report, columns 590–92, giving the actual traffic and forecast traffic levels from 1968, if he will provide the forecast figure on the 1978 base for 1980.

  Mr. Key
  The published national road traffic forecasts, including the 1978-based forecast, did not include figures for every year of the forecast period. Intermediate year figures can be constructed by interpolation. The 1980 figures for the 1978-based forecast would have been in the range 140–144.

  Seafarers
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action is currently being undertaken by his Department to achieve improved standards for the training and certification of seafarers.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department has undertaken a complete review of the way in which training for seafarers is delivered and the nature of the qualifications issued. A pilot project to test these new methods of assessment is about to commence using the functional approach embraced by national and Scottish vocational qualifications.

  Internationally, the United Kingdom attaches great importance to the forthcoming revision of the existing Convention on the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers 1978. The Department will be playing a leading role in this complete review and will be putting forward the vocational qualification aproach as a means of improving the standard.

  Taxis (Road Barriers)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department takes to ensure that London taxi cab drivers are provided with daily information about
  road barriers in the capital.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department and local highway authorities have long-established procedures for advising
  283
  the media about road closures and restrictions; local radio stations in London have numerous daily bulletins about traffic conditions.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 12 July,Official Report, column 334, if he will break down between sea and air transport the percentage of his Department's budget spent on these modes of transport.

  Mr. Norris
  Air transport accounts for 1.6 per cent. and sea transport 0.5 per cent. of the Department's planned expenditure for the years 1993–94 to 1995–96.

  Railway Pensions
  Mr. Milligan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has concluded his discussions with the British Railways Board and the British Rail Pension Trustee Co. about safeguarding railway pensions after privatisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am placing copies of the agreement in the Library.

  British Rail Maintenance Ltd.
  Mr. Milligan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce his conclusions on the future of British Rail Maintenance Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The British Railways Board has now completed its review of options for the future of the British Rail Maintenance Ltd. and Level 5 Group which carries out maintenance of trains. The board has recommended to me that the British Rail Maintenance Ltd. depots at Eastleigh, Doncaster, Wolverton and Glasgow, and the Level 5 Group depots at Chart Leacon and Ilford together with the electronic repair centres at Swindon and Eastleigh should be offered for sale as soon as possible. I share the board's view that selling these businesses will be in the best interest of the railway and the work force, and consistent with the Government's proposals for reform of the railway industry.

  The board is considering how best to invite offers for these businesses. The aim is to be ready to invite offers by next spring, and to complete the sale as soon as possible after that.

  The British Railways Board and its advisers will develop plans for the sale but they will need the approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  I commend the progress made by the BRML/Level 5 Group management and work force towards improving on financial targets and on the turn-round times for vehicles to meet customer needs. But I believe that there would be a better future for these maintenance businesses in the private sector. Once in the private sector, the BRML/Level 5 Group will have greater freedom to diversify and compete for work outside the railway supply industry, to the benefit of employees.

  We have also considered the future of the maintenance depots which undertake lighter maintenance of passenger
  284
  trains. These depots will be treated differently. Subject to Royal Assent to the Railways Bill, we propose that the freehold of such depots should rest with Railtrack and that they should be leased to train operating companies, franchisees or independent depot operators. The Railways Bill provides for rights of access to, and regulation of, light maintenance depots.

  US Air Transport Commission
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what submission the Government have made to the United States commission on the air transport industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Yes. A submission has been transmitted to the commission in Washington. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Night Flights, Gatwick
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many night flights at Gatwick were made in the past year by aircraft which are at present except from the restrictions but which will in future come within the quota;

  (2) how many night flights will be permitted at Gatwick in the winter of 1993–94 and summer 1994 under the new quota system announced on 6 July, excluding aircraft which are at present exempt and assuming that airlines use the same mix of aircraft as in the past year.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 19 July 1993]: More data on aircraft type, engine fit and maximum certificated landing and take-off weights are required to classify aircraft under the new night restrictions system than under the present regime. Not all these data are available for past movements, particularly for currently exempt aircraft, so only estimates can be given.

  The new summer quota of 9,550 for Gatwick would translate into about 6,250 movements by all aircraft which will count against the quota including those previously exempt. As stated in answer to my right hon. Friend on 10 March at column 567, the assumption that the mix of traffic at night in the winter season will remain unchanged over the five-year period of the new restrictions is unlikely, but no substantial changes are expected in winter 1993–94. It is estimated that the winter quota of 6,820, if fully used, will translate into between 2,800 and. 4,450 movements by all aircraft that will count against the quota depending on the build-up between scheduled and charter services. The quota is unlikely to be fully used in the winter 1993–94 season.

  Our announcement of new restrictions on 6 July at columns 71–73 recognised the concern of those living around airports by introducing the QC½ category. This limits movements of aircraft outside the quota to those very quiet, smaller aircraft which are already exempt. Many aircraft that were exempt will now count against the quota.
  285

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received since his recent announcement on the east London river crossing; and if he will make a further statement on traffic policy in south-east London.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 20 July 1993]: To date, my right hon. Friend has written and representations from
  286
  three organisations have been received. I am now considering the options available and will make a statement in due course.

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

Lord Kingsdown
The Right Honourable Robert Leigh-Pemberton, having been created Baron Kingsdown, of Pemberton in the County of Lancashire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Swaythling and the Lord Laing of Dunphail.
Lord Dahrendorf
Sir Ralf Dahrendorf, KBE, having been created Baron Dahrendorf, of Clare Market in the City of Westminster, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord .Annan and the Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, and made the solemn Affirmation.

Indonesia: Aid Objectives
2.58 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the United Kingdom pledged aid of £81 million in soft loans and grants to Indonesia at the recent annual consultative group meeting held at the World Bank office in Paris.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, although Indonesia is still a low-income country, it has sound macro-economic management, makes good use of aid, and has reduced absolute poverty. We believe that positive and continuing dialogue offers the best prospect of influencing attitudes and encouraging improvement in Indonesia's human rights record, particularly in East Timor over which we continue to be concerned.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, does she agree that the United Nations Commission for Human Rights has recently re-emphasised that the human rights situation in Indonesia and East Timor is grim? How can the Government justify having increased the aid programme by 12 per cent. last year within months of crowds of young Timorese being mown down by Indonesian forces and increasing it again by 180 per cent. this year? Does the improvement in human rights really justify that action? When will the Government change their rhetoric into tangible, effective pressure on the regime?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there are two points which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, should take into consideration. One is the absolute poverty reduction which has been achieved as a result of aid. Our aid includes projects focusing on benefits for
704
people in primary education and forestry conservation, to take but two examples. The noble Lord may be interested to know that 55 per cent of our funding under the joint funding scheme with nongovernmental organisations is through Oxfam, of which the noble Lord has some knowledge. Further, we have succeeded far better with Indonesia through pursuing this dialogue than has Holland which by its confrontational approach has lost all influence over what can happen. We have to keep our influence and make sure that we help the poorest people in that nation.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that recently the Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union passed a resolution urging closer consultation and talks between Portugal and Indonesia over East Timor? At the same time, the assembly called for a complete halt to all arms sales; it did not call for any reduction in aid. Does my noble friend think that the assembly is right?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Finsberg puts it far better than I. While the need for much improvement should be impressed upon the Government of Indonesia in respect of human rights—and we shall not cease to persuade them in that direction—one does not help the people of that country by cutting off all aid. We do far better by continuing to influence them.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, will the noble Baroness help us? Were any conditions attached to the aid in respect of human rights, particularly human rights in Timor?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we have repeatedly discussed with the Government of Indonesia the need for a major improvement in human rights throughout that country, not solely in East Timor. However, we believe that by giving aid to projects which help British firms as well as helping the Indonesian people to gain a better life, we are adding to that country's ability to grow and at the same time influencing the government to improve their human rights dramatically.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is not the point that it does not help to assist the behaviour of tyrannical governments to deprive the poor in their countries of the means to live?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is absolutely right. Curtailing, suspending or cutting aid would not improve human rights in East Timor, or anywhere else for that matter. The reverse is much more likely. If we were to cut aid, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, sometimes intimates, we would harm those people whom our aid is intended to assist.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, in the light of what the Minister said, can she confirm that it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government that the level and even the extent of aid should be influenced by human rights records? Does not the increase in aid, despite the bad human rights record in East Timor, send false signals

705
to other countries seeking British aid? Does it not undermine the impression that human rights are a factor in such judgments?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: No, my Lords. In fact, we make it absolutely clear to each country, country by country, that its human rights record is one of our many considerations in deciding whether to continue to assist or to cease assisting, or whether we need to take even greater action, as we have done in Sudan and Burma. However, I am not prepared to withdraw aid which is working well and where there is no prospect of helping the people in any other way. That does not mean that at the same time we cannot make a forceful case to the government of that country to improve their human rights. We need to do both.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether any progress has been made in persuading the Indonesian Government to permit the visits of the rapporteurs and the Red Cross since her Answer to a Question on the matter on 29th June?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am told that the International Committee of the Red Cross is pursuing the matter, but as yet, we do not have the hoped-for contacts which it has set out to achieve. We shall go on pressing to get the ICRC the access which it needs.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Minister come clean? Is this not a sad story in which trade and arms export interests have taken precedence over human rights? As regards the official aid programme, is the Minister content with a situation in which the United States, Denmark and France have reduced their aid and Belgium has withdrawn aid altogether in pursuance of human rights interests, yet we have increased ours by 180 per cent.?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we have not increased our aid as a result of what goes on in Indonesia. We have increased it because of the needs of the people of Indonesia. We must remember that by maintaining the dialogue, which some of the countries mentioned by the noble Lord have lost through cutting off aid and support, we can influence the government far more than those countries which have simply walked out on the poor people of Indonesia.

Access To Work Schemes
3.7 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they propose to ensure that people with disabilities are not made worse off by changes to the access to work schemes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, access to work constitutes a considerable improvement on the current help given to people with disabilities. It will enable us to bring in for the first time new forms of support such as communicators for
706
deaf people; support workers for people with severe physical disabilities, mental illness or learning disabilities; and funding for adaptations to vehicles. Many people who cannot now receive appropriate help to meet employment-related needs will be able to do so in future.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if employers are asked to pay half the cost of access to work schemes, it is bound to act as a deterrent to the employment of disabled people who find it hard enough to obtain jobs anyway? If there is to be a limit over five years on the amount expended on each disabled person, what is to happen if the limit is reached before the end of the five years? Are disabled employees expected to make up the difference out of their already inadequate pay?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the principle of employer contribution is not at all new. As regards adaptations to premises, most employers contribute between 25 per cent. and 50 per cent. Of course, we do not wish to discourage employers recruiting disabled people, so we are not asking for contributions for new recruits, for unemployed people and for those who become disabled in the first six months.
When individual ceilings are set—and the noble Lord will realise that they have not been set—they will be substantial. Again, ceilings are nothing new; there are already ceilings for three out of the four existing schemes being incorporated into access to work. We shall look carefully at the transitional arrangements for those already in existing schemes.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the improvements that he has announced are not only most welcome but show evidence of a greater desire on the part of employers to give help to disabled people where they can? Can my noble friend say to what extent, if at all, the taxpayer will contribute towards those improvements?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend welcomes these schemes. Access to work is a fairly substantial scheme. Some £12 million will be spent this year helping over 8,500 people. I am glad that he welcomes the new flexibility that we have built into the scheme. With reference to my noble friend's particular interests, the support workers for people who are mentally ill or who have learning difficulties will be of great benefit.
Lord Renton: My Lords, what will be the taxpayers' contribution?
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what effect, if any, this will have on the quota scheme? As my noble friend Lord Carter has just pointed out, employers may feel discouraged from employing disabled people if they think that it will cost them extra money. Will the quota scheme still be in operation?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords. We have no plans currently to amend the 1944 legislation, which means that the quota scheme will be in effect. My right honourable friend has said that we are reviewing the

707
quota scheme. That is the position. He also said to M embers in another place that he retains an open mind on it, which I think is very helpful.
Lord Rix: My Lords, can the Minister explain how people with disabilities, particularly those with learning disabilities, will be given the priority on training schemes which they have been promised? Does he agree that the NCVO stated:
"the pressure is on training organisations to select those who can be trained quickly and cheaply, whilst having to turn away those who need most help"?
What do the Government propose to do to alleviate that situation?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, every training and enterprise council is contractually obliged to provide appropriate training to people with disabilities. That includes the provision of appropriate facilities and support to enable trainees who have disabilities to benefit from suitable training. We have also announced that people with disabilities will have priority, not just on one scheme but on every scheme that the TECs run.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend have the figures to answer the second half of the question put by my noble friend Lord Renton; namely, what will be the taxpayers' contribution to this scheme?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I thought that I had answered that question in saying that the scheme is worth £12 million of taxpayers' money.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the four residential colleges for training the disabled are in considerable difficulties this year because of the changes that the Government have made in their funding? Indeed, their future is in doubt. Can he give any assurance at all about the future of those colleges?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the future funding of these colleges was considered a year or two ago as being suitable for funding by the individual training and enterprise councils. That was done on a pilot scheme. However, the Government have since decided, and announced, that they will continue centrally to fund the four residential colleges.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is it still true that the next instalment of money for the TECs depends on success, and that that success is defined in obtaining qualifications and getting places in employment? If that is so, the TECs will want disabled people like a hole in the head. Such people will be far more difficult to place and therefore will have a bad effect on the future funding of the TECs. Has that position, which has operated very badly in relation to disabled people, been corrected?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not believe that the arrangement is operating badly. The whole concept of output-related funding is that one can balance the funding according to the output. We have loaded the funding for TECs so that the outputs that they get for disabled people encourage them to train such people.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the article in the social protocol to the Maastricht Treaty which refers to people excluded from the labour market refers to people with disabilities? Can he explain why the Government resist helping disabled people by accepting the social protocol?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord's point is rather far from the Question on the Order Paper. What the Government resist is that Brussels should tell them how to operate such a scheme.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I am sorry to return to the matter, but is the noble Viscount absolutely sure of his facts; namely, that the four residential colleges are still being funded centrally? My information is that the Government insist on their being funded through the TECs. The TECs, not unnaturally, send people to the cheapest colleges, which are not residential. Will the Minister look again at that matter?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am happy to confirm that I have, so far as I know, got the facts right. I shall of course check them arid, if I have got them wrong, I shall write to the noble Lord. But I am quite certain that the four residential colleges he mentioned are centrally funded.

Books and Information Aid
3.15 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the value of books donated under the Overseas Development Administration's project-related books and information aid in 1991–92 and 1992–93, and what is the forecast expenditure for 1993–94.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, under the ODA's project-related books and information aid contract with the British Council, expenditure in 1991–92 was £2.2 million, and in 1992–93 £1.9 million, with a further £0.9 million for specific books and libraries projects. It is not possible to provide a forecast of future expenditure, but we expect it to be around £2 million per annum.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is she aware (as she must be) that that amount is considerably less than the expenditure during the last year of the book presentation scheme, which was changed in 1991? Is it the Government's intention that the amount of money spent on books and journals for these projects will ever be equal to what it was before the present scheme came into operation?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness does not understand that the British Council is nowadays only one of the elements in our book information effort. There are six further schemes, not carried out through the British Council, which total for 1993–94 some £5.67 million, making a total of over £7.5 million. That means that we are doing more now than we did before. The way in which

709
British publishers will benefit from this is clearly shown by an example in Nigeria, where Blackwells, a British company, has supplied some 65 per cent. of the university books identified and a considerable amount of the primary books identified too.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging news. Is the total sum which she mentioned more than the total sum in 1991, before this scheme came into operation?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am informed that that is so.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that education, training and learning are essential ingredients to self-generating development in the third world? Can she therefore reassure the House about the place of literacy and books in her general strategy for development overseas?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, literacy, primary education, books, information and aids, both by the printed word and by film, are all part of the strategy. Where we can assist further in higher education, we do so. It is essential that we concentrate more of these efforts on education for women in the third world. Women's development in the third world means much better management of the resources of those third world countries.

Youth Group Facilities: Provision
3.18 p.m.
Lord Hothfield Lord Hothfield asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to ensure that adequate and cheap facilities are made available for local meetings of voluntary youth groups such as the Girl Guides Association.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, school premises are among the buildings that are available to be rented by local voluntary youth groups.
Lord Hothfield: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that rather short reply. Does he accept that youth associations such as the Guides should be actively encouraged as they keep young people interested, occupied and off the streets? Is he aware of the country-wide extent of the problem caused by the cost of traditional meeting places jumping to a level at which Guide units are unable to afford them and units therefore having to reduce their activities, meet less often, meet in unsuitable alternative locations, or sometimes disband altogether? Will the noble Viscount undertake to use his undoubted ability to persuade local education authorities to consider the provision of school halls as a community benefit rather than as "a nice little earner"?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is open to local education authorities to encourage schools to look favourably on lettings to voluntary youth groups through their community education policy statements. These are attached to LEA schemes for the local
710
management of schools, and schools are required to have regard to the statements in framing their letting policies.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I speak as the honorary president of the Girls' Brigade in Scotland and that the queue for my appointment was as long as the queue for the appointment of the deputy chairman of the board of governors of the BBC? Is he further aware that this is the centenary year of the Girls' Brigade? Will he accept that this country was at its best when youth organisations such as the Girls' Brigade, the Girl Guides, the Scouts, the Boys' Brigade, the YMCA and YWCA were all at their strongest? Therefore, will the Government do everything possible to encourage the growth of those youth organisations?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I should first congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, on his appointment to the governors of the BBC. I do not have the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, in these matters, but my noble friend Lady Chalker was a Girl Guide and my noble friend Lady Trumpington was a Brownie. I do not know how many of the Opposition Front Bench have such a distinguished record. Under LMS schools can keep their income from lettings and, subject to any direction by the local education authority on the use of school premises, it is up to the governors of schools with delegated budgets to make the final decisions on charging for lettings. That means that the governors inevitably will look carefully at the use made of their school premises outside school hours. However, provided that they do not use any of their school's budget for non-school use, there is nothing to prevent the governors from varying their charges, which in effect would enable them to subsidise voluntary youth organisations if they so wish.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I should first declare an interest presumably as a former Brownie and Girl Guide. Is my noble friend aware that the national functioning of organisations such as the Girl Guides throughout the country will be in great difficulty if they depend only on funding from local education authorities? Will he accept that every local education authority will fulfil a different policy and that some have already announced that they are withdrawing £800,000 from assistance to youth movements? Can he say whether his department intends to issue any guidelines as to the way in which money is to be spent to support specifically youth movements such as the Girl Guides, which have had an increasing membership of 5 per cent. over the past two years? Does he agree that such organisations fulfil an important function in training young people as law abiding citizens? If he intends to issue guidelines, will he ensure that they are both monitored and implemented?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Department for Education gives grants to 61 national voluntary youth service organisations, such as the Scout Association and the Guides Association. Those grants are for specific, approved programmes of work and preclude

711
the use of the grant for hiring premises. The Government intend to issue guidance on the provisions of the current Education Bill, subject to Royal Assent. The Bill reaffirms the powers of the governing bodies of LEA maintained schools to control the use of school premises outside school hours. We shall be replicating that provision in the new articles of government for grant-maintained schools. I understand the point made by my noble friend about monitoring what happens. I shall bring her remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, in order that the Government Front Bench should not seek to claim a monopoly on these matters, is the Minister aware that my noble friend Lord Wilson of Rievaulx was a most distinguished Boy Scout?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing that information to the attention of your Lordships.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister accept that so far as is known my noble friends Lady Chalker, Lady Trumpington and Lady Elles were not juvenile delinquents? Does he agree that many people in this country are concerned about the rising rate of crime among juveniles and yet the expenses of the youth service at both central and local government level are being cut? It is a very great preventive service. Does he further agree that, in view of the fact that my three noble friends were not juvenile delinquents and attended a youth service, we are very unwise to cut such provision?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it would be unwise if I were to answer for my noble friends about what they got up to in their youth. I appreciate the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Faithfull. I should point out that there is nothing to prevent local authorities continuing to subsidise youth and other community use of school facilities by making or increasing grants to local youth organisations.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the noble Viscount agree that there is a difference between the phraseology "nothing to prevent the local education authority's continuing- to make those possibilities available and a full-blooded commitment on the part of the Government to support local education authorities in their full role in society? Will he accept that the grim truth of the Bill that is at present before the House is that it undermines local education authorities in all that they are trying to achieve?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord. His question is rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper. However, the current Education Bill reaffirms the powers of school governors to have control of school premises when they are not needed for school purposes, subject to any directions by local education authorities in the case of LEA maintained schools. A school's delegated budget under local management of schools may only he used for the purposes of the school. But school
712
governors have the freedom to frame their letting policies to allow for different charges to different groups of users.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that the preventive role of those national organisations is much fortified by the preventive role of local voluntary organisations? Does he agree that such schemes as the Home Office partnership programme for youth crime—I have used the wrong term but its intention is youth crime prevention—are a significant step in assisting local voluntary organisations? Does he further agree that the Home Office could help greatly by encouraging probation services to reach the 5 per cent. target in that scheme as early as possible?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I feel sure that all your Lordships will agree with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we sometimes have Girl Guides camping in our garden, although of course that sort of venue would not be suitable for the winter?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, some people have fairies at the bottom of their garden.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we spend a good deal of time discussing the failure of bodies funded by the Government to fund those activities that the Government are supposed to fund adequately? Does he feel that that is entirely a coincidence? When he looks at this question, wilt he consider standard spending assessments and take advice about the legal position of local authorities who are under a statutory duty to do what they nevertheless cannot do?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, all local authorities have a wide discretionary power under Section 19 of the Local Government Act 1976 to provide sports and recreational facilities. In particular, Section 19 enables authorities to provide premises for the use of clubs and societies along with equipment, supplies and assistance of any kind.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, speaking as the recently retired president of the Guides of Scotland, I ask my noble friend whether he appreciates that, although what he said is absolutely correct, it is not enough? In drawing up those important guidelines, can there be very close consultation with the organisations that we are discussing? Those organisations are funded entirely by membership subscriptions and money that they raise locally. The government grants are only used centrally. Does my noble friend agree that the discussion of guidelines is very important indeed?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, all noble Lords will realise the important role of voluntary organisations and in particular voluntary youth groups in this country. I take note of what my noble friend says about guidance on the issue. We shall certainly hold in mind her comments when we produce guidance.

