Sitting of 17 May 1993

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

    Student Grants
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure by local education authorities in Wales during 1992–93 on discretionary grants; how many students benefited; and what are the corresponding estimates for 1993–94.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): Local authority expenditure on discretionary student awards amounted to £16·8 million in 1991–92. Provisional information suggests that in the academic year 1991–92, some 14,800 students received discretionary awards from authorities in Wales. This is the latest year for which the information is available.
    Mr. Williams: The Minister will realise that, because of the stringent expenditure limits imposed by the Welsh Office, many local authorities in Wales have made severe cuts in discretionary grants. In Dyfed, where my constituency is, there has been a 50 per cent. cut, which means £700,000 less in discretionary grants this year. I am sure that everyone agrees that education and training have a critical role to play in the recovery of the Welsh economy. In its report, "Wales 2010", issued last week, the
    2
    Institute of Welsh Affairs placed education and training at the centre of its strategy. What does the Welsh Office intend to do about cuts in discretionary grants that will deprive hundreds of people in Dyfed and thousands of people across Wales of the support that they need to follow courses in further education?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I am sorry to hear that Dyfed is proposing such a cut. The grants are discretionary, which means that local authorities have the power but not the duty, so it is, no use blaming the Welsh Office—the hon. Gentleman should blame the local authorities. I am particularly sad about Dyfed, as in 1991–92 it allocated £2·9 million towards discretionary awards—the highest level of any county in Wales. I hope that those responsible will change their minds.
    Mr. Roger Evans: Will my right hon. Friend assist the House by putting the answer to the question in the context of the numbers of people who now undergo further and higher education? How has that figure changed over the past 10 years and what are the present prospects?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been a substantial increase in higher education. Student numbers have risen 20 per cent. in the past three years. We expect an increase of 10 per cent. in the number of further education students this year, on top of an increase of 55 per cent. since 1988–89.
    Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister accept that he has given complacent answers to the questions posed? Is he aware that thousands of young men and women in Wales have been denied further and higher education, as a direct result of the cuts that he has imposed on Welsh local education authorities, and parents and teachers in Wales are sick and tired of the Government's arrogant refusal to listen to anyone involved in education, whether on the subject of testing or on the teaching of English? Does he accept that education in Wales relies heavily on stability and resources and when will he give them to the Welsh people?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman, as ever, seeks to blame the Government. We are talking about discretionary grants, which are allocated at the discretion of the local authorities. We have increased the amount of revenue support available to local authorities. Their largest bill is for teachers' salaries and the increase there has been pegged at 1·5 per cent. Local authorities have a responsibility for our young people and I urge them, particularly the Labour local authorities in Wales, to consider the matter further.

    Diabetics
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to ensure that there is active support from hospital trusts and directly managed units for care of diabetics via community care.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): Social services departments are responsible for assessing diabetic needs in discussion with the NHS and doctors; this is being guided by the relevant health gain protocol, a copy of which I hope that the hon. Gentleman has received.
    Mr. Wardell: In view of the St. Vincent declaration to which the Government are a signatory, how does the Minister intend to assess the extent to which diabetics will enjoy a reduction in the number of complications, such as eye complications, as a result of the declaration, given that hospitals in Wales do not possess the means to collect the data to establish whether the targets have been or will be reached? Will he make sure that the data are collected and put in the hands of the district hospitals?
    Mr. Jones: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that much important work is being done in this area following the setting up of the working party, which I regard as a most important source for informing health authorities and others as they devise their local strategies for health. As I hope that the hon. Gentleman knows, we have set targets under the protocol for a reduction by the year 2002 of one half in diabetic gangrene, one third in end stage renal failure and one third in new blindness.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely right that the trusts should make the decisions concerning their areas instead of being told what to do by people in Cathays Park or Gwydyr house in Whitehall?
    Mr. Jones: I can fully reassure my hon. Friend that the changes in the national health service have brought about exactly what he seeks. Now there are clear-cut responsibilities. It is not Cathays Park but the health authorities which are the strategic planners, and the trusts, of which there are increasing numbers in Wales, are providing exactly the sort of health care that the people of Wales need.

    EC Committee of the Regions
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how Wales's representatives on the European Committee of the Regions will be selected or elected.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): Final decisions will be taken once the Maastricht treaty has been ratified.
    Mr. Jones: I find that answer rather puzzling as I was under the impression that at least four Members on the Opposition side of the House knew how these people are to be selected or elected. When will the Secretary of State lift the veil of secrecy over this issue and allow the House and the 3 million inhabitants of Wales to know what that little cabal apparently already knows?
    Mr. Hunt: Whatever the official Opposition may seek to imply, Wales is a pluralist democracy and I am determined to ensure that our representation on the Committee of the Regions will reflect that. I hope that at some stage the official Opposition will make it clear whether they still broadly support the treaty signed at Maastricht. Since I entered politics, I have seen six major U-turns by the Labour party on Europe, and I believe that that party is going to adopt six different positions on the Maastricht treaty this week. That is incredible. It is about time the Opposition were serious about Europe.
    Mr. Kinnock: In the name of a pluralist and open democracy, will the Secretary of State tell us whether he has any form of written agreement with the Welsh nationalist party? Does he realise that if he continues to deny the existence of such an agreement he calls into question the integrity of the Leader of Plaid Cymru?
    Mr. Hunt: I have always made it clear that I do have an agreement in writing with the Leader of Plaid Cymru. In return, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he intends to support the treaty of Maastricht this week—
    Madam Speaker: Order. That is going wide of the question.
    Mr. Hunt: When considering the Committee of the Regions we need to know whether the right hon. Gentleman still agrees with his original words—that the Labour party was broadly in support of the treaty signed at Maastricht.
    Mr. Wigley: Is it not the case that under the secret deal cobbled up by the Labour party with the local government associations in London, Wales would have only two seats out of the 24, compared with the three or four that are now likely to come to Wales? Labour's amendment to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill contained no guarantee whatever that those seats would be distributed to any but one party, or that they would be distributed geographically in Wales; nor was there a guarantee of any reporting-back mechanism. Is it not time that the Labour party gave up fighting yesterday's battle, which it lost so badly, and started arguing positively for the good of Wales in Europe?
    Mr. Hunt: I agree with the Leader of the Plaid Cymru [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
    Mr. Hunt: I hope that Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen will cease such behaviour. I completely agree with you, Madam Speaker, that it does not enhance respect for the House to have Labour Front-Bench spokesmen behaving in such a manner. I am extremely pleased to inform the House that the regional development section of the European Community Economic and Social Committee will visit south Wales next month to hold one