Business: Railways Bill
3.29 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I were to suggest the procedure to be followed on the Railways Bill today. Your Lordships will recall the discussion on the Floor of the House last Monday when the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, raised a point on the government amendments to Schedule 10 of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Caithness and I undertook to reflect further on that discussion in conjunction with the usual channels.
In the light of our discussions, I suggest to your Lordships that the most convenient way of now proceeding with the Bill, and one which meets the concerns expressed by your Lordships on Monday, would be as follows. First, as regards today, I should emphasise to your Lordships that it is not the intention of my noble friend to invite your Lordships to decide on any of the government amendments which have been tabled to Schedule 10. With the leave of the House, my noble friend intends to move the first of those amendments, and in doing so to speak briefly to it and to the subsequent amendments to Schedule 10. However, following that debate he will withdraw that amendment, and he will not move any of the subsequent amendments to the schedule.
Secondly, it has been agreed through the usual channels that the House should be invited to recommit the Bill in respect of Schedule 10 early in the spillover before proceeding to the Report stage. That does, I hope and believe, meet the suggestion which was originally put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. At that time the House will have an opportunity to consider the government amendments, together with any other amendments to Schedule 10, with the benefit of further and maturer reflection than your Lordships may feel it would be possible to bring to bear today.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, as the noble Lord the Chief Whip referred to my initiative on Monday, I thank him and the other usual channels for the way in which they have responded to what I believe was the genuine anxiety felt throughout your Lordships' House.
Perhaps I might make one suggestion. In view of the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will not be moving the amendment, it may be helpful at a later stage, before recommittal, if we could see the new schedule with the government amendments included. We may then have a better feeling for the schedule as it would be if the Government moved their amendments. I put that forward as a suggestion. I believe it would be helpful, and I express my appreciation for what the noble Lord said this afternoon.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I echo those thanks. I know that it is not easy for Ministers to change plans in that way. I am aware that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, probably had to use a certain amount of leverage to achieve the present position. I am sure that
714
noble Lords on all sides of the House are extremely grateful. It is a far better way to proceed. We shall have the opportunity of considering what the government amendments mean. As we know, they are in response to promises made in another place. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, says that they meet requirements—well, he would say that, wouldn't he? I am not saying that he is wrong. But we need time and I am grateful that time has been found.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I echo the remarks of my noble friend Lord Shepherd and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. It is helpful that the Government have responded effectively to the representations made.
Perhaps I can add one comment. It would be helpful and consonant with the Government's practice so far, particularly in a context of great complexity, if the Minister could ensure that full explanations in writing of the Government's amendments are set out and placed in the Library.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as one of those who supported the noble Lord, Lord Shephe;:d, on Monday, I too express my gratitude to my noble friend and the Government for their proper and generous response to those representations.
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps I too may endorse the request for a schedule. A Keeling schedule is too rarely used for complicated amendments to Bills. If my noble friend can arrange for the publication of a Keeling schedule to come before the House at the recommittal stage, that would be a great help.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, speaking personally, I am extremely grateful for the kind remarks passed. I thank also the other connections within the usual channels who made this all possible. I am sure that the suggestions made this afternoon will be heard and considered by my noble friend the Minister.

Leeds Supertram Bill
3.35 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 38 [As to highways, traffic, etc.]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill)The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 22, line 3, after ("Executive") insert ("of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Amendment No. 1 is a drafting correction in the proviso to Clause 38(6) (b). Amendment No. 2 relates to Clause 56. This clause provides for the making of orders for the repeal of either or both the two preceding clauses concerning the insulation of buildings against noise if, as a result of future general legislation, the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to do so. Orders of that sort should only be made by statutory instrument and the amendment of subsection (2) of Clause 56 so provides.
Amendment No. 3 is to Schedule 3. At a late stage it was found that the description of the site for an electricity substation in the schedule identified on the

715
deposited plans as, "the land in question", needs correction. The error arose because on the relevant sheet of the deposited plan the points of the compass were inadvertently reversed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 56 [Repeal of sections 54 and 55]:
The Chairman of Committees The Chairman of Committees moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 44, line 6, after ("section") insert ("shall be made by statutory instrument and ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Additional lands which may be acquired or used]:
The Chairman of Committees The Chairman of Committees moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 60, line 33, second column, leave out ("east") and insert ("west").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment too has been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill, as amended, do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill, as amended, do now pass. —(Lord Ampthill.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Railways Bill
3.37 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 125P:
Before Clause 121, insert the following new clause:
("Hybrid instruments
Any draft of an instrument containing an order made under this Act that would be treated for the purposes of the Standing Orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument, shall be treated as such.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 125P stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. It is a simple amendment. It is self-evident and self-explanatory. So I dare say that it will take us quite a long time to deal with it.
The amendment seeks to remove a curious contradiction which lies in Schedule 10. Amendment No. 125P is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 127, which seeks to delete paragraph 11(2) of Schedule 10. It has been dealt with in this slightly curious way in order for the Committee to have the opportunity to
716
discuss an important matter early in the day, as was requested by a number of noble Lords a couple of weeks ago.
In moving the amendments I have two purposes. The first is to carry out the recommendations of your Lordships' Select Committee on the scrutiny of delegated powers in its fourth report published on 28th June. Perhaps I may say a word or two about the committee. It was instituted as a result of the Jellicoe Committee which felt that it was time your Lordships took more care with Bills containing a lot of secondary legislation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and my noble friend Lord Russell spent a lot of time talking in this House about Henry VIII clauses, and the committee was a direct result of that.
It is a remarkable report and greatly to be commended. The members of the committee worked hard on this complex Bill and came up with a short bu.t I believe pungent report. It is to suggest to your Lordships' House that we should carry out the recommendations clearly contained in the report that I tabled the amendment. It is also to try to protect the rights of pensioners to bring petitions to your Lordships in the case of there being any hybridity in the orders made under the schedule.
I say straight away that there has been confusion in the media that in some way I am seeking to make the Bill hybrid. Nothing is further from my mind and nothing is further from my ability. The fact is that the Bill has come from another place and it has not been declared to be hybrid. On the other hand, however, it is very possible that orders made under the schedule could in certain cases be hybrid. If that were not the case, the Government would not have put this slightly curious phrase in paragraph 11(2):
"If, apart from the provisions of this sub-paragraph, the draft of an instrument containing an order under this Schedule would be treated for the purposes of the Standing Orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument, it shall proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument".
That is Alice in Wonderland writ large. Words mean what I say they mean; if something is hybrid, I shall say that it is not hybrid.
This is pointed out very clearly in the report of your Lordships' Select Committee when it says that to put pensions legislation of this magnitude into a schedule is something that the House may wish to consider. The report states:
"The House may wish to consider whether the obstacles to proper parliamentary scrutiny and control of delegated legislation, including affirmative instruments, are such that the provision for affirmative resolution in this case provides sufficient parliamentary control".
I would submit that it is riot, but that is not the issue with which we are dealing at the moment. That is the background. We shall come to that eventually in the period of recommittal when we deal with Schedule 10 itself.
The committee goes on to give a clear view. In bold type, in paragraph 3, the committee states:
"We therefore urge the House to consider with care whether the arrangements for BR pensions after privatisation can appropriately be left to delegated legislation".
It seems self-evident. The hybrid procedure is there to protect the rights of individuals who may be caught up

717
in legislation which is designed to affect one group of people and has a side-effect of affecting others. This matter was dealt with some years ago by the Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation, known as the Brooke Committee, in 1973. It pointed out, in Conclusion 55:
"Your committee note that in their memorandum on this subject the Leaders of both Houses"—
who incidentally were at that time both Conservatives—
"recognise in principle the justification for a petitioning procedure in respect of hybrid statutory instruments where such a right would exist if the matter had been dealt with by a private or hybrid Bill. Your committee conclude that this procedure has for nearly 50 years provided valuable safeguards for private interests affected by delegated legislation and should be retained".
It cannot be put more clearly than that. This is a protection for the rights of individuals or for groups. The Government, in putting forward paragraph 11(2), are seeking to get round that.
What are the objections to what I am doing or seeking to do? First, there is the objection that this procedure will cause delay and uncertainty and that people will not quite know where they stand with their pensions. It can be a lengthy procedure; but it does not have to be all that lengthy. There are methods of using an expedited procedure which could be written into the Bill. If the Government so wished, I would be prepared to put down an amendment to assist them in that regard. But if we are to privatise different groups in British Rail, and they are to go from one pension situation to another, it is surely right that that should be sorted out before the instrument is laid before your Lordships. There should be consultation with the pensioners and with the pension funds and with those people involved. If that is done properly then the chances of people petitioning are very small indeed. People may suggest that there could be frivolous petitioners. But the rules of your Lordships' House preclude that. It is clear that it is possible to filter out from the list of petitioners those people who have a proper locus and those who do not. So there is no fear in that direction.
The second suggestion—I know that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will raise this because yesterday he was good enough to send me a letter from the chairman of the trustees of BR—is that the trustees of the British Rail pension fund are against my amendment. They say that they are quite satisfied that the hybrid procedure would be of no assistance to them and would cause delay. Of course it will not be of assistance to them. They have the whole thing tied up with British Rail and with the Government and there is no chance that the board of trustees will wish to petition.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. Is he aware that it was the chairman who wrote virtually in a personal capacity and that it was not the trustees as a body who have endorsed this approach? Is he further aware that I have evidence in my hands to indicate that what I have just said is wholly accurate?
Lord Tordoff: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am aware that he has evidence and I hope that he will put it before your Lordships. Indeed, I have the letter from Mr. Fowler before me and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is correct because Mr. Fowler says:
"Other than the Trustee Company's Chief Executive, I have not had an opportunity to consult with my fellow directors of the Trustee Company on this matter so the following comments are made without their involvement".
He goes on to say that he believes that the procedure I suggest is the wrong procedure. The point I am trying to make is that the board of trustees does not represent the whole list of people who are involved in this matter. Many of the pensioners are not represented directly on the board of trustees. The pensioners and the deferred pensioners, who actually outnumber the contributors to the pension fund, are not directly represented. I am not saying that the board of trustees does not look after their interests but I am saying that it does not necessarily speak for all the pensioners all the time. It seems to me that the fact that the board of trustees opposes this suggestion is not sufficient reason for us not to take it seriously.
Thirdly, there is the question of precedent. Such clauses have been put into Bills before. The Electricity Bill is a case in point. When the present Government Chief Whip was responsible for that Bill he had an exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and explained that it was perfectly admissible to include such a clause because of the delay that would be caused if it were not included. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, accepted that, matters moved on and the clause was left in the Bill. The only point I would make is that that is a precedent from the days before we had the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I am sure that if we had had that committee at that time we would have been having this discussion on the Electricity Bill and not on the Railways Bill.
This is perhaps slightly esoteric but it is very important that the report of your Lordships' Select Committee on this important matter should be upheld in your Lordships' House and, quite apart from that, that the rights of pensioners which may otherwise be threatened should be upheld and that they should have the right to petition. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I hope that it will be helpful to the Committee if I say a brief word now before listening to the rest of the debate. I am grateful for the clarity with which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, moved his amendment. I confirm to him that probably all sections of the media completely misunderstood the noble Lord's amendment. It does not make the Bill hybrid and it is not a wrecking amendment. It is a matter of procedure as regards pensioners. It is because of the importance of this issue that I wish to speak very briefly now.
At the outset I express my thanks to your Lordships' Select Committee on the scrutiny of delegated powers for its report on the Bill. As many Members of the Committee know, it is a thorough and carefully considered piece of work. The committee was quite right to draw your Lordships' attention to

719
paragraph 11(2) of Schedule 10 which disapplies the hybrid instrument procedure for orders relating to pensions. It is worth quoting its recommendation:
"In view of the extent of the powers, the substantial assets involved and the number of people affected, we urge the House to consider most carefully whether, in spite of any precedents, there is sufficient justification for the exclusion of the hybrid instrument procedure in this case".
Questions of procedure are not to be taken lightly, especially in your Lordships' House. The hybrid instrument procedure has an important role to play in protecting the special interests of individuals. The Government have no intention of disregarding the procedures of your Lordships' House for mere administrative convenience. But in this case we face a clear conflict of interest between procedure and the interests of pensioners—ironically, the very individuals whom, in other circumstances, the hybrid instrument procedure might be expected to protect.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, mentioned precedents. I shall not go into them at all. I remember using one in connection with the Airports Bill when it was before your Lordships' House. I have looked up the Official Report. The matter lasted all of half a line, which was me moving the amendment. Nobody commented on it at all. But the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is right. We are involved with a different procedure now.
There was an amendment on the Marshalled List which would have been helpful to the Committee had I been in a position to move it, but in view of what my noble friend the Chief Whip said, I shall not move that amendment. It was Amendment No. 126ZY. It was an amendment to which the Government gave a commitment in another place to introduce in your Lordships' House. That commitment was given after your Lordships' Committee made its report. It was to make available to your Lordships the views of the trustees. Sadly, that will not now be in the Bill. Whether or not it is at a later stage, we shall stand by our commitment to bring it before this House. Whether or not noble Lords agree it at a later stage is another matter. It was as a result of an amendment moved by the honourable Member for Wrexham in another place.
The main reason that the Government have decided that the hybrid instrument procedure should be disapplied in this case is our concern that the potential for delay implicit in the procedure could create a great deal of uncertainty for pensioners. The procedure is not time-limited and can be protracted. Individuals affected by the order would be able to petition the House. The instrument would then be referred to the Hybrid Instrument Committee which, if it decides that the petitioners have locus, reports on whether there ought to be a further inquiry by a select committee.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Perhaps the noble Earl—
The Earl of Caithness: Will the noble and learned Lord allow me to finish? All of what I am saying hangs together. I shall then certainly give way to him. I know that he wishes to speak on this matter. The House may t hen refer the order to a select committee, which can
720
take evidence. Petitioners may be represented by counsel. In the case of railway pensions the number of petitioners is potentially huge—about 340,000 members and pensioners, any of whom could petition. There is great scope for delay and a long period of uncertainty for those whose interests are at stake.
I do not think that I can emphasise strongly enough the potential scale of this exercise; the delay and uncertainty it would cause; and the consequent damaging effect on pension scheme members themselves. I give way to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl. He has just described the hybrid instrument procedure at its most lengthy. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, drew attention to an expedited procedure. There is no question of reference to a select committee. The Hybrid Instrument Committee itself hears any objection, which need not be made by counsel. It is perfectly fantastic, is it not, to suggest that 340,000 petitioners would object? One or two petitioners might object, but if there is proper consultation, the objectors will be alrnost nil. Surely that is the sensible picture to draw rather than the extremely lengthy description which the noble Earl has given.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for that intervention. Yes, as the Committee knows, there is an expedited procedure. It would be quite wrong of me not to draw to the attention of the Committee the fact that there is also another form of procedure which could equally apply. I certainly do not say that every one of the 340,000 members and pensioners will petition, but I wanted to draw the Committee's attention to the number of members and pensioners who will be in a position to petition.
The Government's concern in this matter is shared by the chairman of the British Rail pension trustees. Mr. Fowler has written to me setting out his views and those of the trustee company's chief executive. I have circulated copies of that letter to a number of noble Lords and I have placed a copy in the Library. For those Members of the Committee who have not seen it, I wish to read two paragraphs:
"The Chief Executive and I believe that pensioners' interests are protected by the Government proposals for positive resolution in both Houses and a statement of the Trustee's views on those Orders. Indeed, it was following Trustee representations that this process was initiated.
"The Trustee's fiduciary responsibility to scheme members might be undermined by a process of petitioning and the possibility of long delays in implementing Orders could cause unnecessary uncertainty for scheme members. I would wish to, avoid those implications for the Trustee Company and scheme members".
The fiduciary duty—
Lord Shepherd: Perhaps I may—
The Earl of Caithness: The fiduciary duty of the pension trustees is to act in accordance with the trustees and rules of the scheme; the duty to act prudently, conscientiously and honestly and with the utmost good faith; the duty to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries; and the duty obviously to take

721
legal and other professional advice. I have set out the Government's case. I do not know whether the noble Lord wants to intervene.
Lord Shepherd: The noble Earl is being very partial in reading this letter to the Committee. Will he please read the second paragraph of the letter?
The Earl of Caithness: The second paragraph of the letter was read by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. He did not read paragraphs 3 and 4, as I did. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, it is absolutely true that the chairman, Mr. Fowler, had not had time to consult anybody other than the trustee company's chief executive. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, wishes to speak.
Lord Shepherd: Will the noble Earl please read the paragraph? If he will not, then I shall. It states:
"Other than the Trustee Chief Executive, I have not had an opportunity to consult any fellow directors of the Trustee Company on this matter so the following comments are made without their involvement".
That puts a different aspect on the letter which the noble Earl has read to the Committee.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Before the noble Earl replies to that point, perhaps I may address to him a point which was raised by another trustee, Mr. V. G. Hince, who says,
"With regard to the question of hybridity this has not to my knowledge been discussed by the trustees".
The Earl of Caithness: I did not particularly want to get into this debate now. I wanted to have this debate at the end. I thought that it might be helpful to the Committee if I set out the Government's position. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was right to read out the second paragraph. I think that he got one word wrong, but that is only a matter of small detail. I look forward very much to hearing what the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Clinton-Davis, and the other Members of the Committee have to say.
4 p.m.
Lord Shepherd: I am a member of the Select Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, which scrutinises delegated legislation. My anxiety has never been on any party political point or related to the policy merits of the legislation as a whole. I believe that the committee performed its duty entirely within its terms of reference, which was the question of whether the powers being taken were appropriate.
I suggest to the Committee that when one considers whether an order is appropriate or, as the Brooke Committee said, whether there is any genuine justification for those powers, one needs to consider three elements. The first is the Government's position, of which we have heard part. The committee, however, had a full summary of the Government's position. Secondly, one has to consider the importance and the ramifications of what is being proposed and the powers that are being sought. Thirdly—this touches on a debate introduced some weeks ago by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale—one has to consider the way in which Parliament is able to scrutinise orders.
722
We have a convention in your Lordships' House, which is circumvented from time to time by adroit amendments to orders. However, for many years we have never taken the view that we should exercise a vote to reject an order. We are also unable to amend such orders. We rarely conduct debates on such orders on the basis of a line-by-line consideration. In other words, it is broadly a general debate. I suspect that the orders which the Secretary of State has in mind will be highly technical, and I think that they are worthy of being examined on a line-by-line basis.
If our convention and our ordinary processes of dealing with orders are to continue, and one considers, as the Department of Transport itself admits (although it circumscribes its submission to the committee) that members will be significantly affected by any of the orders, we can always question what is significant. As a member's bread and butter supper might have had the addition of a piece of cake if he had had his full pension, I believe that the word "significant" is important.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, spoke about the hybridity rule and reported on the Brooke inquiry, which was a full inquiry into the whole hybrid procedure and the merits of it. We need to remember that the hybridity rule has been in existence for some 70 years. It was first introduced in 1924. That was the reason why the Brooke Committee could not see any reason, after 50 years, for making any changes. I do not believe that there have been any other significant factors that could change the view of this House about having hybridity procedures in our standing orders.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: The noble Lord points out that the hybridity rule goes back some 70 years. Is he aware that the rules relating to Private Member's Bills and instruments go back further in time than the rules relating to public Bills and instruments? Long before the law could be altered by legislation people had the right to petition Parliament for redress of grievances.
Lord Shepherd: The noble and learned Lord is quite correct. But the standing order to which I referred has been one of our standing orders for some 70 years. This is an issue which the Committee has to consider in terms of its past responsibilities and the importance of what is before us. We are talking about 350,000 pensioners and £8.5 billion of pensioners' funds being redistributed. Would the Government countenance redistributing £8.5 billion of their own money by an order or by delegated legislation? I know what would happen if anyone were to suggest it. We would be laughed out of court. But that is what is involved in this case.
I believe that the Committee should examine the provisions very carefully and perhaps return to them when we have a recommittal in late autumn. It seems to me that the issue is this: if we do not accept the amendment and we leave the provision in the schedule, it will appear that this Committee has approved that provision. I think that it should be struck out of the Bill. After further consideration and when we can see the whole schedule in a new shape,

723
perhaps we might then consider such a provision, but there would have to be some justification for removing the hybrid procedure.
I have seen the letter to which the noble Earl referred. It has some relationship with a memorandum which I understand the noble Earl has circulated. I do not know how far he intends to use the memorandum, but if he does intend to use it, I must advise him that I have some 15 pertinent questions about pensioners' rights to ask on behalf of the pensioners. If the noble Earl can give me an undertaking that the memorandum will not be part of his case, I am prepared to leave those questions aside. If, however, the memorandum is to be adopted, that raises some major issues. I must advise the Committee—and it is only a first view —that if it was possible to put the memorandum on the face of the Bill, as it should be, the Bill would then, without question, become hybrid. I see that as a danger for both the Government and this Committee. The Government would be wiser to leave the situation as it is in regard to the hybrid procedure and to allow it to operate.
There is no reason at all under the expedited procedure for any overdue delay. The question is this: yes, there is delay (although not an overdue delay) but if we are to avoid that delay, are we justified in removing the rights of pensioners who have contributed to their pensions through their pay packets and who, in some cases, have made added contributions? I hope that the Committee will support the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that the matter needs careful examination. I, too, am a member of the Select Committee which scrutinises delegated legislation. I believe that when there is a proposal in primary legislation such as this to remove hybridity from future statutory instruments, that proposal should be seriously considered, preferably in Committee, as is happening now. If an instrument is hybrid, individuals and bodies can petition and have the possibility of personally giving evidence, with their lawyers, to a Select Committee of this House on that part of the instrument which is private—which affects their private interests. That is not possible in the case of a public Bill or before a Public Bill Committee of Parliament. That right is taken away if there is a blanket removal, as is suggested here, in the primary legislation. That should not be done lightly.
In the present case the question appears to arise whether the delays or uncertainty which may be caused by taking hybrid instruments in the usual way would adversely affect 340,000 pensioners and whether that disadvantage outweighs the other advantage which they would enjoy of being able to petition and, in certain cases, appear personally to provide evidence.
There is a safeguard in the Bill; that is, the use of the affirmative procedure. That means that instruments have to come before your Lordships' House and another place but, as has been pointed out, they cannot be amended and it is the convention in this Chamber that we do not vote against them.
724
I, too, have seen the letter from the chairman of the trustees but I shall not comment further on that. However, I venture to make a contribution now because as some Members of the Committee will recall, I played a prominent part from the Opposition Front Bench in 1976–77 in finding that the Bill to nationalise the aircraft and shipbuilding industries was hybrid. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was the Leader of the House at that time, so he will remember the duel we had at times. I say straightaway that he handled the matter extremely well and set a very good parliamentary example.
Lord Shepherd: The interesting point is that that Bill was not hybrid in the House of Commons. It only became hybrid when it came to your Lordships' House.
Lord Campbell of Croy: That was because the then Leader of the Commons, Mr. Foot, had by a vote —he had a large majority—waived the standing orders in another place. That meant that the matter could not be referred to the examiners. However, when the Bill came to this House we found what we thought was a hybrid element. I remind the Committee, without digressing too far, that ship repairing had come into the Bill on the tails of shipbuilding and that out of about 100 ship repairing firms, 12 had been chosen. The point was that they had been chosen by criteria which were not evenly applied. That was what was later found by the examiners.
This Chamber stopped the Bill going through because when the ping-pong took place, we kept on resisting amendments and the end of the Session in 1976 occurred. When the Government reintroduced the Bill in the following Session, it went to the examiners before it received its Second Reading in either House. The examiners then found that it was hybrid and the Labour Government of the day decided that it was better to take out ship repairing, apply what were called the Campbell amendments and reintroduce the Bill. Of course, it went straight: through, because under the conventions—the Salisbury doctrine and so on—we were not going to object to the nationalisation of aircraft and shipbuilding. I only say that because I have quite a background, as the noble Lord knows, on the whole question of hybridity and I feel strongly about it.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. I wish only to complete the picture that he has painted. The irony of the matter was that after the hybridity argument was all over, the ship repair industry asked the Labour Government to take it into public ownership. After fighting like mad to keep it out of public ownership, the industry asked the Labour Government to take it into public ownership.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I shall not go into the history of the ship repair industry because I am dealing with a parliamentary point. I am glad to say that there are still some ship repairing businesses in

725
private ownership which are doing well. But, of course, there were some ups and downs during that period.
I hope that Members of the Committee will realise that that is a subject about which I feel strongly. Governments wish to avoid hybridity because of the time factor. It is very difficult to get a Bill through in one Session if it is found to be hybrid. When governments are having Bills drafted, they try to avoid any element of hybridity. But here we are dealing with a blanket removal of the proper procedure dealing with hybrid instruments. That is a very serious suggestion.
I shall listen carefully to this debate and to the later debate, if there is one, because I also understand that it may not be in the best interests of the pensioners to have long delays and uncertainty. If that can be avoided, so much the better. I recognise that those people would not bless us in this Chamber if we caused a situation in which they were held up for months or years without knowing what was the position. Therefore, I see both sides of the argument and I shall listen very carefully.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: Perhaps I may endeavour to put this very important issue in the whole context as I see it and as I believe it is seen from these Benches. Schedule 10 confers a number of order-making powers in connection with railway pension schemes upon the Minister. Paragraph 11(2) disapplies the hybrid Bill procedure. The Select Committee of this House on the scrutiny of delegated powers raised two substantive objections to Schedule 10: first, whether it is appropriate for arrangements for British Rail pensions, after privatisation, to be left to delegated legislation; and secondly, whether there is any justification for disapplying the hybrid Bill procedure.
As to the first of those, the provisions currently set out in Schedule 10 are clearly of very great importance and we must consider whether they should be dealt with by primary legislation. The schemes affected have assets of about £8.5 billion and the interests of 340,000 pensioners are engaged. The members of the scheme will naturally be hugely anxious as to how the proposed privatisation of British Rail will affect their pension rights. In those circumstances, it is for serious consideration that those matters should be dealt with by the Bill in the Bill itself so that the maximum degree of certainty as to the future of British Rail pensioners can be achieved at the outset following a debate in this Committee.
It must be said that the number of members affected by the provisions and the sums involved require that the pension provisions receive the fullest degree of parliamentary debate.
I turn now to the disapplication of the hybridity procedures. The Government are seeking to remove the usual procedures. The first question is whether the instruments made pursuant to Schedule 10 are likely to be hybrid instruments. We would say that the answer is plainly yes, and I do not understand the noble Earl to argue to the contrary. Therefore, the real question is whether there is any justification for the
726
removal of those usual procedures. Those procedures provide an important safeguard to individuals whose private rights are affected in that way.
There can be no doubt that many of the orders passed under the schedule will be of a hybrid nature. Why otherwise, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, pointed out, would hybridity have been disapplied?
I turn now to the details of the schedule. Paragraph 1(1) defines the expression "existing scheme" very broadly. It includes any scheme for the provision of pensions for or in respect of persons with service in the railway industry which the Secretary of State by order designates as an existing scheme. And then, as it appears to me most important, paragraph 3(1) enables orders to be made to amend,
"the trust deed of any existing pension scheme; the rules of any such scheme; or any other instrument relating to the constitution, management or operation of any such scheme".
It would be difficult to think of a wider power. Therefore, orders passed under that paragraph will have a significant direct impact upon the private pension rights of individuals who may have been contributing towards their pensions for very many years.
Paragraph 4(1) enables orders to be made transferring the rights of persons who have rights under existing schemes to other schemes altogether. Under paragraph 9(1) the Secretary of State may by order designate any occupational pension scheme to be treated in the same way as the BR pension scheme for the purposes of Part III of the Transport Act 1990.
The net effect of the order-making provisions of Schedule 10 is to provide the Secretary of State with sweeping powers to impose new pension arrangements upon hundreds of thousands of individuals, many of whom under their contracts of employment will have contributed to their pensions throughout the whole of their working lives.
Furthermore, we ought not to lose sight of the fact that the far-reaching nature of the Secretary of State's powers is extended by the Henry VIII clause in paragraph 10 of Schedule 10. It provides:
"If it appears to the Secretary of State necessary or expedient to do so, in consequence of any provision made by order under this Schedule, he may by provision made in the same manner—

(a) repeal or amend, or modify the operation of, any private or local Act of Parliament; or

(b) revoke or amend, or modify the operation of, any statutory instrument (whether local or general).".

When one looks at the provisions in a little detail, aside from the specific order-making powers set out in Schedule 10, paragraph 10 gives the Secretary of State a general power to amend other statutory provisions by order. Over all, Schedule 10 in its present form provides the Secretary of State with carte blanche to interfere with the existing pension rights of almost 340,000 pensioners. There can be no doubt that the orders past under the schedule will be of a hybrid nature. The private rights of every member of BR's pension schemes are placed in the hands of the Secretary of State.
I respectfully submit that in those circumstances paragraph 11(2), with its provision for the removal of the disapplication of the hybridity procedures, poses a serious threat to the rights of individual pensioners.

727
The Government's proposal that the usual procedures should be by-passed is particularly objectionable in the light of the virtually unfettered powers which the Secretary of State will enjoy under Schedule 10. As the schedule stands, the Minister will have the freedom to alter the rights of BR pensioners without the usual safeguards provided by Parliament against any excess of ministerial discretion in a matter affecting private right.
The Department of Transport suggested that the provision is thought necessary to ensure that the making of orders under the schedule is not delayed. It claims that the delay in the making of orders will give rise to uncertainty for those whose pension rights are affected. But if there were a genuine concern about such uncertainty would it not be better for the noble Earl to agree to the pension provisions of the Bill being dealt with in the form of primary legislation? Why would that riot be the course best calculated to remove anxiety and uncertainty?
One is left with a real fear that the only real advantage of paragraph 11(2) will be enjoyed by the Minister and his department who will be free of the inconvenience that is associated with full parliamentary scrutiny. With provisions of such a far-reaching nature as those in Schedule 10, we submit that the parliamentary protection of private rights guaranteed by the hybridity procedures should not take second place to ministerial convenience.
Finally, the department has suggested that as long as there is proper consultation before the orders are made those affected should not need to petition against them. But where individuals' accrued pension rights are at stake the procedures which this House has adopted with regard to hybrid instruments, which it has been pointed out can be expedited, provide the proper forum for those who are affected by affirmative instruments to petition against their provisions. A promise of consultation, which is no more than a promise to listen, provides no substitute whatever for the parliamentary procedures which this House has seen fit to adopt to protect private rights.
It has also been suggested that similar provisions calculated to exclude the usual procedure for hybrid instruments have been enacted in the past. We should note that the precedent cited by the department relates to legislation which is in no way comparable to the present Bill. I shall not take up the time of the Committee by going through those examples. However, it is significant that none of these so-called precedents relates to orders affecting pension schemes. Indeed, none of these so-called precedents relates to orders which may impinge upon existing contractual financial rights which have accrued to individuals over a period of years. I suggest that that is the most important point. Individuals will have made those contractual contributions to pension schemes under the terms and conditions of the existing pensions schemes which were part of their contracts of employment. Their pension rights are major benefits under their contracts of employment. If this Bill passes in its present form the real vice is that contractual rights can be altered retrospectively and prospectively by ministerial diktat.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: May I, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, has said, go on to ask whether we are making heavy weather of this issue and who will benefit from it? The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, moved the amendment in a commendably brief speech and admitted that the whole question was somewhat esoteric. As someone who has been and is concerned about the welfare of the pensioners, I wonder how much they would benefit if the amendment were passed.
This House has a slight leaning towards complex procedures and it sometimes yields to the temptation to prolong them. Unlike the noble Lord opposite I do not claim to be any kind of expert on hybridity, but I believe that there may be ways of short-circuiting the procedures which are relevant to the issue. However, I wonder whether one could rely on their being used in such an event.
I believe that if the amendment were passed the interests of pensioners certainly would not be benefited and might well be prejudiced. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, properly anticipated the objections to his amendment: that the results would be time-consuming; that they would create great uncertainty, which should be dispelled as soon as possible; and that the procedure could involve considerable expense. Let us face it, there would be no one to meet that expense save the pensioners themselves.
I hope that the Government will reject the amendment without much more ado.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I rise to support the amendment, which is of the first importance. Obviously, it is of supreme importance to the 340,000 members of the pension scheme with assets of £8.5 billion. It is also of great importance to your Lordships' House as the vigilante of individual interests. As the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, pointed out, it is proposed that the accrued pension rights paid under a contract of employment may be rewritten.
There is no reason to suppose that there will be any intentional unfairness in general. The presumption must be very much to the contrary; but, as always with general schemes, there may be some individuals whose interests are overlooked. That is the reason why the Hybrid Bill and the hybrid instrument procedure was developed. It was not developed, as the memorandum from the department suggested, to vindicate and establish the individual interest against the public interest, but merely so that the individual interest should be considered in the context of the public interest.
It is of great importance to the Committee, because the hybrid instrument procedure is peculiar to this place. It was developed because there were a number of schemes to obviate the Hybrid Bill procedure by putting the hybrid provisions into statutory instruments. It was for that reason that this place, as the watchdog of the constitution and being interested in the rights and interests of individuals, developed the hybrid instrument procedure. As has been quoted, the joint Select Committee of 1972–73, presided over by

729
the late Lord Brooke of Cumnor, recommended the continuance of that procedure as a valuable safeguard for the rights of the individual.
But there is a second reason why this place is peculiarly concerned in this matter, and that is that the scrutiny committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, is again peculiar to this place. Its first report was accepted by this place with acclamation. Its subsequent report on the Education Bill was also widely acclaimed. No one has laid a word of criticism against its report on this Bill. On the contrary, it has been found to be valuable.
The Scrutiny Committee has developed a technique of signalling its views. Obviously, the primary view here is that the pension rights should be enshrined in primary legislation. If that were not done, it would signal even more strongly than any recommendation contained in any of the reports, that the hybrid instrument procedure should be preserved and not obviated, as the Bill seeks to do.
Two questions remain. The first is as to precedent. The precedents that preceded the Jellicoe Committee and the Scrutiny Committee are valueless. The Scrutiny Committee was set up on the recommendation of the Jellicoe Committee, because precedents showed that procedures had been abused; that there was Executive aggrandisement at the expense of parliamentary control. So anything in the past is valueless. Secondly, the Brooke Committee indicated clearly that the only circumstance in which the obviation of the hybrid instrument procedure was justifiable was if there was an alternative method of representation of those whose interests were affected adversely by a public Bill or a statutory instrument.
There is in the present case, as there was not in some of the precedents, no alternative method of representation. There was an alternative method in the most recent example (the Local Government Act of the previous Session) but in this case there is no alternative way in which the individual who may have been overlooked can make his interests felt.
The other matter which the noble Lord mentioned was whether there could be unconscionable delay and uncertainty. If the department acts promptly, there need be virtually no delay. There is no conceivable reason why, if celerity is shown, general orders may not be laid by early next year. Then, as the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Irvine, have pointed out, the expedited procedure is available. That takes, in general, only about a month. Having heard the speeches, not least that of a former Leader of the House, it seems to me that the case for the amendment is abundantly made out.
Lord Wigoder: I wish to make just one short observation on this matter. It concerns the parliamentary procedure. It appears to be clear and beyond dispute that the other place has a Hybrid Bill procedure, as indeed we do, but that this place is the only place to have a hybrid instruments procedure. What I venture to ask—and perhaps the Minister will comment upon it when he replies—is whether it is appropriate for another place in those circumstances to send to us a piece of legislation in which it seeks not
730
to deal with its own powers in any way but to remove a power which is exclusive to this place and which gives individuals a right to petition in certain circumstances.
Earl Russell: I can well understand why the hybrid procedure, both in Bills and instruments, is inconvenient to the Executive. The very existence of a Parliament is inconvenient to the Executive and always has been. So, we should not let that argument weigh too much with us. The question is whether the inconvenience gives rise to any compensating advantage. I believe that it does. The hybrid procedure, both in Bills and instruments, is part of the liberties of the subject. Those liberties may be threatened by Parliament as well as protected by it.
In the past few weeks, we have heard a good deal about parliamentary sovereignty. The powers of parliamentary sovereignty are terrifying. The first Lord Burleigh once remarked that an Act of Parliament could make a man a woman. While I think one may say that that is true in law but not in biology, in law I do not believe that it can be disputed. If that power is delegated to the Minister and exercised by regulation, I should have thought that that was an argument for saying that it needed more rather than less possibility of controlling it. If, in some general measure about sex discrimination, we were to insert the proviso that the noble Earl was a woman, I think that he would want to be heard on the matter.
I wish to speak briefly to one sentence in the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee as regards the precedents. The report states:
"The House may wish to consider their relevance in this case".
One of the precedents is contained in the Local Government Finance Act 1988. I remember that because I was on the Bench at the time. It was one of those late government amendments on which, if I remember right, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, had something to say. The amendment was bowled out of the back of the Minister's hand late at night. I have tried to apply the test of the Brooke Committee; namely, is this exclusion of the hybrid powers really necessary? The Minister's argument there was that it was necessary because of the impossibility of establishing a free market in railway signal boxes. I found that argument persuasive. I found it also very different from the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, on contractual rights as affected under this provision. I think that these are different cases in terms of gravity and in terms of any excuse for waiving the hybrid procedure.
On that occasion I asked the Minister, who happened to be the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, if, while having the amendment under discussion let through, he would promise not to make a habit of it. I have given the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, notice that I wished to quote his words. The noble Lord replied:
"Perhaps I may put at rest the mind of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I assure him that we shall not make a habit of it". —[Official Report, 16/6/88; col. 475.]
I ask him to keep his promise and let me return to my rest.
Lord Renton: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and before that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, were kind enough to mention things that I had said in previous debates on other Bills. I hope that nothing that I shall say now will be considered inconsistent with what I said then. The first point that I wish to make is that we should all regard—the speeches show that we have regarded this—anything to do with pensions these days as a very sensitive matter, for reasons which I need hardly repeat. Having said that, I think it follows that we must ensure that not only is justice done to the pensioners but that it manifestly appears to be done.
I think that this is a matter in which we ought to be guided to some extent by experience. So far as I know, but I am open to correction, the hybridity procedure when used in the past has not been used in order to protect the interests of a mass of people in a pension scheme. If I am wrong about that, forget it but I do not think I am.
The interests of 340,000 railway pensioners whose pensions are governed by quite a large number of different schemes raise a problem. It would help if my noble friend Lord Caithness could give us an idea of how many schemes there are, because I say in passing that, if we are to have orders, we want one order per scheme. If we have an order covering, say, three schemes, then we might be in a rather difficult position, or at any rate another place will be because they vote on these things and, alas, we do not. Incidentally, I believe that we ought to change our procedure. If we find that there is an order covering three schemes and two of them are acceptable and one is not acceptable, then obviously a slight parliamentary dilemma will arise. If we are going to have orders covering schemes, let there he one order per scheme.
Let me get back to my main theme about being guided by what has happened so far! The Scrutiny Committee very wisely and cautiously said that there were precedents and it referred to one in its report. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to another —the Electricity Act—and there are still others. The Airports Act 1986, the Wages Act 1986, the Local Government Finance Act 1988, and for some strange reason which I have not been able to discover, the Official Secrets Act 1989, are also precedents. They are all precedents for existing pension schemes being dealt with—if they have to be transferred, and perhaps varied—by this procedure which the Government are proposing; namely, laying an order to be affirmed by an affirmative resolution and excluding the hybridity procedure.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. Will he confirm that all the precedents to which he referred were undertaken by the Conservative Government from about 1986 onwards? That is a somewhat doubtful origin, is it not? I wonder what the noble Lord's response would have been if a Labour government had sought to take action of this kind. He would have been outraged and not understanding.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: If I may say so, that is the pot calling the kettle black, if that is not an unlawful expression these days. We all get indignant, when we have an opportunity of doing so, in opposing what other parties have suggested. But perhaps I may get back to the operation of these schemes which in my opinion were wisely introduced by Conservative governments. So far as I know—but again if there is evidence, let us have it—none of the pension rights under those schemes has given rise to a sense of injustice on the part of the pensioners when those schemes have been transferred, even if they have to be altered. So not only are there precedents, albeit Introduced by Conservative governments, but they are precedents which have worked and in which there has been a sense of justice. I say that we ought to be guided by both kinds of experience that I have mentioned.
Putting this matter at its worst, I would say that we have a simple choice of evils, as we often have when legislating. But I think the worst evil would be the hybridity one which involves greater or less delay. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, to whose wisdom we always pay respect even if we disagree with him, said that the expedited procedure would enable each case to be dealt with within one month. But if there are to be scores of cases under any one scheme, it would mean that the transfer and. if necessary, the amendment—perhaps favourable amendment —of that scheme could be delayed for many months.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to point out that what I actually said was. that the expedited procedure generally results in a decision in one month. Moreover, as regards whether there are several orders, I can see no reason why all the hybrid provisions should not be put into one order so that the other orders can have immediate effect. I understood from the noble Earl when he was kind enough to discuss it with me that there will be two or three general orders, not an infinite number.
Lord Renton: I think that I must leave it to my noble friend. I hope that I may have the attention of my noble friend on the Front Bench as this is rather an important matter. I think that the point which the noble and learned Lord has just made is one which would be better considered by the Government than that I should give a rough and ready answer although I have one in my mind. In view of what my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham has just intimated to me, perhaps I had better not give my rough and ready answer.
I believe that we would he doing a disservice to the pensioners, as my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil said, if we failed to realise that there will not be any malevolent intention to interfere with existing schemes. There will obviously be a desire on the part of the Government, the present trustees of the schemes and those who have to operate them in future to see that the pensioners are fairly treated. That is the first point that we should bear in mind.