    5
    of its regular formal meetings. That meeting in Cardiff, will be hosted by the Welsh Office and it will be the first time in many years that the Committee has left Brussels. I shall be delighted to welcome it to Wales.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that by supporting the Committee of the Regions the Opposition are showing a degree of double standards because they support the Maastricht treaty in its entirety instead of—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I have had enough of Members going wide of the question.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: I wish to put a simple question to the Secretary of State. Bearing in mind that the Committee of the Regions is not a parliamentary committee, does he regard it as relevant that at the last general election the Liberal Democrats won 60,000 more votes in Wales than Plaid Cymru?
    Mr. Hunt: That is, of course, a factor to be taken into account, as is the factor that the Liberal Democrats' representation in the House came down from three to one. The only reason why the hon. and learned Gentleman is leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats in the House is that he is the only one left.
    Mr. Ron Davies: We are all wondering why the Secretary of State is so determined to avoid giving straight answers to straight questions on this. It is clear that his personal preference is for the posts to be filled by unfettered patronage, but that preference has been overridden by a decision of the House. Will he therefore confirm that he will comply fully with the spirit of that decision? Since our Welsh representatives will now be drawn from local government and will represent Welsh local government interests, does he agree that local government itself should decide on its own representatives? Does he understand that any veto, trickery or gerrymandering by him will be completely unacceptable?
    Mr. Hunt: I have already given a straight answer to the question posed by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock). I said that I have a written agreement with the Leader of Plaid Cymru, which I shall honour. I understand that this week there is to be a great unveiling of new proposals for a Welsh assembly with fund-raising and legislative powers. It is disgraceful that the hon. Gentleman did not mention that in the House although he had an opportunity to do so. The sooner he comes clean in the House rather than retiring to Llandudno for some party political occasion, the more I shall respect him. He has to decide how he will vote on Thursday. Will he support his right hon. Friend? Does he still support the Maastricht treaty? If not, there can never be a Committee of the Regions and that would be a great shame for Wales.

    Higher Education (Research)
    Mr. Richards: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to enhance the quality of research in the higher education sector in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: We have asked the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales to work with the higher education institutions in Wales to raise the quality of
    6
    research. We have made an additional £2·9 million available in 1993–94, to enable the council to make a start on the task and to assist the former public sector institutions to establish research departments.
    Mr. Richards: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but can he tell us the total amount available for research into higher education in Wales?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Yes, it is about £35 million, which is rather more than the higher education sector secured from the Universities Funding Council last year. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is vital for the future well-being of the Welsh economy that we should concentrate on research and innovation and seek to apply it from the higher education sector to industry and business in Wales.

    Planning Decisions
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many planning decisions by Welsh planning authorities he has called in during the last two years; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Twelve.
    Mr. Llwyd: Given that no planning permission has been revoked by the Welsh Office in the past two years, is it not time to confirm the view of many senior planning officers in Wales that they are not being given sufficient monitoring and assistance by the Welsh Office as they try to uphold the structure plans? When is the Welsh Office likely to introduce an element of flexibility into rural planning so that villages are allowed to grow naturally and not die?
    Mr. Jones: Revocation is a seldom-used power. Normally we would expect planning decisions to be made properly by local planning authorities. That is why the power is so seldom used. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we look for an appropriate approach in all structure plans to cover rural areas.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that the decision of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to allow Radnorshire district council to decide the wind farm project at Bryntitli near Rhayader in my constituency has been warmly welcomed by my constituents? Is it not a further illustration of the fact that local democracy demands that, within the overall planning framework, decisions of that nature should be decided at local level?
    Mr. Jones: I am happy to acknowledge my hon. Friend's warm welcome for our right hon. Friend's decision.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Why do the Welsh Office and the Secretary of State so persistently overrule local planning authorities, as they did over Browning Ferris, which was a despicable decision after a contrary unanimous decision by Newport borough council? Will the Minister reconsider the Welsh Office's attitude to such matters—which are better decided locally, as his hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) has just advised him?
    Mr. Jones: A the hon. Gentleman knows, that matter was considered fully and I cannot make any further comment.

    Patients Charter
    Mr. Sweeney: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress is being made in Wales in meeting the targets set out in the patients charter.
    Mr. David Hunt: We are achieving the waiting times guarantees set out in the patients charter and have made considerable progress towards meeting the other standards set in it.
    Mr. Sweeney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that waiting times for a first out-patient appointment are just as important as those after seeing a consultant? Will he consider setting a target for such appointments?
    Mr. Hunt: That is a very good point. I am happy to be able to say that from April next year we are prepared to set a target of two years from referral by general practitioners —[Interruption.] We are talking about the total number of cases. A target of two years from referral by the GP will apply to all cases, but that will not affect the target of one month for urgent treatment.
    Mr. Llew Smith: If the Minister thinks that the patients charter is working; can he explain why there are approximately 1 million people on hospital waiting lists in the United Kingdom and why they are increasing by 1,000 per week? To deal with the problems of waiting lists, can he tell me how much of the £8 million promised for a hospital in Blaenau Gwent during the late 1980s has been spent?
    Mr. Hunt: The latter point is.a matter for the health authority locally. The charter for patients in Wales is backed up by record resources. I give the hon. Gentleman one simple statistic. When we came into power in 1979, gross expenditure per capita on the NHS in Wales was £171. In this financial year, that has increased to £713 per capita—a rate of increase far higher than the rate of inflation. We are now targeting that record level of expenditure on the patients so as to improve patient care. That is what the patients charter in Wales is all about.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the Secretary of State agree that little progress will be made on the patients charter if things carry on as they have been for the past month in the Prince of Wales orthopaedic hospital in my constituency, where the number of orthopaedic operations carried out since 1 April is 50 per cent. down on last year, where last week alone eight knee and hip joint replacement operations were cancelled, and where a new operating theatre—constructed following lobbying by me and the medical profession in the area and with great support from the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones)—has been used only twice in the six weeks since it was handed over by the builders? With that rate of progress, the patients charter can be forgotten for orthopaedic operations in the Cardiff area for a very long time to come.
    Mr. HuntI accept that the hon. Gentleman is making constituency points from the Front Bench. The South Glamorgan health authority has made very good progress in cutting the in-patient waiting list. Since October 1991, the total in-patient list has come down by 27 per cent., and the percentage of people waiting more than one year for non-urgent in-patient treatment has fallen by 33 per cent.
    8
    The hon. Gentleman implicitly criticises all the local staff who are doing such a marvellous job in achieving those targets.

    Education and Training Targets
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to ensure that national education and training targets will be met; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: We have made it clear to education, training and employer organisations throughout Wales that we attach great importance to the national education and training targets. We have taken a number of measures in consultation with the training and enterprise councils and other partners to secure an ambitious rate of progress towards their achievement.
    Mr. Knox: Will my right hon. Friend be more specific about the role of TECs and colleges in achieving those targets?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Certainly. We have invited the TECs in Wales to form local strategic groups and to fix provisional local targets and planned joint action. We have also asked the Further Education Funding Council for Wales to encourage colleges to work very closely with the TECs to develop those local targets and strategies for achieving them.
    Dr. Marek: The Minister will know that North-East Clwyd TEC has decided, instead of spending its money on training, to spend it on plush new offices with armchairs and first-class restaurants for itself and its staff. At the same time, I am continually getting complaints from still unemployed ex-Brymbo steel workers that training has not been up to the standard that was expected. It is high time the Minister brought those TECs under control and told them to spend the money where it should be spent on training.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The TECs are very well resourced. Certainly, they are better resourced than they were last year as far as training is concerned. I have no objection personally to the provision of good capital facilities for training and enterprise councils and for further education colleges as those colleges have been starved of funds under the local education authorities in years gone by. We have a lot of capital investment to do before our facilities reach the right level in Wales.