733
The second point that we should bear in mind is that if we allow a rather risky procedure of hybridity to take the place of the consultation which will obviously have to take place, and if we allow the goodwill which I mentioned under my first point to be interfered with by delay and uncertainty, we shall have done a disservice to the pensioners.
Lord Wigoder: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may make one observation. I understood him to say that the various Acts passed in the 1980s, which included the dehybridification clause, related to pension schemes and were working perfectly satisfactorily. As I understand it—and I have just checked the point—there is no question at all of pension schemes in those Acts.
Lord Renton: If it is not a matter of pension schemes, they affected other individual rights. In principle that is the same issue.
Earl Russell: Before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may answer a question which he asked which deserves an answer. He asked for an example of an occasion when the hybridity procedure had been used to protect the rights of a large class of people. I offer him the Silkworkers Bill of 1626 which, so far as I know, was the first case in which the hybrid procedure was employed by your Lordships' House.
Lord Renton: I am not prepared to say whether that is analogous with the individual rights of pensioners, but I should have thought that the comparison may not be accurate.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: When the fox deprived the chicken of his head he explained that he was acting in the best interests of the chicken because he was protecting the chicken from head colds. The chicken may have wanted an opportunity to consider that bargain.
The departmental memorandum, and the noble Earl this afternoon, explained that the beneficiaries of pension funds are to be deprived of their right to make representations because it will protect them from delays in finalising their rights. That is a bargain which they might want to consider. There is no evidence that they have given any mandate to the trustees to speak on their behalf about it.
Let us consider the right of which they are being deprived. The right to petition Parliament for the redress of grievances, including anticipated grievances, goes back to the very beginning of Parliament. It is older than the legislation which changes the law. What it is proposed to give them under the hybridity procedure is not a compulsion to make representations but a choice. If they think that their interests are adversely affected by making representations then they do not need to make them. But they are being deprived of the opportunity to make such representations. That seems to me to be depriving them of a right which goes back almost to the beginnings of our parliamentary procedures.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, presided over a committee on the preparation of legislation which
734
reported in 1975. His committee pointed out that there is not necessarily a coincidence between the interests of those who are charged with steering legislation through parliament and those who are affected by the legislation when it takes effect. The noble Lord is nodding in agreement. That is a matter which has been apparent to us on many occasions since. Of course it is a nuisance to give people the right to make representations. Of course it may occasion delay. It complicates a simple argument. It adds to the burdens on busy officials. That is all part of the price which we pay for giving people representation.
The committee presided over by the noble Lord was perfectly clear then as to where the priorities lay. I appreciate that the committee dealt principally with primary legislation, but the same arguments apply to instruments. The committee said:
"We recommend that in principle the interests of the ultimate users should always have priority over those of the legislators".
Lord Renton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, because it was with the interests of the pensioners in mind that I said what I did.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: Of course. The fox is explaining that its behaviour towards the chicken is in the best interests of the chicken. It wants perhaps to pass that judgment to the chicken and to give the chicken the options.
The blandishments of the fox are again obvious. I hope that your Lordships will not fall for them. There may be a case for departing on a specific occasion from the hybridity principle, which as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has been with us for 70 years, and the principle which has been with us for very much longer of a right of petition against anticipated grievances. If that is so, the case must be made. Normally it should be made after careful consideration of the procedures of this Chamber and not in a subparagraph in the third schedule to an Act of Parliament.
The Committee may feel that a case has not been made out this afternoon. If it appeared likely that some 340,000 petitions would have to be heard that is a matter which would have to be taken seriously. However, no one believes that that is in the realm of reality. No one believes that the pensioners themselves, whose interests we are considering, would lend themselves to any such procedure. It certainly would not be beyond them to be able to reduce the representations which they want to make within a narrow compass.
I hope that the Committee will not succumb to the blandishments of the fox. If the chicken had been consulted —and there is no evidence that it was—it must have regretted that bargain.
Lord Elton: The simile used by the noble Lord, Lord Archer, is an attractive one, but I believe that it is misleading. The position which we occupy, which the Select Committee occupies and from which my noble friend Lord Renton spoke, is the position of a gamekeeper who is looking to see whether there is a

735
fox there. That is what we are exercised about. If there is no fox then we do not need the procedure. If there is a fox then we do.
As a member of the Select Committee, I remind the Committee that the Select Committee's duty has been discharged. The duty was to draw the Committee's attention to a possible anxiety. It was not to take a position of its own, and it has not done so.
All Members of the Committee will find it easier to take a position once one or two points are clear. The first, as I am sure that all Members of the Committee have realised, is that delay is the principal objection to reintroducing the hybrid procedure. One cannot argue both that the existing consultative procedure is such that there will be no grievance and that there will be delay. If consultation in this transitional period is satisfactory and meets the wishes of the pensioners and their expectations in justice then there will be no objections or delay. If the procedure is imperfect, the more imperfect it is the more injustice there will be, the more protests there will be and the greater the delay. That is precisely its function.
In that respect I shall be interested to hear my noble friend's answer to the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton that an undertaking that there will be only one scheme per order would be reassuring.
I should also like to know, as I am sure would all Members of the Committee, what the effects of the delay would be. Everyone has spoken of delay as though it is a very bad thing. It leads to uncertainty. First, what would happen to the pensions already in payment during the transitional period if there is an objection? Secondly. what will be the effect on pensions due for payment during the procedure if it is protracted? Will payments of those pensions be suspended, or will they, as I suspect, be paid as they would have been paid under the original scheme? If the answer to both those questions is "yes", then it is difficult to see what the disadvantage of delay would he. Therefore, it would be most helpful if my noble friend could answer those questions.
5 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: Before my noble friend concludes the debate on behalf of the Opposition, I should like to say a few words. I was a trustee of the fund for 11 years. During my trusteeship, I hope that I was able to speak on behalf of the pensioners. It is true that if one adopts the suggested procedure in order to protect our parliamentary precedents, we would deny the right of individual pensioners to petition. But, at the same time, I should like my noble friend on the Front Bench to give due weight to the letter which is in our hands from the chairman of the trustees. After all, he has not had time to consult his trustees on the particular issue under discussion, but he says that there is certainly the possibility of long delays if we adhere to the precedents—
Lord Elton: The noble Lord speaks of "delays", but exactly what delays does he have in mind? Does he mean delays in payment?
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I mean delays in the uncertainty created; for example, where does the
736
pensioner stand under such arrangements? That is both a real and important fear. We must weigh in the balance those representations from Mr. Derek Fowler, who was formerly a finance director of British Rail and who is now a pensioner and chairman of the trustees. We must give some weight to the view that he has expressed. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will deal with the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. We must decide whether the adherence to the procedures that we are insisting upon (as mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff) outweigh the effect of long delays which would create uncertainty in the position of thousands of pensioners.
If my colleague on the Front Bench can convinoe me that the latter is a bargain worth making, I shall certainly support the amendment. However, I do not believe that we should minimise the fact that Derek Fowler as chairman of the trustees has, in his best judgment and opinion, spoken for the pensioners. After all, he represents the trustees of the pensioners and they have a responsibility to the pensioners. I hope that my noble friend will deal with that point.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I should like to intervene briefly and make one suggestion. I have listened to the debate and, like the majority Members of the Committee, I realise that, but for the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, vie would not be having such a debate. It is very largely due to its excellent report that this Chamber has been alerted to the possible extinguishment of standing orders in the case of railway pensions and that the issue has come to us in this rather peculiar fashion.
I should like to ask Members of the Committee how they think Members of another place—and I speak in front of a former Speaker of that place—would take an amendment to a Bill starting in this place which sought to limit the powers of the other place by waiving their standing orders by a Bill in statutory form. I do not imagine that that would be received very warmly in another place. I really do not see why, in this case, the powers sought by the Government, but coming through the other place, to disapply our standing orders should be received by us with anything other than the scrutiny which this Chamber has accorded to the proposal.
I believe that the arguments have been deployed very fairly on both sides of the Committee and in a most non-partisan way. Surely it is a House matter and one that should not be decided by the party Whips. I very much hope that that consideration will be borne in mind if and when we come to a vote which I hope, perhaps, will not happen. I hope that the Government will see the value of the amendment and that they will agree to it. Incidentally, it would give them and the trustees a great deal of time in which to consider the matters involved. We are not up against a timetable; what we are considering is the timetable of the pension schemes under delegated legislation. We are not considering the timetable of the Bill. The amendment should not be considered within the constraints of parliamentary time. There is time for sense to prevail.

737
As we heard—notably, from the noble Lord, Lord Archer—the procedure under discussion is very old; indeed, it is as old as Parliament itself. We should think very clearly and precisely about whether we should agree to any kind of curtailment of such a power. If we do consider it, I suggest that it should be for this Chamber to disapply standing orders in any particular case when they come before us. I ask the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, whether he will consider proceeding in that way; in other words, that he will withdraw the proposal that the disapplication of the standing orders should be enshrined in statute and, instead, agree that each order should be subject, as it perfectly well can be, to a Motion in this Chamber to disapply it.
The whole urgency of the procedure is being objected to on a non-partisan basis. I hope that the arguments put forward will appeal to the Government and that we shall succeed in finding a solution to the matter which will operate both in the interests of the pensioners and in the interests of Parliament. It is intrinsically undesirable that standing orders in either place should form part of an Act of Parliament.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I shall not detain Members of the Committee for very long. However, I should like to put forward a suggestion which may, perhaps, alleviate the position and help to prevent the matter being decided by a vote this afternoon, largely upon party lines. In the light of what my noble friend the Government Chief Whip told us earlier today, a great deal of the Committee stage of the Bill will be taken after the Summer Recess. Therefore, would it not be possible during the Recess to have consultations with the people who are really affected; namely, the railway pensioners and their organisations? One could then discover, on the rather neatly balanced issue, whether or not they are prepared to accept the possibility of delay in order to retain the hybridity rights. Surely they could be consulted on the matter. A conclusion could then be reached in the light of the results of such consultation.
Therefore, I wonder whether it would be sensible —although I do not know which way one would leave it—to leave the Bill as it stands at present, without taking a decision on the amendment, and decide the matter on recommitment in the autumn. We shall then be able to come to a decision (it is to be hoped) in the light of a clear indication of the views of the people who are really involved; namely, the pensioners.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I shall, indeed, try to be brief. However, I believe that the last two contributions that we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Henderson of Brompton and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, deserve very careful consideration. I hope that the Minister will indicate that that will be the case.
One ought always to bear in mind that, although it is a House of Lords procedure, in this context that procedure can govern the interests of large numbers of people and large assets: £8.5 billion. That sum is nothing other than large. I believe that it ought to be dealt with by primary legislation, which is one of the options put forward, rather than by way of statutory
738
instrument. We cannot amend a statutory instrument, it is subject to prior consultation, but we all know that statutory instruments are often found to be defective. The consultations may not necessarily have taken cognizance of important considerations but we cannot amend the legislation.
Therefore, I do not believe that dealing with the matter in the way that the Government suggest, without far greater consideration, is the right way to proceed. As my noble friend Lord Irvine said earlier, what is at stake is that Ministers are able to interfere with crude contractual rights and there is no adequate recourse. We must, therefore, be slow to interfere with a right which has, over and over again, been supported in this Chamber. I can do no better in that context than to quote from the Brooke Committee which stated:
"It provides valuable safeguards for private interests affected by delegated legislation, and should be retained".
My noble friend Lord Taylor asked me a direct question about the letter from the chairman of the trustees. It has been quoted over and over again and I do not propose to read the entire letter again. However, on the chairman's own admission, it was written without the authority of his fellow directors of the trustee company; it was his personal opinion. He said that he had not had time to consult. We have not had time to consult with pensioner interests. The Government have not had time to consult. The memorandum of understanding and the letter to which reference was made were rustled up literally a few hours ago. Consequently, we have to be careful when we take on board someone's opinion—and one does not wish to throw it into the dustbin; it is an important opinion—which is inconclusive. I have a letter from one of the trustees, Mr. Hince, to which I have already alluded. He states:
"With regard to the question of hybridity this has not to my knowledge been discussed by the trustees".
They ought to discuss it before a conclusion is reached by the Government to throw the procedure aside.
I understand that there was no trace of any discussion at a trustee meeting on 7th July when that particular trustee was absent, because the minutes have been perused and that is what has been found. So it is inaccurate to say, as has been said by some in the course of the debate, that that is the trustees' position. It is not.
On the memorandum of understanding, which is not unrelated to what we are talking about, memoranda of understanding can often become memoranda of misunderstandings. I do not think that something so hurriedly brought together, without the consent of all the trustees, should guide us too much tonight in our deliberations on the issue.
It has been suggested that there would be fatal delay to the position of the pensioners, but there is no evidence of that. The floodgate argument is often used in such instances, altogether overlooking the possibility of representative petitions in any event. It is likely that if there are pensioners whose rights are overlooked, they would be overlooked in a similar way. However, there is always the possibility that even when, overall, a situation is achieved which seems to be to the benefit of the overwhelming majority of

739
pensioners, individuals find that their position is prejudiced. That is why we have this procedure. It is quite wrong, in my judgment, therefore, to remove the procedure in the way that the Government suggest.
I believe that the arguments which we have heard in this interesting debate should counsel the Government to go slow on the matter. I hope that the Minister will say that he will consider the issue further and that he will take into account the two propositions which have been advanced by the noble Lords, Lord Henderson and Lord Boyd-Carpenter. If the Minister does not, then I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will divide on the issue tonight.
Basically, in my submission, it comes to this. The question should not be: "How do we subvert the pensioners' rights in this instance?" We should rather ask: "How can we ensure that the rights are buttressed? How can we ensure that the rules are made to work?" Those are the appropriate questions which we should ask, but I suggest that they are not the questions that the Government have asked.
One final point: when some of the trustees considered the matter, I wonder to what extent they understood the difficult issues of hybridity which affect the procedures of this House. In what way could the chairman have come to the conclusion that the delays would be fatal to the interests of pensioners? Who advised him and in what circumstances did the internal debate take place? There is no evidence that any such debate took place, which adds to the difficulties that we are experiencing.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: This has been a most useful discussion. One point which has emerged from all Members of the Committee who have taken part is that there is complete and entire common ground between every single Member of the Committee. None of us has any intention of disadvantaging pensioners. That is why I say to the Committee that we have put Schedule 10 into the Bill and it is aimed at protecting the rights of pensioners.
I can fully understand that the notion of delay as the reason for avoiding the hybrid instrument procedure might seem suspicious to some Members of the Committee. However, let me repeat that there are real dangers in delay. First, as my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil said, uncertainty about pensions causes distress and should he avoided. I know that many Members of the Committee will be aware just how involved my noble friend has been on the question of pensions. If he makes a remark like that, the Committee should listen to it.
Secondly, many of the changes made under paragraphs 2 to 4 of Schedule 10 are required because people will be changing employer on a set date. The Committee will know that the Inland Revenue, for good reasons, will not allow an employee to remain in another employer's pension scheme indefinitely without withdrawing the tax relief entitlements of the scheme. That is why I say to my noble friend Lord Elton that a lengthy delay in making the changes might complicate matters severely.
740
The delay would not necessarily affect the payment of current pensions to individuals—that would continue to take effect. The delay would create uncertainty over the future payment of pensions. Pensioners would not know where they stood until the new pension arrangements were in place. Then there is the Inland Revenue point. Under the hybrid instrument procedure, the trustees of pension schemes would have to bear the cost of counsel if they themselves decided to petition Parliament or if they were obliged to cross-petition in order to fulfil their fiduciary duty as trustees, following a petition from, say, a group of scheme members.
The hybrid instrument procedure would also apply to orders under paragraph 9, which allows the Secretary of State to designate different pension schemes for the purpose of paying government contributions to them under the Transport Act 1980. Delay could be very serious here too. Substantial sums are paid to railway pension funds under these arrangements.
I should like to make it clear that even with the best will in the world it is not possible at this stage to say how many orders might be affected. Although there will be several transfer schemes involving transfers of staff which may require arrangements to be made for their pensions, it may be possible to deal with the transfers of pension rights in a number of transfer schemes with one order. There will also need to be three or four general orders to establish the joint industry scheme and for the purposes of protecting members, safeguarding what I hope will be their indefeasible rights, when we are allowed to move an amendment to that effect, and .designating for the purpose of making government support payments available. We do not know how many orders we may require to amend existing schemes. Although it is not definite that all these orders would be caught by the hybridity procedure it is possible that any of them might be.
That is the problem that I have with the kind suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. He was helpful in suggesting that we should put all hybrid orders into one. The difficulty with that, although it is something I should like to consider, is that we shall not know what is hybrid until the committee looks at it. So we have a difficulty there.
The Government have taken the view that the reorganisation of the BR pension schemes must be as open as possible. The orders relating to pensions under the Electricity Act 1989 were subject to the annulment procedure. If we had adopted that course for the railways, this debate would never have arisen. But we decided, rightly—and I am sure the Committee will support the Government in this view—that since the sums of money were so great arid the powers wide-ranging, the affirmative resolution procedure was the right procedure. I hope that the Committee will welcome that, and the fact that the Government would like to bring forward amendments to the Bill so that the views of the trustees are known before the debate takes place.
Although the disapplication of the hybrid instrument procedure is well precedented, as I said

741
when I spoke earlier, I do not want to go into the details. Many of the precedents, however, relate, like these orders, to financial matters. Indeed, the Wages Act order concerned the remunerations fixed by wages councils. Arguments about financial questions can be reduced to reasonably digestible papers where the issue is clearly set out.
There will always be someone with financial responsibility. In this case, that includes the Government and the trustees, whose duties must be given due weight. We think that there ought to be such debate, as well-informed as we can make it. But we do not think that what amounts to a Private Bill Committee is the right forum. In saying that, I in no way criticise the hybrid instrument procedure as such. It was used successfully for the orders setting up development corporations in London, Bristol and Cardiff Bay. As Erskine May notes, the committees conducted themselves as if they were opposed Private Bill Committees. They would have had to examine plans and possibly engineering proposals. We have always accepted that that sort of inquiry should be conducted upstairs rather than in the Chamber. I put it to the Committee that that sort of procedure is not the one best suited to pensions.
Lord Shepherd: Perhaps I may ask the noble Earl this. He rightly referred to the proposed amendment of the Government in regard to the trustees' views. That certainly deals with some of the anxieties which arose over Schedule 10. But if as a Committee (or a House, as we may then be) we receive the views of the trustees, those views can be presented to this House only through Members of this House. There is no ability to question the trustees in regard to their anxieties. Will the noble Earl consider, between now and after the spill-over, how, if the views of the trustees were at variance with those of the Secretary of State, the House would be aware of that and would be able to question the trustees on the validity or otherwise of their difficulties. If the noble Earl will consider that point between now and the autumn, I think it might be helpful.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful for that suggestion. It takes me to the next point that I intended to make. I am grateful also for the suggestions put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. I say to the noble Lord: yes, I would like to consider what he said, as indeed I would like to consider what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said. But that decision is not in my hands. It is in the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I am quite prepared to consider this and various other points which have been raised between now and another stage if the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, permits me to do so.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter came out with the right solution. He suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that he might take away this amendment so that we can all consider this very important issue—as indeed we shall consider the Government amendments to Schedule 10 —between now and another time.
742
I should like to answer one other point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. He said that the expedited procedures would take about one month. With great respect to the noble and learned Lord, who is so much better versed in these matters than I am, I would question that. I do not think that there has ever been a precedent. I do not think that the expedited procedures have ever been used. So, although the noble and learned Lord may be right that it could be one month, it might be longer.
The decision that we are faced with is this. We are all on common ground; we want to do the very best for the pensioners. If there is no delay under the hybrid Bill procedure, nobody will be more pleased than I. But if there were delay, and that delay caused anxiety, distress and considerable concern to pensioners, perhaps the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, with the best will in the world, would not have achieved what was wanted. I therefore support what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw this amendment. The debate has been extremely useful. I should like to reassure the Committee that I will consider each and every point that Members of the Committee have made between now and another stage.
Lord Elton: Before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether he can elucidate a couple of points. At one stage quite early on in his reply he said that he thought it might be possible to have one order covering many schemes. Did my noble friend mean to say that it might be necessary? What he was being asked to do was to give an undertaking, if he could, that there would be one order per scheme, and one scheme per order.
Secondly, can my noble friend go a little further in elucidating the effects of delay? He said that there would be no cessation of payment of pensions already in payment, but there would be doubt as to the amount or nature of payments to be made in the future. What he did not say was whether there would be any delay in the introduction of a payment. In other words, if I were a pensioner due to start receiving a pension on 1st January 1994, let us say, and the process was still dragging on, would I get a letter saying that it was much regretted that my pension (whatever it was) had not been decided and I would not get anything until later? That is where the shoe pinches. If it is a question of receiving more or less by some pounds a week or month, that is not much of a pinch. But if it is a question of having to wait an indefinite period for any payment, that would not be acceptable at all. That consideration must be relevant to our decision.
The Earl of Caithness: The two points that my noble friend raises are very important. On the first, I know that what I said was slightly different to what he hoped that I would say whereas what he hoped I would say was not in accordance with what some Members of the Committee felt that it was right for me to say in regard to trying to minimise the amount of orders. So we have a very genuine difference among Members of the Committee. Again, the exact

743
implications of that point are another issue that I shall be very happy to consider between now and another stage.
On that point I feel that it might be extremely inconvenient to deal with each scheme in a separate order, given that 1 think—I am relying upon my memory and I stand to be corrected—that there are some 60 British Rail pension schemes at the moment with 340,000 members or thereabouts. One could have a considerable problem. I hope that my noble friend will let me have a look at that, as I hope he will let me have a look at the second point that he raised, rather than giving an off-the-cuff answer now. It is of such import that I would rather give him a correct answer.
Lord Tordoff: I am most grateful to everybody who has taken part in this most interesting debate which has now been going on for nearly two hours. It is an important and serious subject, as has been shown. I do not propose to go backwards and forwards over the arguments and counter-arguments. The Committee has done that for itself and noble Lords probably have a fairly clear idea of where they stand now.
With regard to delay, I have to say that, if there are people in the railway industry who are uncertain about the future of their pensions, there are plenty of people about who are uncertain about their jobs. That is not the fault of my modest amendment but the fault of the Bill as a whole.
It seems to me that two points have emerged. I go back to what I said at the beginning. I moved this amendment for two reasons. One was following the report of your Lordships' Select Committee, to which it is extremely important that we listen and from which we should take advice. On an occasion such as this, when the Select Committee has put its points so strongly, if we completely ignore it (and I do not suggest that this Chamber would ignore or overturn it), we must worry whether there will be an occasion in the future when that Select Committee will ever be of any use to this Chamber. Let me remind the Chamber of what the Select Committee said:
"In view of the extent of the powers, the substantial assets involved and the number of people affected, we urge the House to consider most carefully whether, in spite of any precedents, there is sufficient justification for the exclusion of the hybrid procedure in this case".
It could not have been put more pungently as a Committee of the Whole House without a particular axe to grind on the Bill.
The other reason is the voice of the pensioners. We have heard from the chairman of the trustees and it has been suggested that we should take more time to go and consult the pensioners. I went to some trouble to consult some of the pensioners. One of the problems is that nobody speaks for the pensioners as a whole. Indeed, Sir Bob Reid, in a letter to the former president of the Retired Railway Officers' Society, says:
"Nevertheless we are at present reviewing the question of pensioner representation, although I cannot say what the result of this review might be. Our problem is, of course, to find a body which represents all pensioners".
I do not believe that such a body exists. But the chairman of the Retired Railway Officers' Society has written to me and said:
744
"As there is no representation for pensioners on the Trustees or the Management Committee of I he Pension Fund, we would like to be able to petition Parliament on any Orders made under Schedule 10 of the Bill which affects our interests".
That is the voice of the pensioners. I believe that we should listen to both the voice of our Select Committee and the voice of the pensioners.
I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, says and find it a very interesting suggestion. However, I feel that the way to proceed is to expunge this part of the Bill today and, in the period between now and the spillover, the Government can consider putting in expedited procedure or following up the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I believe that on this accretion on the Bill, put in by another place—which, it has been suggested by at least two noble Lords, has no right to tinker with the Standing Orders in this House—we must divide, unless the Government are prepared to accept my amendment.
5.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.125P) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 145; Not-Contents, 151.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Airedale, L.