    Angling
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has had from angling organisations in Wales.
    Mr. David Hunt: Several.
    Mr. Jones: I thank the Secretary of State for that comprehensive reply. Among those representations, did he receive complaints from angling associations about the proposals of the National Rivers Authority to make good the shortfall in Government grant, which in 1996 will drop from 54 to 30 per cent? If the proposals are implemented, the local waters of Wales will be put out of the reach of

    9
    Welsh anglers. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the NRA to look for other sources of funding, rather than looking to the anglers of Wales?
    Mr. Hunt: I am aware of the NRA's proposals to raise additional revenue by making a charge on fisheries' owners. The NRA is responsible for the allocation of resources between its regions. No proposals have yet been submitted to Ministers. I am aware that the NRA has put forward some proposals to conserve salmon and sea trout stocks in the NRA's Welsh region. We are considering the objections that we have received to those proposals.

    Training and Further Education
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest figures for Government spending on training and further education in Wales.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The resources available for training and further education in Wales in 1993–94 total almost £290 million. A further £6·2 million for learning for work, business start-up and training and enterprise council challenge was announced in the Budget on 16 March.
    Mr. Coombs: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that comprehensive and carefully researched answer. What progress has been made in meeting the youth training guarantee?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Meeting the youth training guarantee is a high priority and resources have been made available for that. Last September, 1,550 young people were awaiting placements under that scheme. I am glad to tell the House that, as of April, the number had dropped to 260.
    Mr. Rowlands: Will the Minister answer the parliamentary question that I have tabled three times during the past six weeks: will TEC budgets for 1993–94 be increased or decreased? Will there be an increase, as there should be, or will there be a cut of 8 to 10 per cent., as most of the TEC's believe will happen?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman that we will not announce the individual TEC budgets because the TECs are in negotiation with training providers. We shall make the budgets known in about October, when those negotiations have been completed. We are providing £146·7 million for training and enterprise support this year and the TECs come within that budget. I assure the hon. Gentleman, as I have done before in reply to another of his questions, that the TECs will be well provided for.
    Mr. Richards: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be a real improvement in the capital budgets of further education colleges, following many years of neglect by local education authorities under the control of the Labour party? I refer especially to Llandrillo college in my constituency, which has had to use Portakabins for many years.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I am aware of the deficiencies in our further education colleges, including Llandrillo. I am delighted to say that we are making £13·9 million of capital available for the improvement of further education colleges—following, as my hon. Friend said, years of neglect by Labour local education authorities.

    Voluntary Organisations
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to increase the support provided by the Welsh Office for voluntary organisations in Wales.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Substantial sums of taxpayers' money continue to be provided and the Government intend to maintain their commitment to a flourishing voluntary sector in Wales.
    Mr. Michael: In other words, the Minister will not give any more money to the voluntary sector in Wales. Does not he realise that essential to the health of the community is a strong partnership between local authorities and voluntary organisations, especially youth organisations? That is being undermined because of the mean and petty cuts in the finance made available to local authorities by the Welsh Office. If, because they have to pull back to their statutory responsibilities, local authorities are unable to fund voluntary organisations, the Secretary of State for Wales should provide far more to make up the shortfall. Will the Minister give an undertaking that he will do that?
    Mr. Jones: I can simply refute the hon. Gentleman's allegations by reminding him that we have increased funding for the voluntary sector by one third in the past five years and threefold during the lifetime of this Government.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Recently, I wrote to the Secretary of State about funding for the Powys mental health project, which is in the voluntary sector. Is the Minister aware of widespread concern in rural Wales about increasing depressive illness and even suicide among farmers? Will he examine seriously the possibility of funding projects such as the Powys mental health project, which can, through the voluntary sector, be of such great assistance to farmers facing psychiatric illness?
    Mr. Jones: Yes, I am more than happy to consider the specific project to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. I seek to reassure him by saying that, in general, funding of the mental handicap strategy in Wales for the current financial year has increased by 15 per cent.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Minister will be aware that a number of people in the voluntary sector are becoming active in assisting those with a drug dependency. There have been problems in my constituency recently, as I am sure the Minister is aware. The local branch of Llangefni drugs council within Gwynedd drugs council is seeking funding to develop services for people who have a drug dependency. Will the Minister sympathetically consider its funding application?
    Mr. Jones: Yes, I will consider that particular application also. On 1 April, the Welsh Office issued a circular to all Welsh county councils reminding them what is involved in support for alcohol and drug dependency services. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the action point that local authorities should plan for continuity of services for alcohol and drug misusers under the new community care arrangements. As a priority, they should ensure that the implementation of social care plans properly reflects the needs of those groups. In general, funding for care in the community has increased by more than £8 million.
    Mr. Ron Davies: The Secretary of State is getting something of a reputation for being demob happy. Given the complacency of the Under-Secretary of State's answer, it is clear that he, too, does not think that he has much of a future at the Welsh Office. Does not the Under-Secretary understand that the voluntary sector depends heavily on local government support? As a result of this year's cuts in local government funding, the voluntary sector, together with vital public services, is having to pay a heavy cost for the Government's failures. Instead of berating and undermining local councils, why do not the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State get their act together, go to Brussels and make sure that the £75 million of finance that was allocated to Wales this year by the EC —but which has not been taken up—is brought back to Wales, used by local government and allocated to those voluntary sectors that desperately need that money?
    Mr. Jones: Again and again, the hon. Gentleman blindly ignores the facts. Community care was to be £28 million this year, but has been increased to £36 million. That is the extent of the increase. If anyone is demob happy, it is the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who is the third shadow Secretary of State for Wales in the current Parliament—and I guess that the Scottish puppet master is already trawling for the fourth.

    Non-standard Working Hours
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the employed Welsh work force are working non-standard hours.
    Mr. David Hunt: There is no single or standard agreed definition of "standard" hours, but the 1991 census shows that 21 per cent. of Welsh residents in employment worked fewer than 31 hours a week.
    Mr. Flynn: That figure renders as complete fiction the Secretary of State's claim that he has increased the number of jobs in Wales, because tens of thousands of people in the Welsh work force are counted twice and sometimes three times. Did the Secretary of State notice that in the recent elections, the Conservative party managed to secure only 32 county councillors out of a possible 500 in Wales? That makes the present Secretary of State about as popular as Ceausescu in Romania in December 1990. Will not the Secretary of State confess that there has been no Welsh recovery but that a reasonably paid, highly skilled work force has been turned into a low-wage, low-skill sweat shop?
    Mr. Hunt: I heard no expressions of approval following the hon. Gentleman's remarks, which were pretty disgraceful. Any Opposition Member who says that there has been no recovery in Wales and expects to be taken seriously is living in cloud cuckoo land.
    I am pleased to announce that, in the past financial year, 190 offers of regional selective assistance have been accepted by companies for projects in Wales worth £73 million, involving investment of £470 million and 12,500 jobs. I can also announce new projects totalling more than £15 million, involving eight companies setting up, modernising or expanding operations in Wales. They plan to create 425 new jobs and to safeguard 156 existing jobs. The hon. Gentleman must be the only Member of Parliament who does not recognise that the Welsh dragon is breathing fire into the United Kingdom recovery.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Terrorist Bomb (City of London)
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the damage done to Church of England property by the recent terrorist bomb in the City of London; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Church Commissioners have made no assessment, as the future of these buildings—at least initially—is not within their jurisdiction. However, they naturally regret the damage to churches caused by the bomb. I understand that the diocese of London, local clergy and other interested parties will be making such an assessment in due course in the light of professional advice.
    Mr. Lidington: Many people who care about the architecture and history of the City of London are particularly concerned about the damage done to St. Ethelburga's church. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Church Commissioners, rather than, as has been reported, trying to sell off the site to make a quick profit, will seek ways of organising an appeal to ensure that the church is fully restored?
    Mr. Alison: I assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of the Church Commissioners' trying to sell off the site to make a quick profit, interested though we are in making profits on our property for the benefit of the clergy and their dependants. The disposal of the site and the determination of its future, however, are matters for the diocese and the parochial church council. If they decide that they want to launch an appeal and to develop the site as part of a pastoral reorganisation, the Church Commissioners will have some jurisdiction and will do everything possible to help.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, however important the Church's view on the destruction of its property may be, it has a more important message to deliver—that killing and injuring people, as the IRA has done, is entirely unacceptable? Does he agree that the Church should be encouraged at every opportunity to make it clear to the IRA that there is only a difference of degree between what it does in the City of London and what others are currently doing in the former Yugoslavia?
    Mr. Alison: I entirely support what the hon. Gentleman has said. He will recall, as I do, the many vivid photographs of churches and other buildings in London burning after the attacks of the totalitarian Hitler regime in the last war. Terrorists are totalitarian, and their attacks on London will be as abortive and ineffectual as Hitler's attacks.

    Rents
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners by what percentage in real terms rents for Church lands were changed in the years 1987 to 1992.
    Mr. Alison: The average gross rent per acre in respect of the Church Commissioners' agricultural land increased by 6·5 per cent., from £56·84 in 1987 to £60·53 in 1992. That compared to an increase in the retail prices index of 34·8 per cent. over the same period, representing a reduction of 28 per cent. in real terms.
    Mr. Flynn: Does that figure include a premium charged by the Church to allow its tenants to permit the tormenting of dumb animals on their land in the name of sport by allowing fox hunting and deer hunting? Is not the right hon. Gentleman embarrassed that at the international whaling conference and elsewhere, Britain has been criticised by Japan and Norway for allowing hunting on our land? Does not that undermine entirely—
    Madam Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman tried to catch my eye during questions on the whaling statement, he might be successful, but it is unfortunate that he should move now to the discussion of a subject that is not at all related to his original question.

    Publications
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representating the Church Commissioners what plans there are for further publication; by the Church Commissioners.
    Mr. Alison: The Church Commissioners' annual report and accounts for 1992 are to be published in June, and the 1993 report of the Church Commissioners as central stipend authority will be published in the autumn. The commissioners produce leaflets on a variety of subjects from time to time.
    Mr. Marshall: Might the Church Commissioners produce a leaflet on the arguments in favour of women priests, as many people in the House and outside it wish to see women become fully ordained priests of the Church of England? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the uncertainty that is created by the current delay is not good for the Church of England or for those who either support or oppose the measure and that the sooner the matter is determined the better it will be for everyone?
    Mr. Alison: I take careful note of what my hon. Friend says, as, no doubt, will colleagues from all parties here and in the other place who serve on the Ecclesiastical Committee, which is to meet later this afternoon and which is now the only possible source of delay. My hon. Friend can be assured that the Ecclesiastical Committee will present to the House for his benefit a comprehensive summary of the arguments for and against the ordination of women, I believe with an endorsement to the effect that the measure is expedient.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Divorce (Welfare of Children)
    Mr. Wicks: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidance has been issued to courts regarding the consideration to be given to the welfare of children in divorce proceedings.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): May I acknowledge the
    14
    hon. Gentleman's expertise in this subject and tell him that the Judicial Studies Board organises training courses for both district judges and specialist circuit judges at which the needs of children are thoroughly discussed? Eminent child psychiatrists, paediatricians, court welfare officers, social workers and academics play important roles in briefing judges on this vital topic, alongside guidance from the Department of Health on the Children Act 1989.
    Mr. Wicks: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he agree, however, that, given that one in four children have parents who are likely to divorce before those children reach the age of 16, it is high time that his Department introduced proposals to implement the Law Commission's report aimed at putting children first in divorce proceedings? Are the costs of conciliation the reason for the delay? If so, does the Minister agree that the social, emotional and financial costs of a failure to act to help children are greater than the costs of implementation?
    Mr. Taylor: It was, is and will continue to be the policy of the Lord Chancellor's Department that the child's welfare is the paramount consideration. Many of us have sympathy for the parting parents, but the children are the paramount priority and the Department is well seized of that fact.

    Stockton-on-Tees County Court
    Mr. Devlin: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement about the future of Stockton-on-Tees county court.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: The Lord Chancellor is currently undertaking wide consultation on the proposed closure of Stockton-on-Tees county court. No final decision will be made on the future of the court until the results of that consultation are known.
    Mr. Devlin: Given that, last week, the Local Government Commission made the welcome recommendation that county Cleveland should be abolished and replaced with unitary authorities, will my hon. Friend delay making any final decision on Stockton-on-Tees county court until the new unitary authorities are decided upon, as one of them will be Stockton-on-Tees and as there will be a consequent reversal of the policy of centralising all facilities in Middlesbrough?
    Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is as vigorous as ever in his pursuit of his constituency interests. He will not draw me into making any comment about Cleveland, however—nor do I think that he would want me to. The point that he made may be relevant to the consultation that is in progress, but it is not for me to prejudge its outcome and I am sure that the House would not expect me to do so.
    Mr. Boateng: Is the Minister aware of the concern—not only in Stockton-on-Tees county court but in other county courts up and down the country—about reports over the weekend of the Government's intention to privatise the court services? Is he further aware that that concern is widespread, bearing in mind that disastrous impact of privatisation on other aspects of the justice system that we have witnessed over recent weeks and months? When does the Minister intend to make a statement to the House