Alport, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gregson, L.

Attlee, E.

Grey, E.

Aylestone, L.

Halsbury, E.

Banks, L.

Hamwee, B.

Barnett, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Healey, L.

Birk, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hollick, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bottomley, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Brimelow, L.

Hooson, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Hughes, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hunt, L.

Carter, L.

Hylton, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Jacques, L.

Crook, L.

Jay, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Jeger, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

David, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Desai, L.

Judd, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Kagan, L.

Donoughue, L.

Kennet, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Eatwell, L.

Kilmamock, L.

Ennals, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ezra, L.

Lawrence, L.

Falkender, B.

Listowel, E.

Falkland, V.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Lockwood, B.

Foot, L.

Longford, E.

Gallacher, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Galpern, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Gladwyn, L.

McCarthy, L.

Glenamara, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

745

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Russell, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Scanlon, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Seear, B.

Mar, C.

Serota, B.

Marsh, L.

Shackleton, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Shepherd, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Mayhew, L.

Stedman, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mishcon, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Molloy, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Monson, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Mulley, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Varley, L.

Nicol, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ogmore, L.

Walpole, L.

Peston, L.

Weatherill, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Wharton, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

White, B.

Rea, L.

Wigoder, L.

Redesdale, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Richard, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Rochester, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Aldington, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Arran, E.

Gisborough, L.

Astor, V.

Goold, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Goschen, V.

Auckland, L.

Gray, L.

Barber, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Greenway, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hacking, L.

Blatch, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Blyth, L.

Borthwick, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Harrowby, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Haslam, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Henley, L.

Burton, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Cadman, L.

Hives, L.

Caithness, E.

Holderness, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hooper, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hothfield, L.

Carnock, L.

Howe, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Killearn, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Kimball, L.

Colwyn, L.

Kimberley, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Cox, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Cranborne, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Leigh, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Lindsay, E.

Davidson, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon. E.

Denham, L.

Liverpool, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Long, V.

Derwent, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Downshire, M.

Lyell, L.

Eccles, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Elibank, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Elles, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mancroft, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Manton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Marlesford, L.

Ferŕers, E.

Merrivale, L.

Finsberg, L.

Mersey, V.

Flather, B.

Milverton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

746

Morris, L.

Savile, L.

Mottistone, L.

Sharpies, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Moyne, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Munster, E.

Stewartby, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Nelson, E.

Strange, B.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Onslow, E.

Orkney, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Swinton, E.

Pender, L.

Teviot, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Trumpington, B.

Polwarth, L.

Ullswater, V.

Prentice, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Quinton, L.

Vivian, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Renton, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Renwick, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Wedgwood, L.

St. Davids, V.

Windlesham, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Wise, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Wynford, L.

Sandys, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.43 p.m.
Clause 121 [Pensions]:
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 121, line 32, at end insert:
("(1A) Nothing in Schedule 10 nor in any order made by the Secretary of State under Schedule 10 shall to any extent undermine the current expectations of Railway staff, deferred pensioners and pensioners to index-linked pension payments and to sharing in the benefits of actuarial surpluses declared in respect of Railway pension schemes.").
The noble Lord said: In the Bill now before the Committee the Government are proposing far-reaching changes as to both the ownership and operation of the railways. There are widespread doubts as to the wisdom of their proposals. However, there can be no doubt as to the rightness and determination of your Lordships to ensure that pensioners' rights are not interfered with or undermined as a result of action taken by the Government to which they will never be, in any sense, a party.
In the White Paper on pensions the Government made it clear that privatisation would not affect pensions already being paid from or preserved in British Rail schemes. The White Paper also stated that the arrangements provided a way of,
"ensuring that the security of rights enjoyed by pensioners and members now is not undermined".
I want to set out the account as briefly as I can. In the event, on 20th May the Government announced in a Written Answer that in their view, it would be impracticable to allocate pensioners to the successor companies and that therefore a closed fund would be set up.
Without some guarantee of solvency, that inevitably meant that pensioners would be dependent upon investment performance. Investment performance could, of course, be subject to certain hazards. For instance, inflation could materially change the situation of the fund; so could any changes in

747
taxation. The fund could also be affected if pensioners lived longer than the actuaries decided that they should. There would be a similar risk from any mistaken strategy on which the trustees embarked.
In present circumstances, without the developments envisaged in the Bill, any deficiency that occurred in the fund would be remedied by the employer—British Rail—and by the present contributors—the employees. I received strong calls from a number of honourable friends in another place, particularly my honourable friend the Member for Eastleigh, who has many railway pensioners in his constituency. He was particularly worried that the Bill should have left another place without any guarantee for the pensioners.
I share those anxieties to the full and, in accommodation with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, I tabled Amendment No. 126. I do not believe that it would be betraying any confidence or exaggerating in any way if I said that that amendment precipitated some argument in government circles. Happily, that argument ended in a welcome and rather unexpected way yesterday when the memorandum of understanding was signed by the chairman of the pension company, the finance member of the British Railways Board and the Minister of State.
As the Committee will be aware—though I should like to put it on record—it gave an absolute guarantee of solvency for retail prices index-linked payments from the fund of pensions in payment or deferred on 1st October 1994. That was a major step which I am sure receives the Committee's warm welcome. However, it leaves three further questions to which I hope my noble friend on the Front Bench will give further thought between now and Report stage, even if he cannot answer them today.
First, there is the question of increases granted after 1st October 1994. Would it not be appropriate if those, too, were covered by the guarantee? After all, they will have been approved by the government-appointed director and presumably also by the government actuary, who under the agreement will be joint actuary to the fund. I also wonder why the proportion of surplus distributed should be 40:60–40 per cent. to the employees and 60 per cent. to a reserve fund instead of perhaps the other way round. It is a question that I put to my noble friend but to which I do not attach the same degree of importance as I do to the guarantee of solvency.
The Secretary of State appears to have won the argument absolutely hands down. It leads me to wonder why on earth the Government waited so long. Had they taken this step earlier on there is no doubt in my mind that a great deal of the odium and suspicion which have been generated would have been avoided and a great deal of unease on the part of the pensioners need never have occurred. I wish to make it clear at the beginning of the debate that I would not like now to take any step myself which would suggest that the Secretary of State had somehow let the pensioners down when in fact I believe that he has secured their rights in a very impressive manner.
Before I finish I should like to quote from a letter which I received today from Mr. Derek Fowler, the
748
chairman of the British Rail Pension Trustee Company. It is not the same letter as he has written to everyone else. It refers particularly to the amendment that we are now discussing. What I had personally asked him was whether he would get his people to draft an amendment—your Lordships may think that it is an unusual requirement—in very flat-footed terms which your Lordships would find no difficulty in understanding, many of the amendments which come before your Lordships—this is not meant to be in any way offensive—being absolutely way beyond any possibility of comprehension by ordinary people.
The letter states:
"When we first met on 22nd June we identified three principal objectives:

1. to obtain a Government solvency guarantee for the proposed closed fund and for those scheme members remaining in BR employment.

2. the guarantee to extend index linking of pensions;

3. an opportunity for scheme members to participate in fund surpluses if they arise.

Those were the aims of the original amendment to Clause 121 of the Railways Bill which you tabled in the House of Lords and, I am pleased to say that the Memorandum of Agreement on Security of Railways Pensions, which I signed yesterday, meets those objectives".
I wish to end on one different request which concerns the point that I was making just now. If the Government had reached this decision earlier I do not think anyone would necessarily have expected any expression of it on the face of the Bill. As it is, I very much hope that my noble friend will do more than just consider finding a place for an amendment on the face of the Bill to enshrine the principles which are contained in that memorandum.
This is an important measure and this in itself is an extremely important amendment. It is an extremely important repair to what was a very, very serious weakness in the Bill, and as such I think that it should be on the face of it leaving no doubt as to its importance. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: In view of what my noble friend has said with regard to the Government's position, I hope that it will be to the advantage of the Committee if I outline exactly what it is. My noble friend explained it very carefully. I have writ ten to as many of your Lordships as possible who have an interest in this issue, but I see in the Chamber some noble Lords to whom I have not written. Therefore, perhaps I may set it on the record and then come back at the end of the debate to answer any ,points which your Lordships may have.
In the White Paper published last year the Government gave the following commitment:
"Privatisation will not affect pensions already being paid from or preserved in British Rail schemes. After privatisation employees will be entitled to preserve pension rights already accrued in these schemes. Alternatively, they will have the opportunity to transfer their accrued pension into a broadly comparable scheme in their new employment. These arrangements will provide a way of ensuring that the security of rights enjoyed by pensioners and members now is not undermined by privatisation'.
In January we published a consultation paper on railway pensions after privatisation which outlined' our proposals and invited comments from all interested parties. The ensuing consultation has been both genuine and extremely thorough. In announcing

749
his proposals—which incorporated a number of concessions given as a result of the consultation process—in another place on 20th May, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport reaffirmed his objective to preserve the security of rights enjoyed by pensioners and members while adopting arrangements to suit the new structure of the privatised industry. He announced that a joint rail industry pension scheme would succeed the present scheme and that existing staff would retain an individual right to remain in the scheme for as long as they are employed in the industry. These arrangements for active members of the BR pension schemes have been welcomed by all concerned.
It is common ground that special arrangements must be made for pensioners. The nature of the railway industry and this privatisation makes it impossible to identify the present pensioners with specific parts of the railway. We therefore proposed that the existing pension fund should be shared between pensioners and active members on a fair—that is, actuarially determined—basis and that the trustees would go on administering the part of the fund allocated to pensioners. The pensioners should have the benefit of any surplus that there might be.
However, when my right honourable friend met the trustees on 24th June—two days after the now well known Peyton meeting—they told him that the Government's preferred option was unacceptable because in their view it did not safeguard pensioners' benefits sufficiently. The trustees asked that the pensioners' funds should have a solvency guarantee from BR, which effectively means from the Government, to underpin index linking and that the pensioners should have an opportunity of real increases if there was surplus in the fund.
In the light of those representations the Government have been giving a great deal of thought to the possibility of a third option for pensioners which would reflect the concern which we share with the BR Pension Trustee Company and the British Railways Board that the pensions of existing, deferred and future BR pensioners should be fully protected after privatisation. Of course, the Government have to protect the interests of taxpayers. We have now reached a joint agreement with the trustees and with the BR Board that will meet our common objectives. Copies of the memorandum of understanding have, as I have said, been made available to a number of Members of the Committee, and have also been placed in the Library.
6 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Will the noble Earl give way? Again, he has referred here to agreement being reached with the trustees. Is he saying that the trustees have agreed today to the document, or is it simply an agreement which was reached with the chairman of the trustees alone and has not yet been validated by thQ trustees as a whole?
The Earl of Caithness: I shall come back to the precise detail of that. As I understand it, the
750
memorandum of understanding is binding on the trustees as it is binding on the Government and as it is binding on the British Rail Board. We have agreed that a closed fund for the existing and deferred pensioners should be set up with a target date of 1st October 1994. The essential features are as follows: the Government will provide an absolute solvency guarantee for retail prices index-linked payments for pensions already in payment and those which have been deferred. Pensioners may benefit from up to 40 per cent. of any surpluses generated in the fund. Up to 60 per cent. of any surpluses will be held in a special reserve against future deficiencies. That is in the same ratio as contributions to the fund have been divided between the employer and employees in normal circumstances.
The government actuary will be a joint actuary to the fund. The Government will appoint a director of the trustee company whose consent will be required for the distribution of any surplus, strategic decisions on investment policy and other matters which could have a significant impact on the finances of the fund and on any guarantee of benefits granted from a surplus. The government director will also decide on investment of the special reserve.
The Government remain committed, under the Transport Act 1980, to support payments to certain BR pension funds. We will agree the timing of such payments with the trustees, taking account of the absolute guarantee now being provided. The joint actuaries will prepare at least triennially a valuation of the fund together with a statement of any surplus or deficiency and an assessment of the appropriateness of investments.
These arrangements will, for existing and deferred pensioners, underpin the Government's undertaking that the treatment of pensioners after privatisation will be safeguarded. We have been informed by both the chairman of the trustee company and of the BR board that they endorse these proposals which, in their view, satisfy the Government's commitments.
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Peyton for reading out part of the letter which he received today from Mr. Fowler, the chairman of the trustees, who has said that what we have agreed now meets the three aims that my noble friend's amendment was designed to achieve. Although the Government have made a commitment that they wish to fulfil, I have to admit that my noble friend's amendment was always there in case our performance did not come up to scratch.
The Government's commitment to these arrangements and to making them work is total. Many, if not all of them, will operate within the framework of existing legislation or within the Bill as presently drafted. I say this to my noble friend Lord Peyton: I shall be looking with particular care at the detail to ensure that there is no gap in the legislative provision. If there is such a gap, the Government will move at Report stage such amendments as may be needed to plug it. That sets out the new government position on this very important issue. I look forward to the debate and will come back on any points of detail at the end.
Lord Marsh: Because of the pressure on the Bill it is unfortunate that, on issues of this size, documents are circulated almost in the course of the debate which makes it very difficult sometimes to form a view on quite complex issues. I believe that the misunderstanding—the memorandum of understanding (that was Freudian, but I am quite prepared to accept it) is undoubtedly the best deal that the trustees could have obtained from the Government. I have no doubts about that.
I do not believe that, as currently drafted, it represents a fair deal for the pensioners. I regret that if I am right —I shall be very happy to be wrong obviously—this Committee will allow a significant erosion of the expectations of the present members of the pension fund. At this stage I should declare a personal interest because my only claim to uniqueness in this House is the fact that I believe I am the only Member who is directly affected by this amendment as a member of the British. Rail pension fund. But it is a very small interest which is a significant fact. My British Rail pension has no impact on my lifestyle at all. For the vast bulk of the members of that fund however (175,000), apart from state benefits, it is their only source of income. It is a low-paid industry. Even if one allows for and takes into account the very large number of graduate technicians, accountants, financial people, senior executive staff and top management, the average weekly pension is £40 a week, which is slightly over £2,000 a year. For the benefit of the statisticians in the Committee, if one takes the median, it is £35 a week. Any variation in the small sum of £2 or £3 is virtually the difference between having any kind of small luxury and not having it.
Therefore I make no apologies whatever for harping on the point that in no way should their expectations—based on what they have seen happen over recent years as members of that scheme—be reduced as a result of the transfer which arises through no, action on their part. It arises because the Government of the day strongly believe that the Bill will bring about greater efficiency and financial benefit to the electorate as a whole. Therefore, they are caught up in this. The Government have no alternative. They have produced the Bill and there has to be a closed fund established in this way. Therefore, it is my belief that the pensioners should be protected against any diminution whatever of their expectations.
I am not deeply moved or impressed by the fact that the Government have moved a long way. With the aid of the Opposition in another place, the Government found themselves defending the indefensible. They were hooked on a proposition for the pensioners which was so bad that, if it had been offered in the private sector—I speak as someone who earns his living in the private sector in the field of insurance and financial services—those responsible would have been disciplined by the appropriate regulatory authorities for bad advice. So the Government had to retreat from that.
I see no great wondrousness in giving a solvency guarantee. Of course, morally the Government had to give it because, if there is no stream of contributory
752
income into the scheme, there is no other way of maintaining solvency. No government of the real world would allow a public pension fund to go bust because it had become insolvent.
I stress that I am not wildly enthusiastic about this measure. The changes which have been made and the point at issue have nothing whatever to do with nationalisation, denationalisation or privatisation; nor is it involved in comparisons with any other scheme. From time to time civil servants have been mentioned and comparisons with the Civil Service scheme, which is non-contributory, made. I could list pension schemes which are better than the BR scheme, and others which are worse than the BR scheme. These pensioners are in a scheme and are currently receiving pensions for which they have paid and about which they have certain expectations. They have an expectation that not only will the pension fund meet the index, but that sometimes, when it creates a surplus as it has, they will get real increases in pension. That has happened in the past and it is reasonable for them to expect it in the future. They have an expectation that sometimes there will be surpluses in the fund if it is properly managed, and that from those surpluses they will be able to improve benefits for their dependants by perhaps a couple of pounds a week. All those are expectations of the current scheme.
Let us look at what is proposed. The Minister read from the Government's document, which sets out the basis of the provisions, stating:
"We have sought throughout to satisfy the following principles: pensions in payment should be secure in real terms".
That is inescapable. It is a moral obligation on any employer whose staff are being moved from a pension scheme that already does that.
The document then states that,
"existing, deferred and future pensioners should have a reasonable opportunity to obtain benefits from any surplus there might be, as they do at present".
In my view, under these proposals the pensioners will not be able to do that,
"as they do at present".
I refer to the final and crucial point, the weasel words not only of the Treasury, but of actuaries of the Treasury—an unholy combination of occupation. It states that,
"the taxpayer's interests should be protected".
Taxpayers' interests are not an element of this matter. The Government have to accept the responsibility for the changes that they are making to the pension fund. They must therefore accept the financial consequences that go with it. The one follows the other. If that increases public expenditure, which it will, then that has to happen.
The solvency guarantee is essential. But the Government are demanding that the pensioners pay quite a high price for it. As I understand the very brief outline, the trustees will, on the advice of the actuaries, be able to award real increases in pension when the fund is in surplus, as they do now. That is fine. But that happens now and is therefore part of the pensioners' expectations. Alternatively, the trustees might use the surplus to improve widows' benefits. However, under the present provisions, the Government will first of all demand that 60 per cent.

753
of any of those surpluses shall accrue to a fund which is, as I understand it, to cushion the Government's solvency guarantee. Normal practice in privately run pension funds would be that if those surpluses had to be distributed, they would at least be distributed on a 50:50 basis. However, since the Committee is not discussing the matter in any detail, Members do not realise that in the BR scheme those surpluses have in the past been distributed so that two-thirds have gone to the pensioners. Under the present proposals, however, 60 per cent. will go to the reserves.
But even that is not true. As I understand it—and this is a point upon which I would dearly like to be told by the Minister that I am wrong—if, after taking actuarial advice, the trustees decide to make some additional benefit out of those surpluses to give a real increase in pensions or to give some additional widows' benefits, they will be able to do that after the Government's 60 per cent. has been tucked on one side. But things may change in the years to come due to a slump, adverse economic conditions or government taxation, such as ACT, and the fund may be suddenly hit and go into deficit. The Government have a formula for dealing with that. Members of the Committee will have read it, and it is clear. The formula states that,
"in the event of a deficiency, the Government guarantee will be called on the basis of the following formula:
Benefits payable x Deficiency/Total Liabilities".
It may sound gobbledegook, but I think that it is a significant comment. As I understand the formula, it would mean that in the absence of a stream of income (because there is no contribution income) the deficit can only be met by a reduction of the pension. I do not know of any other way in which one could meet the deficit. I should be grateful if the Minister can give me a clear undertaking that I am totally wrong and that there is no way in which that gives the Government, the trustees or the government actuary any powers to reduce the pension.
Lord Clinton-Davis: It is clear that the noble Lord, with his great expertise in this field, has researched the document carefully. I am a little puzzled by the indent in paragraph 2 which states:
"existing, deferred and future pensioners should have a reasonable opportunity to obtain benefits".
Why should it not read, "Existing, deferred and future pensioners should obtain benefits"? I do not understand those words. I wondered whether the noble Lord believes that there may be something sinister in them or whether they are simply otiose.
Lord Marsh: That is exactly the sort of question that I should like the Minister to answer. I have grave anxieties about the document. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, pays me too much credit in saying that I have studied the document carefully. I received it at about lunchtime. I have had a quick look at it. If anybody came into my office where we employ actuaries, where we manufacture pension products and where we employ nearly 1,000 people to sell them, and said to me, "We have a new pension scheme, chief executive, and would like to have a quick chat about
754
it. I'll leave it with you for half-an-hour and then come back. Is that OK?", that person would be looking for a new job the next morning. But that is the way in which the Bill is being run. I should like the Minister to answer such questions.
There is no point in continuing in this vein. One can make a number of criticisms and express a number of concerns, but this issue has not been discussed. At 5.30 p.m. yesterday, the chairman and chief executive of the trust were with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and myself and at that stage they did not even have a copy of the memorandum of understanding, so I do not know how much consideration can have been given to it.
Finally, I deal with the constant reiteration of the fact that the trustees agree with the provisions. That is rather like the condemned man when he mounts the scaffold. He does not have a great deal of choice. There is not much point in his doing anything else. One of the trustees expressed that to me very clearly when I was waxing somewhat strongly on the subject. He said, "We have no negotiating power with the Government. We have no sanctions. We have no pressures that we can apply. We strike the best deal that we can, but in any case, unlike you, as legislators, we have to live with the machine next year, the year after and for the future." That was the best deal that the trustees could have made. I do not believe that it was the best deal that this Committee could have obtained.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 126AZA which is grouped with the government amendment and with the amendment which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. Perhaps, however, I should first advise the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that I enjoy black pudding. I gathered that the noble Lord wanted an amendment in "black pudding form"—that is what I thought that I heard him say—so that we could easily understand it. I enjoy black pudding. I speak with some feeling on public service pensions. When I came from another place in 1971, having been employed as a civil servant in the Post Office for some years, after the normal five-year period of leave from the Post Office, I wrote and sought to have my Post Office pension transferred to the House of Commons Pension Fund. I received one of those replies that was worth framing. It said:
"Dear Mr. Ewing, you are regarded as having deserted the service, and therefore you have no pension rights".
So when I speak about railwaymen's pensions, it is with some feeling and some pain. But I must first address myself to the amendments standing in my name on the Marshalled List.
Those amendments are designed to prevent franchisees, in their applications for franchises, from making their bids competitive, in the case of passenger train services or any other aspect of the franchises, by offering to their employees, or prospective employees, pensions which would be worse than the pensions being paid by another applicant franchisee; and in the case of the transfer of BR assets to another company, to ensure that that company could not bid for the