    15
    about that and what proposals will he introduce to ensure that the confidentiality and best interests of the consumers of legal services are properly safeguarded?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right to lay out the priorities as he did in the conclusion of his question; it is the consumers and users whose interests must be considered as the most important. I am aware of certain press comment during the weekend along the lines that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but it is not always from sources of the greatest possible fidelity, as I am sure he will know from his own experience, as I do from mine. Consideration has been given to the court service becoming an agency under the next steps arrangements. Such thoughts are current and are being very carefully deliberated on.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the effect of changes in legal aid eligibility arrangements upon the number of women seeking injunctions to restrain a violent partner.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Almost half of all households are now eligible for civil legal aid. A woman seeking an injunction against a violent partner would have her means assessed separately from those of her partner and for this reason may be more likely to qualify than the overall eligibility figure suggests.
    Mr. Cohen: May I tell the Minister of a constituent of mine whose violent partner was pestering her but who could not get an injunction because, although she had low earnings, she just fell outside the new legal aid limit? The police told her that they were limited in their actions because they did not have an injunction to enforce. Is not this a serious loophole in the new legal aid limit? Does not that mean that many women at risk of assault will be without court protection? What will the Government do about that?
    Mr. Taylor: I do not think that the House would expect me to comment on an individual case. Civil legal aid is available, with a contribution, to up to 48 per cent. of households and very generous allowances are made in the determination of disposable income. The amended regulations provide that, from 12 April, attendance allowance, disability living allowance, constant attendance allowance paid as an increase to a disablement pension and any payment out of the social fund will be disregarded in the calculation of disposable income for advice and assistance. If the hon. Gentleman wrote to me about the case in point, I would gladly receive his letter.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend tell the House by how much expenditure on legal aid has risen since 1979? Am I right in saying that it has increased 10-fold since then?
    Mr. Taylor: In 1979, legal aid covered about 900,000 participants and that figure has now gone up to 3·1 million. In the past four years, the cost of legal aid has doubled and it now stands at £1·1 billion. Contrary to all that is being said about legal aid being cut, it is set to go
    16
    on rising significantly over the next three years, and the number of participants receiving legal aid is set to rise from 3·1 million to 4 million.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister aware that the position of women who have been subjected to violence and have had to come before the courts was brought home with stark and appealing directness at the Conservative party conference in Scotland by that courageous woman—who was described as "Judy"—who highlighted the difficulties that people in those circumstances face? Did the Minister notice in particular what she said about the desirability of having a female member on each appeal court Bench? Will he give some help on that?
    Mr. Taylor: I should like to reflect on the second and rather specific point raised by the hon. Gentleman. As to the first point about women's vulnerability in court, the Lord Chancellor and I are sympathetic towards that matter, as we are towards the vulnerability of children in court and in cases involving their parents. A court can be a hostile, unnatural, awesome and frightening place for people who have experienced fear and trouble already. The process must be made more congenial to people and every sympathy for their needs must be shown.
    Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister agree that the eligibility alterations have affected one class of women above all others—women who are working wives and mothers and who have a separate income, which now means that they are not able to obtain legal aid? Very often, children are involved. Will the Minister for once accept that people are being hurt by his Department and his Government?
    Mr. Taylor: No one should imagine for a minute that the Lord Chancellor and I considered the recently necessary application of discipline to the legal aid budget with any joy; rather, we did so with a very heavy heart. Nevertheless, the cost of legal aid is set to go on rising. It is available in civil cases to 48 per cent. of the community, and there is no upper limit in criminal cases. As a spokesman in the House of Lords said, our system of legal aid remains almost certainly one of the most generous in the world—that was said by a spokesman for the Labour party.

    Contract and Estate (Report)
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor intends to introduce legislation to implement Law Commission report No. 174, "Privity of Contract and Estate".
    Mr. John M. Taylor: As I announced in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry), on 31 March, Official Report, column 198, the Government have decided, after careful consideration, to implement the Law Commission's recommendations for future leases but not for existing leases. The necessary legislation will be introduced as soon as there is a suitable legislative opportunity, but I cannot predict when such an opportunity will occur.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be impractical to legislate retrospectively? However, in framing any amendments to the law, will he consult all

    17
    those involved, especially the professionals who advise on property matters, so that the people who have unwittingly been made bankrupt in these perplexing cases will not be subject to that particular law in the future?
    Mr. Taylor: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. He is right to say, and he understands, that it is the careful judgment of the Government that these measures cannot be retrospective. However, the consultation that he urges is valuable; there is a need for it, and he will be pleased to learn that the process has already begun.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a further statement on changes in the legal aid scheme.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Changes to the permanent payment on account scheme for barristers came into effect on 1 April. Changes to the financial conditions for legal aid came into effect on 12 April. Standard fees are to be introduced in the magistrates courts on 1 June.
    Mr. Vaz: Further to the inadequate reply that the Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), is he aware that reported cases of domestic violence in London have increased by 1,000 per cent. in eight years and that for the victims of domestic violence legal representation is very much a case of the difference between life and death? If evidence is brought before the Minister or the Lord Chancellor to show that justice has been denied because of the increase in payment being required of the Department, will he reverse the savage cuts?
    Mr. Taylor: I would not be able to reverse the decision even if I wanted to because it was a decision taken by the House with a majority of 49 votes. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Lord Chancellor and I are receptive to evidence. The answer is, of course we are.

    Solicitors (Rights of Audience)
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress is being made in extending rights of audience to solicitors in the higher courts; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: The Law Society submitted its formal application for extended rights of audience in November 1992. The Lord Chancellor and the four designated judges will be in a position to reach a decision on the application when they receive the advice of the Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct and of the Director General of Fair Trading later in the summer.
    Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend will be aware that there is widespread concern about the savings that have had to be made by the Lord Chancellor's Department in relation to legal aid. There is also great concern about the committee's slow progress in extending solicitors' rights which, in the circumstances, would clearly lead to a substantial financial saving. There have been recent reports that the Government legal service and Crown Prosecution Service's lawyers are not to be recommended to receive the extended rights of audience in the higher courts. Will my hon. Friend consider those proposals carefully because, in the circumstances, there is clearly an unanswerable case for solicitors to be granted those rights?
    Mr. Taylor: I take my hon. Friend's question in exactly the spirit in which it was put. The mechanism for determining wider rights of audience is extremely complicated, not least because the House, in its wisdom, chose to make a complex mechanism when it passed the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. I think that there will be progress fairly soon, but I am bound to say that it will not be quick enough to satisfy my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Skinner: Can the Minister explain exactly what is meant by wider rights of audience? Has it got something to do with the Lord Chancellor trotting off to Cyprus to see Asil Nadir? It seems like a shady business to me. A man hands over £440,000 to the Tory party and a member of the Cabinet goes to Cyprus to have some private discussions. Would that apply to anybody else in Britain?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. That is not at all relevant. Does the Minister wish to answer?
    Mr. Taylor: I did not want the afternoon to come to an end without Asil Nadir getting in somewhere. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased, but not surprised, to know that Mr. Nadir's legal aid certificate has been frozen.