755
transfer of those assets by making its bid competitive by offering pensions to its employees which were lower than the pensions being paid to BR's employees.
I hope that the Minister will accept that that is an important aspect of this legislation, because we are now discussing occupational pensions. The Committee will accept, and understand clearly, that that is what we are discussing. We are discussing occupational pensions in an atmosphere, and against a background, where occupational pensions are assuming a greater importance than they have ever assumed in the history of occupational pensions in this country, and for a number of reasons. The Government, the Labour Party and, I suspect the Liberal Democrats also, are looking at the benefits and the way in which they play a part in this country's economy. If any action is taken which diminishes the level of occupational pensions in this country, that will place upon the taxpayer—this is the very thing that the Government are seeking to avoid—an obligation to ensure that the state pension is increased to a level that takes account of the reduction in the occupational pension. Those bidding for the franchise of the passenger services or the transfer of BR's assets should not he allowed to tender a bid which is made competitive purely and simply as a result of lower pensions being paid to their employees. That would be a retrograde step.
I would not want the Committee to think that I am somehow painting an impossible scenario. I shall come to the memorandum of agreement in a minute. I know from a letter written by the Government's Chief Actuary (Mr. Ballantyne) to the Treasury in May of this year, that he describes BR's pension scheme and the employees' indefeasible right to remain in the BR pension scheme as a Trojan horse. He explains to the Treasury that the Trojan horse of the BR pension scheme will deny the Government any benefits from their privatisation programme. It is significant that in the memorandum of agreement that we have been given today, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said, we see that one of the appointees to the board of the closed pension fund, and to the railway industry pension fund (the BR Industry Pension Fund) that is to be set up, is the self same government actuary who described the fund in his letter to the Treasury of 19th May of this year as a "Trojan horse". I have to say with the greatest respect to the government actuary involved that he hardly comes to that position with impartial thoughts on the pension fund.
I am aware that we shall have a further opportunity to discuss the matter in the autumn, because of the Government's decision to recommit Schedule 10 to a further Committee stage before we go on to the Report stage. I am grateful to the Minister and his colleagues for giving us that opportunity, because this issue is crucial. In many ways it is not a party political issue. It is about the pension rights of people who have contributed substantial parts of their earnings for a substantial period of their working life, to ensure that when they retire they have at least a reasonable—the
756
noble Lord, Lord Marsh, made it clear that it is not generous—income with which they could sustain themselves.
In the memorandum with which we have been furnished, the Government propose that a closed fund should be established for existing and deferred pensioners. It is a closed fund without continuing contributions. All right, the Government have given a guarantee of solvency. That, I accept is important, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, I should like to hear the Minister explain why the decision has been taken to divide the profits, if there should be profits arising from the investment income—the only way that the fund can prosper is from the investment income—60:40, with 60 per cent. of the profits going into the special reserve and only 40 per cent. (the memorandum of agreement says, "up to 40 per cent." and "up to 60 per cent ") of the maximum being allocated to improve the pensions of those who are members of this closed pension fund.
With great respect, I feel that the Committee has missed another important point in the memorandum. The Government are to appoint a director of the closed fund who will have total powers of veto. If the government director of the closed fund decides that a particular investment will not be allowed, then, so be it, that investment will not be allowed. Every action that takes place inside that closed fund is subject to the approval of the government director of the fund. As I understand it, the government director is not the same person as the government actuary, because the government actuary is described in the memorandum as being the joint actuary to the fund, not the government director. He is different from that other appointment with which I am now dealing, and he has those draconian powers.
As a result of the presence of the government director, the Treasury has a stranglehold on the fund. I should like to hear the Minister explain also how on earth the trustee company, on the one hand, and the financial controller of BR signing the document on behalf of BRB, on the other, came to accept such an appointment with such draconian powers. I do not wish to drive a wedge between the chairman of the trustee company and his chief executive and the rest of the board members. That is not part of my policy.
However, I say to the noble Earl and to the Committee that it cannot be claimed that this document has been accepted by the board of the trustee company. It has not been accepted by the board of the trustee company. Not only has it not been accepted, it has not even been discussed. There was a meeting of the board of the trustees on 7th July and this matter was not even on the agenda. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that this document has been accepted by the board of the trustee company. It may be accepted—I do not know what the board will decide when it comes to discuss the matter. However, the one thing that cannot be claimed in Committee today is that the board of the trustee company has discussed the document and accepted it. In fact, it has not. I suspect that the position of the Government on the one hand and the chairman and chief executive of the trustee company on the other hand has been

757
weakened if only as a result of our debate. We have had the opportunity to point out some of the deficiencies in the document.
I turn briefly to the other pension fund because there are two. I have dealt with the closed pension fund and now I move to the future pension fund: the railway industry pension fund, which is to be established to deal with future pensioners and those continuing in the employment of British Railways. The employees will be in the British Railways sector of the railway industry pension fund; that is another new fund. It is interesting to note the powers given to the Secretary of State for Transport in respect of that fund. There is no provision that the Government will make good any deficiency in the fund. There is no provision that the Treasury will make a special contribution to make good the deficiency and sustain the pension fund, as is sometimes the case with such funds. The Bill provides that, if the government actuary and the pension fund actuary jointly sign a certificate declaring that there is or is likely to be a deficiency in the railway industry pension fund, the Secretary of State for Transport will decide how that deficiency is to be made good. In my view it is possible that it will be decided to increase the members' contribution from reasonably low wages. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, the railway industry is low paid. The deficiency will be made good by an increase in the employees' contributions.
There are good grounds for saying that. If a franchisee makes a bid for the franchise and is awarded that on certain agreed conditions, I am 99 per cent. certain that one of those agreed conditions will not be that the franchisee will meet any deficiency in the railway industry pension fund. I am the first to accept that progress has been made but a number of points have yet to be addressed. For that reason I am grateful that Schedule 10 is to be recommitted to a further Committee stage in the autumn. Part of the advantage of our debate today is that we can flag the concerns so that the Minister and his officials can take them on board. It is to be hoped that when we return in the autumn we shall have a more cohesive and secure pension fund future for present and future employees of British Railways.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: I have previously taken no part in the discussions. I do so now only because I have the responsibility for the closed fund of the water industry. I am chairman of the National Rivers Authority and chairman of the pensions committee which looks after its fund. I saw the memorandum of understanding for only a few minutes and I intervene only on the basis of what I have heard in the debate. My noble friend Lord Caithness, whose role in Government is ubiquitous, will recall that on another occasion he was sitting on the Government Front Bench dealing with precisely the same issues as regards the water industry. He will recall that he then gave certain undertakings.
The British Railways pensioners have at least one advantage over the water industry in that they have a
758
memorandum of understanding. The water industry still relies on the undertakings given by my noble friend and on certain letters sent afterwards, but those have not been translated into formal agreements. We hope that that will happen soon.
I wish to make only two points arising from that experience. I believe that my noble friend said that when the closed fund is set up there will be an appropriate distribution of assets between the closed fund and the ongoing fund on actuarial principles. Actuarial principles are fine but there is another aspect to the matter. When the distribution happened in the case of the water industry it was made on perfectly appropriate actuarial principles and it happened that the distribution took place at an all-time peak in the stock and property markets. At that time all property investments and all the unquoted investments in the then pension funds of the water industry were transferred to the closed fund. All the property investments and all the unquoted investments were transferred, as I have said, at an all-time peak in the markets. It will not be difficult for people to understand that that created a major problem for those managing the fund.
Managing a closed fund is a difficult operation in any event. A closed fund has no income but substantial pensions must be paid out. It declines in value and eventually disappears altogether. One does not always have a choice about when to sell the assets. One has to distribute resources at a moment when the markets may be down and when the situation may be very uncomfortable. That is the point that I wish to make.
I hope that when the matter is investigated the distribution of assets will not be on actuarial principles alone but also on a fair investment distribution. I would not wish anyone to be lumbered with the task that my organisation has had in trying to protect the interests of pensioners and taxpayers. There is also an undertaking as regards the taxpayer and if that is not fulfilled adequately the Treasury has to step in at the end of the day. I do not want anyone else to have such a difficult task to perform.
Of course, it is not only the taxpayer who will be at risk because we have heard about the way in which certain funds are to be allocated on a 60/40 basis and the protection of those interests. It is clear that if the matter is not properly handled we could have a situation that is detrimental not only to the taxpayers but also to the pensioners. I hope that that matter will be addressed by the Government and that a more satisfactory arrangement will be made on this occasion than was the case with the water industry.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: I congratulate the Minister on achieving a solvency guarantee, which was much needed. However, I listened with great attention to my noble friends Lord Peyton and Lord Crickhowell and to the noble Lords, Lord Marsh and Lord Ewing, who pointed out that the memorandum of understanding, which for a fully understandable reason the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, referred to as misunderstanding, a true Freudian slip, is packed full of potential

759
misunderstandings. It needs to be looked at. At this stage of the game, there is no small grey print on the back of the page but no doubt that will follow.
I should like to bring the matter down to more realistic figures which I can understand. The pension board tells me that the closed fund may easily go on for 85 years. That is a very long time. If we think forward 85 years, that will take us to about the year 2078. It is easier to go back which takes us to 1908. Looking around the Committee, I do not believe that there is anybody here at present who was born before 1908, although earlier in the day the noble Earl, Lord Longford, was present. That demonstrates the scale of the matter.
Earlier the noble Lord referred to the possibility of the fund becoming depleted due to railwaymen living longer than expected, which is a growing trend. I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that at this very moment there is a railwayman aged 105½ years, a Mr. V. G. Gulliver, whose last place of work was at Gorton Motive Power depot as a shedman. If he had a full railway career, starting at age 14, he probably joined the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincoln Company before it was so ill-advised as to become the Great Central Railway and build an extension—or London branch as it was called—to Marylebone Station. Among the pensioners, there are 3,419 who are already aged over 90 of whom 44 are aged 100 and over--an unsurpassed record of longevity which makes Members of your Lordships' House feel quite young. It certainly does me.
The main catch that I see in this memorandum of understanding is the division of the surplus. It certainly differs from current practice. My noble friend on the Front Bench disagrees with me but perhaps he will let me have my say first. Perhaps he will then be able to refute me. I understand that current practice is that two-thirds or thereabouts of the surplus has been distributed and that 40 per cent. has been the company's contribution. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, with his vast experience in this field, says that 50 per cent. is regarded more or less as par for the course and that British Rail has done better. I believe that we must have a good explanation from my noble friend as to the 40 per cent. It looks like typical Treasury parsimony and, as I mentioned before, that was the firm which invented green shoots and we have since heard that it was also the firm that cannot run its works canteen.
We must spend a lot of time examining this memorandum and its further details. I was telephoned at half-past six yesterday evening and told that an agreement had been reached and that under the circumstances, the matter was regarded as satisfactory. However, I felt that British Rail pension board representatives were facing rather a glass-eyed opponent. I hope that we can have a good explanation from my noble friend that things are better than they sound as though they will be.
Lord Greene of Harrow Weald: On Second Reading there was mention of the fact that pensions and superannuation funds would be difficult matters for us to discuss. I am delighted to hear today that most of the people who have spoken on the subject have said
760
that they do not wish to see railwaymen any worse off than they are at present. I sincerely hope that that will be carried out.
As regards the amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Peyton of Yeovil and Lord Marsh—the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, was once upon a time my favourite Minister of Transport arid later on, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, was my favourite chairman of British Railways—
Lord Marsh: You hid it at the time.
Lord Greene of Harrow Weald: I got on very well with both noble Lords. I understood every word that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said to me when I went to see him. I am indebted to the amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Peyton and Lord Marsh, because it sets out very clearly what seems to be the view that has been expressed around the Committee today.
I understand from the people of the railway pension fund, who send their letters to me—the British Railways Pension Trustee Company Limited—that at present they are not satisfied with the situation being presented to them by the Government. I understand that in the discussions which took place some time ago two proposals were put forward. One was that an appropriate portion of each fund should be set aside as a closed scheme. The other was that a certain amount of money should be transferred to the Government. I understand that in the end the Government accepted that an appropriate portion of each fund should be set aside as a closed scheme and pensioners would then depend for their security on the future investment performance of the fund since there would be no residual liability imposed on the railway industry employers or any undertaking from the Government. I have no need to mention the other proposal because I understand that the Government will not apply it.
At a meeting with the trustees' fund in May Mr. John MacGregor gave the assurance:
"When the fund is closed, it will have sufficient funds to secure actuarial calculated liabilities. That is the crucial point for all pensioners. Benefits will be as slated in the rules including index-linking but if the fund does better than expected, further enhancement of pensions may be made".
That raises another problem. The assumption is that the fund will be closed. Therefore one asks what will happen in connection with future employees of the railways or future employees of franchisees. One might ask why they cannot be included in the funds. Apparently that is not the wish of the Government. If the fund is closed, that raises the serious position that there will be no income from the members. If there is any difficulty in connection with balances, it will not be possible to adjust the contributions that people are likely to make to the fund. In other words, it will be necessary to depend purely on what is gained from investments. If investments fall short, that will raise a problem, coupled with the fact that it will not be possible to improve the position.
The people of the pension fund say that the Government's proposals still leave pensioners in a less secure position than at present.

761
Their pensions are at risk in future because of the removal of the present strong protection against any investment shortfall. A solvency guarantee is needed to safeguard current pensions expectations fully.
There will be a problem if the funds are to be closed. That is not really in accordance with what the Government said when they issued this privatisation Bill; namely, that the pensions of railwaymen will be no worse than they are now. My friends at the British Railways Pension Trustee Company Limited are not satisfied at all with the position. If we want to make the position clear, the amendment in the names of the noble Lords. Lord Peyton and Lord Marsh, and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, should be carried. We do not want people to be any worse off under privatisation in terms of their pensions than they are now. I assume that the future employees of the new franchises will not wish to be any worse off than the people who are already employed by British Rail. I sincerely hope that the Minister will take another look at the position. I hope that Amendment No. 126 will be accepted.
Lord Clinton-Davis: This has been a useful debate because it has given us the opportunity to consider the document so recently presented to us. I might add that it was presented in great haste. Obviously that was done with the intention of avoiding government embarrassment today. Clearly many questions have been posed on which the Government need to reflect. I propose to ask a number of further questions.
I am puzzled by the status of this memorandum of understanding. Ciearly, there could have been no opportunity for the trustees to have considered the document as a body. Is the chairman authorised to sign on behalf of the trustees when they have not even considered it? That cannot be right. At the outset of this debate, the Minister said that his understanding was that the document bound the trustees and all the parties. I must question that. I hope that even if the Minister cannot answer all the points that I will raise this evening, he can answer that point as it goes to the heart of the document that has been produced in such great haste.
Lord Finsberg: I am a trustee of a major pension fund in this country. It would not be unusual for the trustees, if they are engaged in negotiation with a deadline ahead, to authorise their chairman to agree something on their behalf and leave it to his discretion. That would not be unusual.
Lord Clinton-Davis: While that may be the case, there is no evidence that it was the situation here. I have heard from two trustees who say they have not considered the document and that no such authority was given to the chairman. Therefore, I must repeat the question that I raised. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments because if I am wrong about the matter I am perfectly prepared to resile from the point. However, on the evidence that we have, I believe that that is not the situation. I intend to embark upon some analysis of the document but I wish to know whether it is the Government's intention
762
to introduce this matter somehow or other onto the face of the Bill. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, put that point.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Perhaps the noble Lord would like me to clear the matter up. What I said was that in so important a matter, where the Government had obviously changed their mind, it was important that there should be a clear reference to this matter on the face of the Bill. My noble friend in reply did not actually meet that point, I must admit. I intended to return to it later. However, he said that he would look carefully at the Bill to see whether, in his opinion, there were legislative gaps. What I am interested in him doing is filling the legislative gap which I see and not the one which he may not see.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I do not need to take the matter any further. The Minister is seized of the point. I am not quite as satisfied with the memorandum of understanding as, it seems, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is. I share some of the scepticism that has been bruited by a number of Members of the Committee in the course of the debate. In the course of the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, I raised a point which worried me. Perhaps I am worrying unduly although I am not sure that that is the case. There is a phrase in the second paragraph of the memorandum of understanding that I simply do not understand. It states:
"We have sought throughout to satisfy the following principles … existing, deferred and future pensioners should have a reasonable opportunity to obtain benefits from any surplus there might be, as they do at present".
What does "have a reasonable opportunity" mean? Why cannot the memorandum simply say that pensioners should obtain benefits from any surplus, as they do at present? Does it mean that the new scheme will be exactly comparable to what exists at present, or will some pensioners perhaps do better than average while others may do worse? If that is the construction, how will those pensioners be protected, and should they not be protected?
I now turn to the question of the director. The document states:
"the Government will appoint a Director of the Trustee Company".
The powers he will enjoy are considerable. His consent will be required,
"to the distribution of any surplus, strategic decisions on investment policy and other matters which could have a significant impact on the finances of the fund; and to any guarantee of benefits granted from a surplus. The Government director will also decide on the investment of the special reserve".
Those are very wide powers. Where do the trustees stand in relation to all that? They are expected, presumably, to cede powers which they would ordinarily have to the director. Will they be required to obtain directions from the court to require them to do that because a memorandum of understanding is not enforceable in any way? It may become enforceable—that remains to be seen—but as it stands at the present time, the trustees are expected to cede considerable powers. I do not know on what authority they can do so.

763
Is there any precedent for what is being established here? The Minister referred to certain precedents of a dubious character in an earlier debate. Perhaps he can cite some precedents for this extraordinary power that is being devolved upon the director. The trustees have a fiduciary duty to do everything which the director will now do. But to whom is the director responsible? Does he have a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries, or is his duty to be to the Government? That needs to be made clear.
Then we come to the question of future BR pensions. What happens to those who transfer to another scheme? Will they have the same safeguards? The memorandum states:
"The Government recognises this safeguard should extend to those who leave BR employment, other than on transfer to another railway pension scheme".
What are we talking about here? What other railway pension schemes do the Government have in mind?
Then there is another provision at the bottom of page 2 which states that:
"The Government, the Pension Trustee Company, and the BR Board recognise that as more staff leave BR and the balance of employees and pensioners changes, special arrangements may be needed to provide the continuing safeguard".
Surely that should not be permissive. It should be mandatory. It should be stated that it "shall be" provided. I should like to know why that is not the case, because it is a matter which is of great importance to pensioners. Why has that provision been made permissive and not mandatory?
I turn now to the question of the Government Actuary. I wonder why it should be the Government Actuary and not an actuary from the private sector who is employed here. Professional actuaries are usually very competent. Why have the Government chosen the Government Actuary? There may be a good reason for that, but I thought that they were privatising everything. Who will pay for the Government Actuary's services for the tasks which he has to undertake under this memorandum of understanding?
In the event of joint actuaries certifying the instability of the fund, is the performance of the duty imposed on the Secretary of State to be for him alone? Is he able to say that he is not in a position to afford to do anything in particular circumstances and therefore will take no action? The position is left hanging in the air.
As regards changes in contribution rates, which could affect future pensioners, the present scheme does not require the approval of the Secretary of State. It is a matter for the board and trustees. Therefore, that represents another element of centralising control by the Secretary of State in relation to the fund. It is a change which has not been explained thus far by the Minister.
On the question of the surpluses, the memorandum of understanding states:
"pensioners may benefit from up to 40% of any surpluses generated in the fund. Up to 60% will be held in reserve (the 'special reserve') against future deficiencies".
Why? Why have the figures of 40 per cent. and 60 per cent. been lighted on? That question was asked by my noble friend Lord Ewing earlier in the debate. What
764
will happen to the surpluses? There may he a fluctuating workforce in the future. People may leave the scheme, and they would leave a residue behind. If wages were to be forced down and large numbers of staff left the fund and new employees did not join the fund, what would happen if over the period of two or three actuarial valuations that surplus became a large sum? Would the Government want to acquire it? The Secretary of State might consider that a greater solvency margin was needed. But how are the pensioners to be consulted in all this? I find the situation totally unsatisfactory.
I am not an expert in this field. I readily concede that. However, when I first considered the document I thought that perhaps the Government had done something remarkable. I am very surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, who is usually so scrupulous about detail, was not far more questioning in relation to these issues. I find that puzzling.
The other points which were raised by my noble friend Lord Ewing are clearly matters which demand answers. In addition, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, put some extremely relevant points to the Minister. I shall be very interested to hear what the noble Earl has to say.
That is enough for the time being. We can return to these matters. I simply wanted to demonstrate that there is still plenty of room for misunderstandings. Perhaps the Minister will be able to correct my misunderstandings. However, when the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, referred to the document as a memorandum of misunderstanding he was not far from the truth.
7 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: The more I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, the more I knew that whatever the Government had brought forward would not have satisfied him. However much we had fulfilled the Government's obligation, however much we had increased opportunities for those involved in such a case as this, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, would not have said "Thank you very much for all that hard work". The noble Lord would have gone through it with the fine lawyer's toothcomb with which he has gone through this particular memorandum and raised similar points. I am sorry about that because I had hoped that the enormous amount of effort made by the trustees, the British Railways Board and my right honourable friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for Public Transport to achieve this agreement., which fulfils the Government's commitment, would have deserved slightly better from the noble Lord.
Lord Clinton-Davis: That is an impossible argument to sustain. The Government have acted with some degree of haste with British Rail and one trustee —the chairman—rather than the trustees as a whole. I do not in any way blame the Minister. The Minister and his staff in the department have no doubt done their best, but they have acted under enormous pressure in order to get everything done before today. As the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said, they had plenty