Whaling
3.30 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the outcome of the International Whaling Commission meeting which ended in Kyoto, Japan, last Friday evening. The meeting was attended by 40 member countries. The United Kingdom team, led by my officials with help from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of the Environment, played an active and prominent role.
I believe that all our key objectives were reached. First and foremost, the IWC's moratorium on all commercial whaling, which has been in place since 1985–86, remains, despite great pressure from Norway and Japan to have it lifted. I think that you would agree, Madam Speaker, that this has been the prime purpose of the United Kingdom and our like-minded allies. We are pleased once again to have achieved it. We argued strongly that we could not agree to its ending, as our essential preconditions to any such consideration have still not been met.
The scientific committee presented some further work on aspects of the revised management procedure. We made it clear that we could not formally accept that as the basis for considering a lifting of the moratorium until and unless we were satisfied on all other aspects of a new scheme, including new observation and inspection procedures and, crucially, acceptable and humane methods of killing whales. We thus opposed again requests from Japan for interim quotas for minke whales in the north Pacific, and we said that we could not accept Norway's plans for coastal whaling.
There was a great deal of further discussion on the proposal, launched at the Glasgow meeting last year, for a circumpolar whale sanctuary in the Antarctic. We again expressed our keen interest and support for this concept, and we co-sponsored resolutions calling for further work on the importance of environmental threats to whale stocks and on their proper management. Some contracting parties argued that they needed more time to study some of the detailed aspects of the sanctuary approach, such as the delineation of boundaries, matters of jurisdiction and future research plans for the sanctuary.
We had warned earlier that that might be the case. We were concerned that matters should not be brought to a head in circumstances in which the whole scheme might come to nothing. At length, the IWC decided that, although it endorsed the concept, it would work to resolve outstanding issues at a special inter-sessional working group. A final decision is planned for the 46th meeting of the IWC next year in Mexico. The United Kingdom will play its major part in ensuring that we achieve that end.
On so-called "scientific whaling", we were critical once more of both the Norwegian and Japanese plans for yet further lethal research on minke whale stocks. Many of us in the House feel that the word "scientific" when used in this way has little to do with the realities.
We have consistently argued that research should, if at all possible, be through non-lethal means. In that regard, we welcomed an offer by Japan to discuss with scientists a programme to look for the reason for the poor recovery of the great whale stocks. That is an encouraging sign and, in the circumstances of our condemnation of many things that have happened, we should welcome it.
20
We again pressed home at length our concerns about the methods used in whaling operations—including secondary means of killing those whales which do not die from explosive harpoons. We condemned especially the use of the electric lance, which we think is particularly cruel. Some data on humane killing are coming forward following adoption of the United Kingdom's action plan last year, but many serious questions remain. The commission agreed our proposals for a further workshop for 1995. Meanwhile, we shall vigorously maintain our view that present methods are unacceptable.
We also took action on pilot whales in the Faroes, tabling detailed papers and securing IWC support for further studies, noting our concerns about the cruelty of the methods and the organisation of this drive fishery.
Small cetaceans are an area about which I am particularly concerned, because, if we are not careful, our arrangements to protect the larger whales will drive many to take action against smaller cetaceans and cause real depredations in those stocks. We believe that the IWC is fully competent to consider both the larger and smaller cetaceans, and that belief was reinforced.
We fought to secure specific and improved protection for harbour porpoises in the north Atlantic and for striped dolphins. There has been new progress in considering better, co-operative ways of addressing improved means of protecting small cetaceans, many of which are threatened in directed and by-catch fisheries.
The fact that many people do not wish the IWC to uphold what I believe to be its fundamental responsibilities in this area, is a serious matter. Without that, we cannot look at the whole range of cetacean problems as one. Instead, we will find ourselves dealing with the larger animals and thereby, in some senses, endangering species which would otherwise be protected.
The United Kingdom presented a paper and gained consensus support for new IWC studies on whale watching. That is an innovative and benign way of using the world's whale stocks—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Minister will have plenty of time to watch whales when he gets the sack.
Mr. Gummer: I hope that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will realise that we are dealing with a serious matter, for which cheap political remarks are not necessary.
As I was saying, that is an innovative and benign way of using the world's whale stocks. It is big business, possibly $0·4 billion currently, and growing rapidly, including in Japan. Our plans for an IWC involvement with studies and recommendations were fully agreed.
Finally, I must mention Norway. I am deeply saddened by her apparent plans to go ahead with commercial whaling. I urge her to reconsider. Many commissioners signed a statement last week underlining the dangers of undermining the commission and its work. The Prime Minister of Norway, in her introduction to the Brundtland report, made it quite clear that, in circumstances where individual nations disagreed with international agreements, they should accept those international agreements even though that may be to their own hindrance. I am sorry that Norway does not take that view on this issue.
Overall, this was a valuable meeting, with excellent results in our further steps towards safeguarding whale stocks. I do hope that the House agrees.
Dr. Gavin Strang: I thank the Minister for his statement on this historic meeting of the International. Whaling Commission. The outcome of the meeting should be welcomed by conservationists and environmentalists throughout the world.
I am glad that the Minister referred to the cruelty involved in commercial whaling. The methods of killing whales are horrific; there can be no doubt that they experience great pain and suffering before they die. I hope that the Minister will also endorse the fact that the resumption of commercial whaling will threaten whale stocks. Quotas are not enforceable, and all the evidence shows that people who indulge in commercial whaling will flout the quotas. There can be no alternative to a ban on all whaling.
May I ask the Minister about the proposal for a southern sanctuary south of the 40th southern parallel? He may recall that I wrote to him before the meeting urging the Government to support the proposal. I welcome the fact that the United Kingdom voted for it. Can the Minister tell the House when progress will be made on it? Is it the case that there will be an inter-sessional meeting on the sanction proposal in Australia?
What resources and research are the Government planning to contribute to ensure that this important proposal is properly backed? As the Minister recognises and the House understands, the proposal is important because, if the sanctuary is agreed, it will mean that whales in the southern sanctuary will be properly protected, no matter what happens in the future with regard to commercial whaling.
May I ask the Minister about the proposal by the Japanese, which is accepted, to establish a working group to identify objectives for research into blue whales? I must point out that there is concern that Japan's aim is to attempt to demonstrate that the recovery of the blue whale population is being hindered by the minke whale in order to get some justification for renewed minke whaling. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to keep an eye on that issue.
The Labour party welcomes the fact that the commission passed resolutions condemning the scientific whaling programmes of Norway and Japan, and that the commissioner's statement chastising Norway for its plans to resume commercial whaling was passed. What will the British Government do in response to those resolutions?
I understand that the United States Administration have written to Iceland—which withdrew from the Commission last year to resume commercial whaling—Norway and Japan stating that sanctions will be considered, where appropriate, against countries that choose to ignore the IWC conservation programme and resume commercial whaling without the requisite IWC approval. Can the Minister confirm that the United States has made that communication? For their part, what are the United Kingdom Government doing fully to explore all opportunities for such action?
Will the Minister address the question of Norway's position, taking into account the intention of its Government that Norway should enter the European Community? After all, it is the case that the European Community bans commercial whaling. What sense does it make, and how can it possibly be justified, for Norway to resume commercial whaling and at the same time seek to enter the European Community? Surely it cannot be right
22
for a country to apply to join the European Community if it intends to flout one of the Community's resolutions, and makes no secret of that in the process of joining.
I put it to the Minister that the decisions of the International Whaling Commission are of enormous significance to the future of whale stocks in the seas and to the wider environmental issues. It is one thing to pass resolutions and have all these meetings—what is needed is action to stop the cruelty. In particular, we must judge the situation with regard to the action that is taken to prevent commercial whaling interests in Iceland, Japan and Norway from continuing to damage the whales. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that there is a lot more at stake than whales, important though they are. What is at stake is whether we will have effective United Nations-backed action—the IWC is recognised by the United Nations—to tackle these environmental and conservation issues.
Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I agree with him entirely about the southern sanctuary. It seemed better to be reticent in advance, simply because I wanted to make it clear that our prime need was to keep the moratorium going. That must be so. We have done the best we could on the southern sanctuary, and I hope that next time we will be able to complete our work. We shall be doing work at the inter-sessional meeting.
We spend £25 million a year on the British Antarctic survey. Much of that money will be a great help in giving the necessary research backing, and there is new MAFF-funded research on the issue. I shall ensure that that is set for the advantage of the inter-sessional group which will meet in Hobart, Australia, in October-November.
The hon. Gentleman refers to research into blue whales and his fear of the Japanese. I shall keep an eye on the matter, but it is important that the Japanese were prepared to enter into the investigation. Until we think or know otherwise, I am prepared to go along with their intentions. I hope that we can encourage them. Certainly it would not be proper for such an investigation to start with a prejudgment on either side. We want to know the facts. That is what the investigation is about.
The international community has shown Norway that its largely unilateral approach is unacceptable. If Norway were to come into the European Community, it would have to accept the rules. I do not suggest that it cannot say or argue what it likes in advance, but it belongs to an international body that has banned commercial whaling, and it ought to meet its obligations. If Norway were to join the EC, it would be expected to meet its obligations within the Community.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's opinions on the International Whaling Commission's role and the importance that goes beyond whales of dealing with the environment. That is why I get somewhat angry about the reaction of Norway. If a nation cannot accept the scientifically based decisions of an international organisation to which it belongs because they happen not to be in its interests, it is infuriating when that nation goes around the world telling other nations to obey other international institutions the demands of which those nations find onerous. There should be one standard that should be adhered to not only by Norway but by the rest of us.
Sir Donald Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom has been one of the leaders in the IWC, and of late the pressure groups in this country have led the movement to protect whales internationally? Will he therefore try his best to keep whales out of the other more spurious and doubtful campaigns in the way that he has stated today? Is he aware that our hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was talking about whales in the Council of Europe last week at 15 to the dozen, as only he can?
Mr. Gummer: I am pleased to agree with my hon. Friend that this is not a matter of party political division. I should like to recognise the work of my official Tony Burne and his officials not only at the meeting but in the many months that have gone before.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is a sterling supporter of the moratorium, and even if I were likely to slip from my view, he would soon see that I was ratcheted back to the position in which I ought to be.
Mr. Simon Hughes: May I thank the Minister, the Government and Tony Burne and his colleagues, and welcome the success of the session of the IWC? May I add to the pressure on the Government to make their view clear to those who are threatening to go their own way?
Will the Minister reaffirm to the House that what Japan calls research, but which ends up as catching whales for food, and what Norway calls necessary hunting, even though it now appears that the majority of Norwegians questioned in opinion polls are against it, are unjustified?
Does the Minister further agree that the last couple of centuries have seen the loss of various species of whale completely, and that until it is shown scientifically that there are growing and sustainable stocks of all species of whale, no argument that allows commercial whaling to continue is acceptable to this community or to any other country that calls itself civilised?
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the conservation elements in such decisions. It would be wrong of us to endanger any part of the whale population.
I am extremely suspicious of those who now tell us that there are enough minke whales to take, when the only reason that there are reasonable stocks of minke whales is because the other larger whales proved more profitable in the past. They sought to destroy those stocks and nearly succeeded, and are now suggesting that the minke whale has become essential, when it has been saved only by the fact that it was not big enough to attract depredations in the past. Of course conservation comes first, but I think that being able to insist on the rules comes a close second. I want to find a much more humane method of taking whales before I shall even discuss the possibility of resuming that activity.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend accept the argument that whales have human levels of intelligence, and therefore undergo extreme suffering when they are murdered by inhumane methods? Will he undertake to ensure that our Government will not support any resumption of the killing of whales unless a proper and humane method of killing is discovered,
24
whatever the other arguments for killing? Is he prepared to help to seek to enforce a worldwide ban on the sale of whalemeat?
Mr. Gummer: We ban whale product sales in the European Community, which is a good way of taking the lead. I am aware that the problem for the whale is that, because it is thought of as a large fish, people fail to remember that it is a mammal, with a highly developed nervous system. I am not sure that I precisely agree with the human comparison that my hon. Friend used, but the whale is an advanced animal. Three criteria have to be met before we even discuss the resumption of commercial whaling, none of which has so far been met—all three have to be met before such a discussion can take place.
Mr. Barry Jones: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Will he acknowledge that right hon. and hon. Members receive considerable correspondence about the subject, not least from secondary and primary schools, where there is much horror at the vicious and uncivilised manner of killing? The dolphin population around the shores of Wales is diminishing and urgently needs protection. Has the right hon. Gentleman any details of how Iceland, Norway and Japan have been monitored by the Commission and Governments? I urge the right hon. Gentleman to go away, read Melville's "Moby Dick" and take note of the character, the monomaniac Captain Ahab. If he does so, the right hon. Gentleman may become even more concerned about the cause in which the nation wants him to succeed.
Mr. Gummer: I have been criticised for doing the opposite: for being too tough—and I do not accept that criticism. I think that any further reading about Captain Ahab may make me less able to remain quiet in the face of the comments of the hon. Member for Bolsover, so I shall do my best to act without a further reading of the book.
We must be careful not to extend the issue, so that we push everything else into insignificance. That is one reason why I believe that we should look into the management of all cetaceans, not just those which have so far been covered by the International Whaling Commission, which has full power to deal with other members of the whale family. It would be hard if some change of nomenclature resulted in our damaging the stocks of some of the smaller cetaceans—as is now happening. We must monitor the position more effectively, and we shall seek to do so.
Mr. Barry Field: I thank my right hon. Friend for all the work that he has done on the subject. I am particularly grateful that he has told the House of the considerable pressure on the smallest cetaceans that results from the barbarous activity. People on the south coast have been entertained by the dolphins that have taken up residence in the Solent recently. Their presence not only shows the improvement in water quality there, but that dolphins are clearly migrating from Wales.
Although we all appreciate that the southern sanctuary would be the best possible policy, would my right hon. Friend care to consider the questions that I have been asking the Foreign Office—proposing that we extend the 200-mile exclusion zone around the South Sandwich Islands, South Georgia and all our Antarctic property?

25
While we always strive for international agreement, in the short term would not 200-mile territorial limits be a quick answer to preserving some of these stocks?
Mr. Gummer: I shall get out my atlas and check on my hon. Friend's questions.
Ms Glenda Jackson: While I welcome the Minister's statement, my constituents believe—I share their belief—that the phrase "the humane control of whales" is a contradiction in terms. Surely we should not encourage any method with claims to killing whales humanely, however long the scientific seal of good housekeeping might be. We should move further and more swiftly towards a permanent and total ban on all whaling.
What steps does the Minister contemplate the Government taking to bring pressure to bear on Norway, which has taken this unilateral decision, to make it acknowledge the commitments to which it has signed up, and to stop forthwith any whaling at all?
Mr. Gummer: I know that some people share the hon. Lady's views, but if we are to ask Norway to obey her commitments, we must also obey ours. The International Whaling Commission is clearly set up to manage whaling, not to abolish it. So much is quite clear in the international agreement. I therefore could not possibly demand of Norway that she adopt a responsibility that goes contrary to what we have all signed up to. That is why the United Kingdom has been quite clear about this.
We have readily taken on our international obligations. We insist on others carrying them through, but the hon. Lady does her cause harm by undermining the basis on which we have achieved and will extend this moratorium. Once we start saying that we do not approve of the IWC's basic constitution, it will be very difficult for us to keep Norway or Japan under control. I am much more interested in saving the whale than in advancing a particular view.
Mr. John Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his great achievements at the conference will be undermined unless we can bring real pressure to bear on the countries that seek to ignore the rules of the club? Does he agree that, far from excluding Norway from the European Community, we could bring much more pressure to bear if we encouraged her to join it? One of the benefits of the Maastricht Bill is that it will bring greater enforceability of the rules of the European Community, including rules affecting conservation, of whales or sea fish. We should welcome Norway in, and then make sure that she obeys the rules or pays the price.
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right to say that no country can join the European Community without accepting the obligations that that entails. Until now, we have not been able to insist on that; the great advantage of Maastricht is that it makes such insistence possible. The sooner the House passes the Maastricht Bill and Britain returns to the centre of the Community, the better for my hon. Friend, for us and for the whales.
Mr. Paul Flynn: The Government deserve congratulations on the outcome of the negotiations and on their far-sighted view of the consequential threat to other cetaceans. Does not the Secretary of State believe, however, that our position is undermined when Norway and Japan refer to us as "hypocrites" because we
26
oppose the harvesting of whales for food while permitting the hunting of equally intelligent animals for sport? Would we not be in a far stronger position to show our compassion for all other species if we banned fox hunting in Britain?
Mr. Gummer: That is the first question today to undermine the position of the United Kingdom in international affairs. The argument for whales derives, first, from the fact that they are an international, not a national, resource. They are therefore clearly the responsibility of an international body.
Secondly, whales are threatened as a species, and that makes them wholly different from any of the animals to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Thirdly, there is no indication that, at least in present numbers, whales are so predatory that we have to cull them to protect other species. Again, that makes them entirely different from vermin and pests.
The hon. Gentleman should recognise those distinctions. I know that he feels strongly about the issue, but he does the cause of the protection of whales no good at all by confusing those distinctions. He can put his case, and I shall argue vehemently against him, because in my view hunting is one of the sensible ways to ensure that the balance of nature is maintained. We can have that argument, but he should not try to drive a wedge between us on whales when we are on the same side.
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Will the Minister confirm that, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), he said that the Government do not envisage any measures against any country that unilaterally breaches the moratorium on whale hunting?
Mr. Gummer: No, I was answering the hon. Lady's main question, which was whether I was prepared to insist that the Norwegians had broken the IWC agreement because they were not opposed to whaling per se. The IWC is not opposed to whaling per se. It has a moratorium because it believes that the proper conditions for resuming whaling are not being met.
I have made it clear that we shall seek to bring all kinds of pressure on Norway and Japan to ensure that the rules are kept. So far, we have been successful in that. Norway has threatened to withdraw from the IWC, but has so far not done so. Iceland has withdrawn, but has not resumed commercial whaling. My job is to ensure the end rather than the means. I want to stop whales being hunted unless there are circumstances in which that becomes necessary.
I say not that there are no measures that we would fail to take, but that we shall take every measure that is open to us. So far we have been successful. I have today repeated my plea to the Norwegian Government to recognise that it is entirely inimical to their normal stance in international affairs to insist upon whaling when any other country that broke an international agreement of this sort would be attacked by the Norwegian Government right from the start.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that, if Norway was daft enough to join the Common Market, it could decide to have an opt-out on whales anyway, as the Tory Government have done on the social chapter? If the British people are barmy enough to listen to this Minister and accept what he has to say, would it not be good for