765
of time. Does the Minister really expect the Opposition to say, "Thank you very much. We shall now go away and we shall not question at all what has happened"? These are serious matters, and the sooner the Minister understands that there are serious questions which go to the heart of the anxieties of 340,000 pensioners the better. He ought to wake up to that fact.
The Earl of Caithness: That is exactly why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has spent so much time on the matter. If the noble Lord had followed the discussions carefully he would realise the amount of time which the trustees, the British Railways Board and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State have put into the matter. As I said when I spoke earlier, there have been a considerable number of meetings. I really expected something better from the noble Lord. I did not doubt that the noble Lord would want to ask questions, but I merely made the point that whatever I had come up with would not have satisfied the noble Lord.
I turn now to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, because nobody else has commented on it and I feel that I must do the noble Lord justice. I shall deal first with the way in which his amendment affects the current serving staff of BR.
As I said earlier, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced on 20th May in another place that a joint industry pension scheme would be established for the railways. He confirmed that the benefits offered by that scheme to BR staff transferring to new employers would be no less favourable than those in the existing BR scheme. Further, BR staff serving at the time of Royal Assent of the Bill would have the indefeasible right, as it is now known, to remain in the joint industry scheme for so long as they remain in the railway industry.
Amendments Nos. 126ZB and 126ZZ, which I would have liked to introduce today but will introduce at another stage, will provide statutory protection for that right under the orders which my right honourable friend will be empowered to make under Schedule 10 to the Bill. That will be in addition to the no less favourable protection that my right honourable friend is empowered to give under orders made under paragraph 6 of the schedule. Together they will ensure that the present employees of BR are not disadvantaged by privatisation and that any who transfer to a private-sector employer will retain pension entitlements no less favourable than those which they have at present. It follows, therefore, that figures for franchises or purchasers of other parts of the BR undertaking will not be able to provide pensions for any of their former BR staff that are less favourable than those that they currently enjoy and that bids cannot be rendered more competitive by such means.
However, pension rights for the future employees of franchisees and owners of parts of the BR business —for example, those staff who are not transferred from BR but who are recruited after a franchise is let or transfer effected —must remain a matter for
766
negotiation among the new employers, their employees and their representatives. It is not for government to dictate the terms and conditions of employment of new recruits; it must remain a matter for commercial negotiation as is now the case for any private sector operation. I believe that that answers the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greene of Harrow Weald.
I shall return now to the burden of this afternoon's discussion to which I have listened with great care and which I shall discuss with my right honourable friends at the first available opportunity. First, I noted what my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said. Yes, I remember well discussing, from this same position, water pension rights, airport pension rights and various other excellent measures that this Chamber has approved in the past. I was grateful that my noble friend did not indicate that what I had said had not in fact been implemented. I hope that it can be formalised. However, as it is no longer my territory, I shall say no more. Nevertheless, I noted what he said with regard to the valuation.
It is true that the memorandum of understanding —and this answers a point made by my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil and the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Ewing—has not received the formal agreement of the trustee board. But the chairman, rightly, had verbal discussions and agreement with the majority of his fellow directors by telephone prior to signing the memorandum on their behalf.
The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, asked about the proportion of benefits paid out that cannot be funded by the scheme without increasing the deficit and whether they would be met by the government guarantee. The formula to which the noble Lord referred is, as he will recognise, the same as the one employed in the Transport Act 1980 with regard to the Government's support contribution arrangements. The funding of the deficit will, accordingly, not be met by reducing the benefits. I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Marsh: I am most grateful to the noble Earl. However, can he explain how it will be funded? As I read the formula—and I am perfectly prepared to accept that I do not understand it—it seems to be saying that the Government will effectively reduce their support by the proportion they identify as attached to the improved benefit. If they do that, it seems to me that it would lead to a deficit which must be filled somehow. If there is no stream of contribution income, I cannot see anywhere else for it to come from apart from reducing the pension drain.
The Earl of Caithness: I hope to deal with that point shortly. I believe that I have a note on it somewhere here in my papers. However, one of the other points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, and by my noble friend Lord Cochrane of Cults, concerned the 60:40 per cent. split. The information that I have received from the trustees is that surpluses have never been split with 40 per cent. to the employer and 60 per cent. to the employee. The starting point has always been the 60:40 per cent. split reflecting contributions.

767
That is now in the memorandum of understanding. I hope that that satisfies my noble friend. I shall carry out more research in the matter, but all the evidence I have shows that any suggestion that the surpluses have been split by two-thirds is strongly refuted.
The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, raised a point about the BR section of the joint industry scheme. Perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord that I believe he has misread the memorandum. In the event of a deficit, the situation would be exactly the same as it is now. It can be made good by increasing contributions payable by both employer and employees and, if necessary, by reducing benefits for future pensioners, but not pensions now being paid. The point that the noble Lord misread is that if the joint actuaries certify that the scheme had become unstable—for example, if pensioners swamped the number of remaining serving staff —the Secretary of State will be under a duty to decide what steps to take. It does not refer to a deficiency. I hope that that assists the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. That information was on the note for which I was searching earlier. Moreover, if there is a 10 per cent. deficit in the fund when pensions are paid out, 90 per cent. will come from the fund and 10 per cent. from the government guarantee.
The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, asked about the justification for the power of the government director. It is an important point. If the Government are giving an absolute guarantee which is a major step forward —and it is right that we should do so—we must reserve the right to safeguard the taxpayer's interests by having the opportunity for central, strategic decisions taken by the trustees which could have a significant impact on the future of the fund.
My noble friend Lord Peyton asked me to consider the position with regard to pension increases above RPI granted after October 1994 and whether the payments might be covered by the government guarantee. I am very happy to give my noble friend that assurance. We shall, indeed, consider that point between now and a later stage when we come to deal with Schedule 10.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked where the trustees stand in respect of the position of the government director appointed to the fund. The answer is that the chairman of the trustees has accepted his role as set out in the memorandum as appropriate to safeguard the Government's and taxpayer's interests. Having had the opportunity to serve in another place, the noble Lord will realise the importance of a Public Accounts Committee and will also realise the importance of the necessity to safeguard the taxpayer's interests.
Perhaps I may now return to the memorandum. It sought to satisfy the Government's commitment which they made in the White Paper and in the pension consultation document. It says:
"We have sought … to satisfy [the fact that] pensions in payment should be secure in real terms"—
that has been done—and to ensure that,
"existing, deferred and future pensioners should have a reasonable opportunity to obtain benefits from any surplus that there might be",
as is the case at present. I find it difficult to understand why the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, found that
768
particularly difficult. There is currently no guarantee that a surplus will arise. nor that any surplus will automatically be used to increase the benefit for existing taxpayers. Therefore, the new situation has been put in the same situation as the old one. I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene. give way.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am much obliged. The issue is that if such a situation were to arise then, in my submission, a mandatory obligation should follow. That is the point that I was seeking to make.
The Earl of Caithness: I am sorry. That is a different point from the one that I understood the noble Lord to make. A further point of the memorandum was that,
"the taxpayer's interests should be protected".
I turn now to the last paragraph of the memorandum. It is one that is most important for the Committee. It reads:
"We are confident"—
that is, my honourable friend the Minister of State for Public Transport, the chairman of the BR Pension Trustee Company and the BR board member for finance—
"that the arrangements set out in this memorandum, on which we are agreed, will meet the aspirations of the Pension Trustee Company and the BR Board for their members and of the Government, and that they satisfy the principles set out in the second paragraph".
The latter was the paragraph that I read out a few moments ago.
I repeat, an enormous effort has gone in to satisfy the Government's commitment to the pensioners. We believe that we have done that. Obviously, there are certain questions and points which I shall need to discuss with my noble friend Lord Peyton, not least his request to have them on the face of the Bill. Perhaps I may assure him that we have already had discussions on the matter. I had hoped to be a little more specific with him, but, as he will understand, the legal niceties must be considered and the drafters of the legislation must be consulted. They have been consulted, but we have not quite reached the conclusion that we wished and I shall come back to my noble friend on the point.
Lord Marsh: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him, in the light of the confusion over the issue which I raised earlier, whether he can give the Committee the assurance that under no circumstances will the Government seek to finance deficits by reducing pensions. That is a simple question.
The Earl of Caithness: I believe that I answered that point and said that existing pensions would riot be cut.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: What an interesting debate we have had! That is one of the conventional ways of ending a debate in your Lordships' House, but it is not always 100 per cent. truthful. On this occasion, I believe that my noble friend was a little unrealistic in expecting praise from the Opposition. If a government receive praise from the Opposition, there is only one conclusion of which they can be certain: namely, that they have made an awful big mistake! Much of the atmosphere of this debate reminded me of an incident which I am sure most Members of the Committee are

769
not old enough to remember. When Hugh Dalton was Chancellor of the Exchequer in days when the slightest leak, even on an unimportant matter, a few minutes before the Budget, was so awful that he had to resign, Nigel Birch was heard to exclaim: "They've shot our fox!" I was rather reminded of that phrase in the speeches which we have heard from Members opposite today.
I wish to make one point absolutely clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. referred to it. What the chairman of the trustees said, at least to me, is not that he was glad that he had got the best deal that was available, but that the three demands which we made in the amendment had been met. I believe that to be the case.
It has been said that the Government must accept responsibility for the pensioners. They have now done so. To complain about the purity of the English used in a memorandum of understanding which comes from government sources is terribly unrealistic. Perhaps I may ask Members opposite what on earth grounds they have to suppose that in a comparatively short space of time there will be produced by the government machine, or anything to do with the government machine, a document of limpid, lucid clarity. I never heard such unrealistic stuff. I hope that I shall receive my noble friend's applause for tolerance, understanding and forbearance.
To complain that a government directive will have draconian powers is hardly justified. It will have considerable powers and I think it is just as well that the Minister should have them in view of the Government's responsibilities. Having the Minister and the Government Actuary involved is useful. I quite understand that the other members of the board may not necessarily enjoy every minute of their company, but I believe that there is a great deal to be said for having their fingers squarely in the mangle. One of the techniques which governments often tend to use is: "Oh, we didn't understand quite what was going on. Now, we've got to have second thoughts about it all". But with those two gentlemen present and involved, there will be no possibility of such loophole escapes.
I do not wish to go into the 40-60 percentage again, which has been laboured many times. However, I asked the question originally and I hope that my noble friend will return to it in due course. He said that he would look at the post-October 1994 increases and I hope that in the end he will be able to produce a satisfactory answer.
As to the amendment going on the face of the Bill, my noble friend referred to the matter and the time and effort that has been expended on it. It has now achieved such stature that in my view it ought to be represented on the face of the Bill.
That brings me to a friendly, passing, charitable mention of the parliamentary draftsman. The parliamentary draftsman is the servant of Parliament and not its master. I should like to see an amendment on the face of the Bill. I shall give serious thought to it. If my noble friend, with all the resources available to him—far more than I have—cannot think of a nice
770
amendment to bring forward at Report stage, then I shall have to mobilise my poor and miserable abilities to that end.
I cannot possibly conclude my remarks without a reference to the noble Lord, Lord Greene of Harrow Weald. To be told by him that I was his favourite Minister was sufficient to send me away into the Recess with nothing but joy in my heart and immense gratitude. When he piled one compliment on another and said that he—the General Secretary of the NUR at the time—actually understood every word that I —a Conservative Minister of Transport—said to him, my cup of happiness overflowed.
I said earlier on that it was not my purpose, here and now, to cast my right honourable friend the Secretary of State as the villain of the piece. I do not think that he has been but he has laboured manfully. I am tempted to ask my noble friend, but I shall not, whom we have been fighting. I know that he could not answer, but I have a clear idea. It is because I know that this latter-day St. George struck the undoubted dragon in the teeth that I do not wish to divide the Committee on the amendment. I very much hope that my noble friend will satisfy me on the outstanding points to which I referred. I beg the Committee's leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. I26AZA not moved.]
Clause 121 agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Pensions]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 126ZA:
Page 161, leave out lines 5 to 13.
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. I 26ZA and to speak to all the government amendments on Schedule 10. As the Committee will know, that is just for the purposes of information. If, after I have moved the amendments, there is a debate, I shall withdraw them because they will go for recommitment at a later stage.
I merely wish to mention three amendments to the Committee: first, Amendments Nos. 126ZB and 126ZZ. Those amendments are to fulfil the commitment given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport in a Written Answer on 20th May in another place that BR's serving staff who transfer to new employers will have the right to remain in the joint industry pension scheme for so long as they remain employed in the railway industry. That is frequently referred to as the indefeasible right. I have mentioned that quite a lot this afternoon, I think it is a great shame that it will not be put on the face of the Bill tonight. It is a government commitment, we have fulfilled or tried to fulfil that commitment, but have been thwarted by the Opposition in trying to bring it forward today.
The other amendment that I wish to mention to the Committee is Amendment No. 126ZY. This amendment provides that the written views of the trustees on a BR pension scheme are to be made available to Members of each House of Parliament in time for informed debate whenever a statutory instrument containing orders amending an existing BR pension

771
scheme or transferring pension rights between schemes is debated under the affirmative resolution procedure.
That is a commitment that we gave to the honourable friend of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, the Member for Wrexham, at Report stage. Once again it saddens me that it will not be on the face of the Bill at this present time. The honourable Member is doubtless just as disappointed as I am. I believe that we should have had a better Bill, arid indeed a better discussion at a later stage had I moved all the government amendments. But that is not the agreement, so I beg to move the amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I am grateful to the noble Earl for the way in which he has moved these amendments, and for indicating that these are honouring commitments that were made in another place; and indeed some commitments that were made in this Chamber. There is no need to detain the Committee on the matter at this particular stage.
I draw to the attention of the noble Earl the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in an earlier debate on hybridity this afternoon. My noble friend Lord Shepherd asked that, when Schedule 10 returns to this place in the autumn, we see the schedule printed in a form as amended by all these government amendments. That would make much more sense and would certainly lead to a more constructive debate. If the Minister, in his usual helpful fashion, could arrange for that to be done, I for one would certainly be very grateful.
The Earl of Caithness: I will try to make certain that that is available in some form. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I understand that no further amendments to Schedule 10 are moved.
[Amendments Nos. 126ZB to 127 not moved.]
Clause 122 [Concessionary travel for railway staff etc.]:
[Amendment No. 127ZA not moved.]
Clause 122 agreed to.
Clause 123 [Grants and subsidies]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 127ZAA:
Page 123, line 9, leave out from ("State") to ("which") in line 10 and insert ("or the Franchising Director to make any payments of compensation").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 127ZAA I also speak to Amendment No. 127ZAB. These are technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 127ZAB:
Page 123, line 12, after ("regulations") insert ("in respect of any obligations imposed on that operator by directions under subsection (6) above,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 123, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 124 [Payments by the Secretary of State in respect of track access charges in connection with railway goods services]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 127ZB:
Leave out Clause 124 and insert the following new clause:
("Freight access charges
—(1) The Secretary of State shall, for the purpose of securing fair competition between carriers of goods by road and carriers of goods by railway, enter into agreements with goods service operators under which he undertakes to make payments to the goods service operator in question in respect of all or any part of the track access charges which may be incurred by the goods service operator in connection with the provision of the services to which the agreement relates.
(2) Any sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments under agreements entered into by virtue of this section shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.
(3) In determining the proportion of track access charges on which he makes payment, the Secretary of State shall ensure that the net track access charge paid by the operator is no higher than access charges that would have been incurred had the goods been carried by road.
(4) In this section—

"goods service operator" means a person who operates services for the carriage of goods by railway;

"track access charge" means any payment required to be made under an access agreement conferring a right to use track;

"net track access charge" means a track access charge less any payment made by the Secretary of State in respect of that track access charge by virtue of this section;

and expressions used in this section and in Part I above have the same meaning as they do in that Part.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment puts some points to the Government. One of the main arguments put forward by the Government on the new freight structure concerns competition. In their document Rail Freight Privatisation, the Government state that the key task is to determine how arid where the business could be split to provide the maximum degree of competition consistent with retaining the most essential scale economies.
The Government have also stated their objective of promoting the movement of goods by rail rather than by road. The existing Clause 124, which gives grants to rail freight operators, is intended to assist in that objective. However, the Government miss the most fundamental point. Rail freight, however it is organised in the future, has to compete with other forms of transport, as is well known—notably road transport. In the document Rail Freight Privatisation the Government rightly point out that the roads have a significant advantage over rail in that they serve much greater areas and many more locations.
Rail has another massive disadvantage. Road hauliers pay relatively small licence fees, and in return are granted free access to the whole national road network. Rail freight operators, on the other hand, have to pay, and will continue to pay, access charges. That will cause a massive distortion in the freight transport market. It puts the railways at a massive financial disadvantage, despite the economic and environmental advantage of moving certain types of freight by rail rather than road.
New Clause 124 would address that problem by requiring the Government to pay grants to rail

773
operators covering the access charges that they have to pay over and above the access charges that they would have paid had they moved the goods by road. In reality, that means that the Government will reimburse the access charges of freight operators as there are no access charges to the motorways and the road networks other than a licence fee. Rail operators also, of course, have to be licensed. That would ensure a level playing field in the freight transport market and would further the government policy of switching road freight to rail.
The new clause also takes account of the Government's proposed objective of perhaps introducing road pricing. Of course were road pricing to be introduced, payments, say, to rail operators would be reduced in order again to maintain a level playing field. It sounds a little complicated, but taken with the Government's document on freight it is a reasonable proposition to put to the Minister. I look forward to hearing his views. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful for that lucid explanation of the noble Lord's amendment. I reiterate that the Government's intention is that applications for the track costs grant for freight operators will be assessed against environmental and other wider benefits which will be gained from reductions in lorry traffic. Schemes will be monitored to ensure that grant does lead to the benefits intended. The cost-effectiveness of the measures will be apparent from the volumes of traffic either new to or retained on rail.
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to pay grants to goods service operators in respect of all or any part of track access charges that they incur. There is no discretion here. No account is taken of the availability of public funds or the environmental benefits which are to be taken into account in assessing the grant to be paid. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will understand why I find difficulty with that.
There is a real problem with subsection (3) of the proposed amendment. It is not clear what is meant here when the amendment refers to access charges incurred if goods are carried by road. Road hauliers quote an all-in price to their customers, including fuel taxes and vehicle excise duty, if these are considered as road access charges, and also the cost of maintaining and replacing the vehicle, loading and unloading, staff costs, overheads and so on. There is as yet no such concept as an access charge for roads.
So far as the level playing field argument between road and rail is concerned, it is worth noting that road taxes more than cover the cost of building, maintaining and policing our roads. In the last financial year, vehicles in the private sector and light goods class paid 3.1 times more than the costs they imposed, and heavy goods vehicles paid 1.2 times more. Of course, there are large differences between different vehicles in these categories—that is why a road access charge is so difficult to quantify. But, overall, vehicle owners more than pay for the costs they impose in building, maintaining and policing our roads.
774
We believe that freight should be transported by rail wherever that makes economic and environmental sense. That belief is embodied in the Bill, both in the general duties of the Secretary of State and the regulator, and in the provisions we are making for grants to rail freight facilities and towards track charges. We have a comprehensive range of policies to promote rail freight, with privatisation and open access to the railway network. That is at the heart of these policies.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister for the trouble he has taken to give the Government's view. Rail access charges would be a new concept of charging. Someone will allow access to the track. They would be more understandable and easier to break down.
It has always been known that road transport appears expensive. The figures that were given sounded expensive. But in terms of building roads, much of the cost is carried by the private car. There are an enormous number of private cars on the road. I shall take the Minister's answer away. Perhaps, at a later stage, we shall be able to find something more likely to create his famous level playing field. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 124 agreed to.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 127ZC:
After Clause 124, insert the following new clause:
("Grants for railways within National Parks
.—(1) The Secretary of State may designate certain railway lines or stations lying within the boundaries of National Parks as of importance to the social, environmental and economic sustainability of National Parks and rural areas.
(2) In exercising his powers under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall consult with National Park authorities and local authorities within the vicinity of the line or station.
(3) If a request is submitted in writing by any local authority or National Park authority asking the Secretary of State to exercise his powers under subsection (1) in relation to a particular line or station, the Secretary of State shall reply within 28 days giving his decision and reasons for it.
(4) In making a reply to a request submitted under subsection (3), the Secretary of State shall be required to show that he has considered the potential hardship to users of relevant passenger services and the social, environment and economic costs and benefits likely to result from his decision.
(5) The Secretary of State may for the purposes of securing the continuance of passenger and goods services at lines or stations designated under subsection (1), make payments to the owner or owners of such lines and stations.
(6) Any sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments entered into by virtue of this section shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.
(7) In this section "National Parks" means those areas designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and the Broads Act 1989.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment returns to the theme of an earlier amendment, Amendment No. 11A, which we discussed on 1st July. In that amendment we sought to put a duty on the Secretary of State to further national park purposes. In his reply, the Minister said:

775
I do not believe that it would be appropriate to refer specifically to national park purposes in the general duties on the Secretary of State and the regulator".—[Official Report, 1/7/93; col. 971.]
The Minister went on to say that the general duty to have regard to the effect on the environment was sufficient.
However, I feel that the problems of national parks are real and specific. This amendment is an attempt to meet the difficulties which could arise if the Bill becomes law. I do not wish to repeat all the arguments that I made on the earlier amendment. But I must remind the Committee of some of the pressures on national parks.
The parks are visited by 100 million people every year. They contain our most beautiful and varied landscapes. They are home to many long established local communities and have a rich diversity of wildlife. Closure of railway lines in those areas would be in conflict with the statutory purposes of the national parks as laid down in the national parks and access to the countryside Act 1949, which is to preserve and enhance their natural beauty and promote their enjoyment by the public. The national parks are, I think, the only areas in Great Britain on which there is a statutory duty to promote public enjoyment.
What would happen to those visitors who do not have a car or indeed those residents who have to take the train to work? The loss of rail services must result in art increase in the volume of road traffic, putting extra strain on the small country roads which most of the national parks contain and increasing noise and pollution which many of us visit the national parks to avoid. Inevitably, there would be pressure to build more and bigger roads, which would devastate the landscape and destroy its fragile environment.
I know that the Minister is sympathetic to the needs of national parks, as he is to the needs of rural communities. But sympathy is not enough. The cost of maintaining rural lines is high in relation to the numbers of people using them. But there is a social value to take into account, not to mention the road costs which could arise if those lines are closed.
If vulnerable lines are to be protected, there will need to be sufficient subsidy guaranteed by the Government. The new clause would give the Secretary of State power to designate certain lines within the national parks as being of particular importance to the social, economic and environmental stability and well-being of the parks. In designating those lines, there would be a duty to consult the relevant local or national park authority to ensure that local interests were given due consideration. The Secretary of State may then pay suitable funds from the Government directly to the operators of the railway lines in question to cover the necessary costs of their continued operation. The new clause, or something like it, is essential if all our expectations for national parks are to be fulfilled. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: How nice it is to welcome back the noble Baroness to our Committee stage. I compliment her on the cleverness with which she has been able to bring forward another amendment on national parks at Committee stage, having discussed
776
the issue on day one. As she knows I fully support her wish to protect and improve the quality of life in our national parks, both for visitors and residents. However, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to give special treatment to railways in national parks. We need to frame our proposals in a way which makes them applicable to all parts of the country—urban, suburban and rural. Having said that, we recognise the importance of the environment, particularly in rural areas. That is why we have imposed a requirement in Clause 4(3) (b) for the Secretary of State and the regulator to have regard to the effect on the environment of activities connected with the provision of railway services.
Turning to the amendment itself, the intention of the noble Baroness is that the Secretary of State should be able to step in and pay for the continuance of railway lines and stations in national parks where he has indicated that they are of social, environmental or economic importance to the national park's sustainability. I believe that the provisions in the Bill dealing with closures already meet the noble Baroness's concerns. Let me explain.
Where the operator of a station or a line wishes o discontinue its use for passenger services, the franchising director must decide initially whether he agrees that the proposed closure should go ahead. If he decides that it should not, he becomes responsible for securing its continued provision. The line or station closure will not then proceed. If the franchising director decides that a line or station should close, the closure procedure in Clauses 36 and 37 of the Bill will apply. The closure proposal will be decided upon by the regulator, with provision for an appeal to the Secretary of State. As I said earlier, both the regulator and the Secretary of State are under a duty to have regard to the environment when carrying out their functions under Part I of the Bill, and this duty will be particularly apposite in the case of a proposed closure in a national park. It almost goes without saying drat their other duties under Clause 4—for example, to protect the interests of rail users—will also be relevant when making a decision on a proposed closure.
Where the regulator, or the Secretary of State on appeal, decides not to approve a closure proposal, then the franchising director will be under a duty to continue to secure the provision of the line or station in question. In such circumstances, the Bill already makes provision in Clause 43 for the franchising director to be able to make any payments which are necessary to secure the continued provision of the line or the station. Only if the regulator, or the Secretary of State on appeal, conclude that, in all the circumstances, the proposed closure should be permitted, will the station or line in question close down. I should add that we have consistently said that we shall continue to support socially necessary services which are reliant on subsidy. There is no reason to believe that our proposals will lead to the closure of lines or to reductions in services.
I hope that on this occasion I have made a better fist of trying to convince the noble Baroness that we share her concern but that putting the provision on the face of the Bill is not the right way to go about it.
Baroness Nicol: I am grateful to the Minister for that full answer. I feel that a general environmental duty, admirable though it may be in many cases, will need an extra dimension in national parks. However, I should like to read carefully what the Minister said and look again at the clause. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 125 agreed to.
Clause 126 [Grants to assist the provision of facilities for freight haulage by railway]:
Amendment 127A not moved.
Clauses 126 to 135 agreed to.
Clause 136 [Crown application]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 127AA:
Page 130, line 1, at end insert:
("() sections (Security: power of Secretary of State to give instructions), (Security: enforcement notices) and (Security: inspections), except sections (Security: enforcement notices)(4) and (5) and (Security: inspections)(4) to (6);").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 136, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 137 and 138 agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 127AB:
Page 174, line 2, at end insert:
("The Regulation of Railways Act 1889
. Section 6 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (which provides that every passenger ticket issued by any railway company in the United Kingdom shall show on its face the fare chargeable for the journey for which it was issued) shall cease to have effect.
The Railway Fires Act 1905
.—(I) In section I of the Railway Fires Act 1905 (liability of railway companies to make good damage to crops caused by their engines), after subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) Any reference in subsection (2) above to a "company" includes a reference to any person—

(a) who holds a network licence, station licence or light maintenance depot licence under Part I of the Railways Act 1993; or

(b) who is exempt, by virtue of a licence exemption under section 7 of that Act, from the requirement to be authorised by licence under that Part to be the operator of a network, station or light maintenance depot.

(2B) A person such as is mentioned in subsection (2A) above shall be regarded for the purposes of subsection (2) above as working a railway which consists of the track (if any) comprised in any network, station or light maintenance depot of which he lawfully acts as the operator by virtue of the licence or licence exemption in question."
(2) In section 4 of that Act (definitions and application) after the definition of "railway" there shall be inserted—
"The expression "railway company" includes any person—

(a) who holds a licence under Part I of the Railways Act 1993; or

(b) who is exempt, by virtue of a licence exemption under section 7 of that Act, from the requirement to be authorised by licence under that Part to be the operator of a railway asset;

The expressions "light maintenance depot", "network", "operator", "railway asset", "station" and "track" have the same meaning as they have in Part I of the Railways Act 1993."
The Railway Fires Act (1905) Amendment Act 1923
. In section 2 of the Railway Fires Act (1905) Amendment Act 1923 (conditions precedent to application of the Act of 1905) after the words "any railway company" there shall be inserted the words "(as defined in section 4 of that Act)".
The British Transport Commission Act 1950
. Section 43 of the British Transport Commission Act 1950 (power to supply railway equipment to the Ulster Transport Authority) shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Viscount said: This is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: In relation to Amendment No. 127AB and the removal of the obligation to show the cost of the ticket on its face, can the Government say why they have taken that decision?
Viscount Goschen: Perhaps I can help the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford. Amendment No. 127AB, repeals Section 6 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. That section provides that every passenger ticket issued by any railway company in the United Kingdom shall show on its face the fare for the journey in question. However, that requirement has not applied to British Rail for over 20 years or to London Regional Transport since 1984. It has also been disapplied for Channel Tunnel services by the Channel Tunnel Act 1987.
That is the position and that is why the Government tabled the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 127AC:
Page 174, line 6, leave out ("In that Act-") and insert ("The following provisions shall cease to have effect, that is to say-").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 127AC, I shall speak also to the amendments grouped with it. The group comprises a number of repeals and disapplications of provisions of the Transport Acts 1962 and 1968 in so far as they apply to British Rail. I can assure the Committee that the provisions are either obsolete or have been overtaken by provisions in the Bill. I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 127AD to 127AH:
Page 174, line 8, leave out ("and").
Page 174, leave out line 11 and insert:
("(c) section 13(3) (saving for section 43 of the British Transport Commission Act 1950), and
(d) section 53 (complaints by operators of coastal shipping about the Board's railway charges).
() In section 12 (power of the Boards to construct and operate pipe-lines), in subsection (1), after the words "the Boards" there shall be inserted the words ", other than the Railways Board,".").
Page 174, line 12, leave out ("of that Act").
Page 174, line 22, leave out ("and").
Page 174, line 26, at end insert ("and
(c) subsection (7) (which confers power on the Boards and the new authorities to provide technical advice

779
and assistance and which is superseded, in the case of the Board, by section 115 of this Act) shall cease to have effect in relation to the Board.").
The noble Viscount said: The amendments have been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 127AJ:
Page 176, line 7, at beginning insert:
.—(1) Section 2 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 (provision of passenger transport services for Greater London) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
(2) In subsection (1) (which requires London Regional Transport, in conjunction with the Board, to provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services in Greater London), before the words "in conjunction with the Railways Board" there shall be inserted the words "(if and to the extent that the Railways Board continues to he under a duty by virtue of section 3 of the Transport Act 1962 to provide railway services in Greater London)".
(3) At the beginning of subsection (3) (duty of London Regional Transport and the Board to co-operate for the purpose of co-ordinating services etc) there shall be inserted the words "If and so long as the Railways Board continues to be under a duty by virtue of section 3 of the Transport Act 1962 to provide railway services in Greater London,".
(4) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
"(3A) It shall be the duty of London Regional Transport (either acting directly, or acting indirectly through subsidiaries of theirs) and the Franchising Director to co-operate with one another in the exercise and performance of their respective functions for the purpose—

(a) of co-ordinating the passenger transport services for persons travelling within, to, or from Greater London—

(i) which are provided by London Regional Transport or their subsidiaries; and

(ii) which are provided under franchise agreements, or whose provision is secured by the Franchising Director pursuant to section 26, 32 or 33 of the Railways Act 1993; and

(b) of securing or facilitating the proper discharge of London Regional Transport's duty under subsection (1) above;

and to afford to one another such information as to the services mentioned in paragraph (a) above as may reasonably be required for those purposes."
(5) In subsection (4) (power of London Regional Transport and the Board to enter into arrangements for the purposes of the co-operation required by the section)—

(a) for the words "subsection (3) above" there shall be substituted the words "subsection (3) or, as the case may be, subsection (3A) above—

(a)"; and

(b) after the words "the Railways Board" there shall be inserted the words "or

(b) London Regional Transport and the Franchising Director,".

(6) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
"(4A) The references in subsections (3A) and (4) above to the respective functions of London Regional Transport and the Franchising Director shall be taken, in the case of the functions of the Franchising Director, as a reference to—

(a) his functions under sections 20 to 27 and (Fares and approved discount schemes) of the Railways Act 1993 (franchising of passenger services); and

(b) the duties imposed upon him by sections 32 and 33 of that Act (discontinuance of railway passenger services) to secure the provision of services "

. In section 7 of that Act (planning of passenger transport services for Greater London) in subsection (4) (which specifies the persons with whom London Regional Transport are to consult in preparing statements under that section)—

(a) after paragraph (a), there shall be inserted—"(aa) the Franchising Director;"; and

(b) for the word "and" at the end of paragraph (c) there shall be substituted—

"(cc) such other persons as the Secretary of State may specify in a direction given to London Regional Transport; and".
. In section 31 of that Act (duty of Board to consult London Regional Transport as to fares and services in London) for the words "The Railways Board shall" there shall be substituted the words "If and so long as the Railways Board continues to be under a duty by virtue of section 3 of the Transport Act 1962 to provide railway services in Greater London, the Board shall".
. After that section there shall be inserted—
"Duty of Franchising Director to consult London Regional Transport as to fares and services in London.
31A. The Franchising Director shall from time to time consult with London Regional Transport as to—

(a) the general level and structure of the fares to be charged for the carriage of passengers by railway on journeys wholly within Greater London on services—

(i) which are, or are to be, provided under franchise agreements; or

(ii) whose provision the Franchising Director is under a duty to secure, by virtue of section 26, 32 or 33 of the Railways Act 1993; and

(b) the general level of the provision to be made for such journeys."").

The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 127AJ and the amendments grouped with it are consequential amendments to the London Regional Transport Act 1984. Their main purpose is to provide for co-operation, co-ordination and consultation between the franchising director and London Regional Transport, based on the existing provisions in the Act applying to British Rail and London Regional Transport. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 127AK to 127AM:
Page 176, line 7, leave out ("the London Regional Transport Act 1984") and insert ("that Act").
Page 177, line 14, at end insert:
(". In section 59 of that Act (which confers power on London Borough Councils and the Common Council to enter into certain agreements with the Board) for the words "the Railways Board" there shall be substituted—

"(a) the Railways Board,

(b) the Franchising Director, or

(c) any person who is the holder of a passenger licence, a network licence or a station licence, within the meaning of Part I of the Railways Act 1993,".

. In section 68 of that Act (interpretation) the following definitions shall be inserted at the appropriate places—

(a) ""franchise agreement" has the same meaning as in Part I of the Railways Act 1993;"; and

(b) ""the Franchising Director" means the: Director of Passenger Rail Franchising;".").

Page 177, line 41, leave out ("Director of Passenger Rail Franchising") and insert ("Franchising Director").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 127AN:
Page 179, line 5, at end insert:
("The Channel Tunnel Act 1987
. In Schedule 6 to the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, in paragraph 2 (sections 4 and 6 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 not to apply to Concessionaires and through service operators, within the meaning of that Act), for the word "Sections" there shall be substituted the word "Section".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 127AP:
Page 179, line 29, at end insert:
("The Water Resources Act 1991
. In the Water Resources Act 1991 (subsection (2) (d) of section 204 of which provides that the general restriction contained in subsection (1) of that section on the disclosure of certain information obtained under or by virtue of that Act does not apply in relation to disclosures facilitating the performance by persons mentioned in Part I of Schedule 24 to that Act of their functions under the provisions listed in Part II of that Schedule), in Schedule 24—

(a) in Part I, after the entry relating to the Director General of Electricity Supply, there shall be inserted the entry— "The Rail Regulator"; and

(b) in Part II, after the entry relating to the Electricity Act 1989, there shall be inserted the entry— "The Railways Act 1993".").

The noble Viscount said: I can assure the Committee that Amendment No. 127AP is not controversial. It simply enables information obtained under the Water Resources Act 1991 to be passed to the rail regulator where that is necessary for him to carry out his functions under the Bill. Schedule 11 already contains a large number of provisions which allow such disclosures of information obtained under other Acts. The amendment simply fills the gap. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 127B to 127D had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Transitional provisions]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 127E to 127J:
Page 180, leave out line 9 and insert ("pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1A) of section 68 of this Act for the purposes of subsection (1) of that section.").
Page 180, line 17, leave out ("section 68(1) (c) of this Act") and insert ("subsection (1) of section 68 of this Act by virtue of subsection (1A) (c) of that section.").
Page 181, line 22, leave out ("under section 69(1) (a) or (b) of this Act") and insert ("pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1A) of section 69 of this Act for the purposes of subsection (1) of that section.").
Page 181, line 31, leave out ("section 69(1) (c) of this Act") and insert ("subsection (1) of section 69 of this Act by virtue of subsection (1A) (c) of that section.").
Page 182, line 13, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 43.
The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 127E to 127J have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 182, line 13, at end insert:
("Proposed closures
2A.—(1) This paragraph applies in any case where—
782

(a) notice of a proposed closure has been given pursuant to subsection (7) of section 56 of the 1962 Act before the relevant date, but

(b) the Minister has not, before that date, either given or refused his consent to the proposed closure.

(2) Where this paragraph applies, subsections (7) to (10) and (13) of section 56 of the 1962 Act (and, accordingly, section 54 of the 1968 Act) shall, notwithstanding anything in section 42(1) of this Act, continue to have effect in relation to the proposed closure in question, but with the substitution—

(a) for any reference to an Area Committee of a reference to a consultative committee, and

(b) for any reference to the former Central Committee of a reference to the Central Committee,

and the closure provisions of this Act shall not have effect in relation to that proposed closure.
(3) In this paragraph—

"the 1962 Act" means the Transport Act 1962;

"the 1968 Act" means the Transport Act 1968;

"Area Committee" means an Area Transport Users Consultative Committee, established under section 56 of the 1962 Act, and includes a reference to the London Regional Passengers' Committee in its capacity as such a Committee by virtue of section 41 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984;

"the Central Committee" has the same meaning as in Part I of this Act;

"the closure provisions of this Act" means sections 32 to 42, (Proposals to close passenger networks operated on behalf of the Franchising Director) and (Proposals to close passenger railway facilities operated on behalf of the Franchising Director) of this Act and Schedule 4 to this Act;

"consultative committee" has the same meaning as in Part I of this Act and includes a reference to the London Regional Passengers' Committee in its capacity as consultative committee for the Greater London area, within the meaning of section 2 of this Act;

"the former Central Committee" means the Central Transport Consultative Committee for Great Britain, established under section 56 of the 1962 Act;

"the Minister" has the same meaning as in section 56 of the 1962 Act;

"proposed closure" has the same meaning as in section 56 of the 1962 Act;

"the relevant date" means the date on which the closure provisions of this Act come into force.").

The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 128, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 130 and 131. They are technical amendments and I shall be happy to deal with them in detail if any Member of the Committee requires me to do so. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 13 [Repeals]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 128ZA to 128ZD:
Page 183, line 3, at end insert:
("52 & 53 The Regulation of Section 6.")
Vict. c. 57. Railways Act 1889.
Page 183, line 25, at end insert:
("14 Geo. c. 1iii. 6 The British Transport Commission Act 1950. Section 43.")
Page 183, line 38, column 3, at end insert:
("Section 13(3).Section 53.")
Page 183, line 39, column 3, at end insert ("and (2).").
The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 128ZA to 128ZD have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 128A:
Page 183, line 41, column 3, after ("(3),") insert ("in subsection (5), the words from the beginning to "section; and", and subsections").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 128A I shall speak also to Amendment No. 130ZB. They are technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 129 to 130ZC:
Page 183, line 42, column 3, at end insert ("Section 56A.").
Page 183, line 50, column 3, at end insert ("Section 54.").
Page 184, line 29, at end insert:
("1971 c. The British Railways Section 34.")
xlv. Act 1971.
Page 184, line 42, at end insert:
("1981 c. 32. The Transport Act The whole Act.") 1962 (Amendment) Act 1981.
Page 184, line 48, column 3, at beginning insert ("Part II.").
The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 129 to 130ZC are amendments to Schedule 13 and have been spoken to before. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 130/1 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 131 to 131B:
Page 185, line 9, column 3, at end insert ("In section 42, subsections (3), (4) and (5).").
Page 185, line 9, column 3, at end insert ("In Schedule 6, paragraph 2.").
Page 185, line 10, at end insert:

("1987 c. 53.

The Channel Tunnel Act 1987

In Schedule 6, in paragraph 2, the words from "and 6" to "the fare)".")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 139 agreed to.
Clause 140 [Short Title, commencement and extent]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 132 to 134:
Page 133, line 5, at end insert:
("() section 121;").
Page 133, line 12, at end insert:
("() Schedule 10;").
Page 133, line 13, after ("13,") insert ("other than those relating to—

(i) section 6 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889,

(ii) the Railway Fires Act 1905, and

(iii) the Railway Fires Act (1905) Amendment Act 1923,").

The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 132 to 134 have been spoken to before. Finally, we have come to
784
the end of the sixth day of a fascinating Committee stage. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, Lord Ewing of Kirkford and Lord Tordoff. I wish all those who participated in the Committee stage a happy Recess and look forward with great anticipation to recommitment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: From these Benches I thank my noble friends who participated in the debates, particularly my noble friends Lord Carmichael and Lord Ewing. I am grateful also for the friendly relations we have had throughout—there were a few spats but nothing serious—with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the Government Ministers.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has a heavy burden to bear in this Chamber. It is not easy to undertake not only these duties, but also those relating to the Treasury. We are grateful to him overall—I stress the word "overall"—for the tolerance that he shows and to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, for his help. Altogether, I think that we have had a pretty friendly Committee stage thus far.
8 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: As we seem to he making the speeches that are normally made by the Whips next Wednesday, I should like to join in. It has been a Committee stage in the true spirit of transport debates where there is always a closed circle of people who work together in spite of differences. I, too, wish the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and also my friends—if l cannot call them noble friends—on the Labour Front Bench a very good Recess.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 140, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Crossrail Bill
A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following orders to which they desire the concurrence of this House:
That the Promoters of the Crossrail Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid,

785
shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in Session 1991–92 or the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within Session 1991–92 or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
House adjourned at one minute past eight o'clock.

  HABITATS AND SPECIES DIRECTIVE: NORTHERN IRELAND
  HABITATS AND SPECIES DIRECTIVE: NORTHERN IRELAND
  MERSEY BARRAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
  MERSEY BARRAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
  FORMER YUGOSLAVIA: UK CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNHCR
  FORMER YUGOSLAVIA: UK CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNHCR
  NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY: OBSERVANCE
  NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY: OBSERVANCE
  VIETNAM: RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS
  VIETNAM: RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS
  ENGLISH AND WELSH WINES: AVAILABILITY AT UK EMBASSIES
  ENGLISH AND WELSH WINES: AVAILABILITY AT UK EMBASSIES
  MR. WAINWRIGHT, MR. RIDE, MR. DUNN AND MR. SONDERMANN
  MR. WAINWRIGHT, MR. RIDE, MR. DUNN AND MR. SONDERMANN
  NORTH KOREA AND THE US: DIALOGUE
  NORTH KOREA AND THE US: DIALOGUE
  ISRAEL (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)
  ISRAEL (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)
  JAPAN (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)
  JAPAN (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)
  SELF DEFENCE AND RETALIATION: CONCEPTS
  SELF DEFENCE AND RETALIATION: CONCEPTS
  PANAMA: US INTERVENTION
  PANAMA: US INTERVENTION
  IRAQ: US MILITARY ACTION
  IRAQ: US MILITARY ACTION
  MISSILE TECHNOLOGY CONTROL: UN RESOLUTIONS
  MISSILE TECHNOLOGY CONTROL: UN RESOLUTIONS
  MISSILES (TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY)
  MISSILES (TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY)
  LEGAL EDUCATION AND CONDUCT: REPORT
  LEGAL EDUCATION AND CONDUCT: REPORT
  NORTH SEA OIL DISCHARGES: MARPOL SPECIAL AREA STATUS
  NORTH SEA OIL DISCHARGES: MARPOL SPECIAL AREA STATUS
  US AIR TRANSPORT INDUSTRY: UK SUBMISSION
  US AIR TRANSPORT INDUSTRY: UK SUBMISSION
  PEERS: APPOINTMENTS
  PEERS: APPOINTMENTS
  STUDENT BOOKS: EXPENDITURE
  STUDENT BOOKS: EXPENDITURE