27
them to reflect upon the fact that the Government promised protection for the British fishermen, many of whom are now out of work? They promised protection for the miners, the steel workers and the shipyard workers, but they are nearly all on the dole. If the whales could listen to me for a moment, I would say to them, "Don't believe a word this Government say."
Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the House expected that question. It would be helpful to the House if it could be advertised when the hon. Gentleman proposes to put his maiden question that does not involve lowering the tone of debate to the level of party political abuse.
Mr Cynog Dafis: Does the International Whaling Commission consider the effect of pollution and submarine development resources on the cetacean population? I am thinking especially of the dolphin population in Cardigan bay, whose survival may be endangered by the development of oil and gas resources. They may be driven from Cardigan bay to the south of England, and I should not like to see that happen.
Is there any liaison between the Minister's Department and the Department of Trade and Industry about the granting of licences? If there is, will he ensure that that Department undertakes a proper environmental impact assessment of Cardigan bay in advance of any further licensing for oil exploration there?
Mr. Gummer: For obvious reasons, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is involved in discussions on anything that might affect marine life. We carry out a great deal of research and are concerned to ensure that pollution and other factors do not cause the loss of stocks. The reasons for the reductions in stocks seem quite different, but we keep a close eye on the matter. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we do not wish to give as an
28
excuse for the resumption of commercial whaling the claim that we merely have to do something else to the environment? I am keen to ensure that we stick by that first principle—the moratorium—and proceed from there. I shall keep a close eye on pollution.
Madam Speaker: We must now move on.
Dr. Norman A. Godman rose—
Madam Speaker: I know when the hon. Gentleman came into the House.

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

RATEABLE VALUES
That the draft Alcan Aluminium UK Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Caledonian MacBrayne Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Forth Ports plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. —[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
Question agreed to.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 97(1) (Matters relating exclusively to Scotland),
That the Matter of Crime in Scotland, being a Matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
Question agreed to.

Sport
4.5 pm
Mr. Simon Coombs: I beg to move
That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its continuing recognition of sport's role in enhancing the nation's life and its prestige abroad.
It seems appropriate that we should be given the opportunity to debate sport this week and on this day; this week, the first of the one-day internationals between England and Australia heralds the arrival of summer, of a kind, and we also wish good luck to the British Lions touring team in New Zealand. This day is also appropriate, as I am sure that all hon. Members here want to congratulate Miss Rebecca Stephens on becoming the first British woman ever to reach the summit of Mount Everest. I understand that she comes from Fulham, and I cannot imagine a more excellent example of upward mobility than she has demonstrated today.
Some hon. Members—no doubt among the few who are not present—might feel that sport is not as serious a subject as many that we have debated at length during past weeks. Some hon. Members might say that it is a trivial topic, but I must tell them, and any here who may be tempted to say the same, that sport is a topic which concerns a huge number of our constituents; a topic which is perhaps more aired and discussed in the pubs and clubs than many of those that exercise our minds in the Chamber. It is appropriate that, once in a while, we should have the opportunity to discuss some of the issues which concern us and our constituents. I can see that I have already got some minds working. I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway).
Mr. Harry Greenway: I was slightly sad to hear my hon. Friend use the word "trivial" in relation to sport, even to dismiss it. Does he accept that sport is fundamental to physical education, and that physical education is as important a part of a child's education as any other, in that it contributes to the positive physical development of the child and that has a bearing on the child's mental development?
Mr. Coombs: I have no quarrel with what my hon. Friend has said. I almost think that he had an opportunity to look at the text of my speech as it lay on the Bench between us, because I shall talk about that aspect of sport later. There is nothing trivial about the subject—only perhaps in the minds of some people who fail to appreciate its importance.
Before I go any further I shall quote for the benefit of the House one or two figures that illustrate the significant part that sport plays in this country. I am indebted to the Henley Centre for Forecasting, which produced a report for the Sports Council about three years ago showing that the value of sport in its broadest sense was £8·27 billion at 1990 prices, which was equivalent to 1·7 per cent. of the United Kingdom's gross domestic product for that year. That figure had seen some growth in the previous five years. In 1985, it was £5·58 billion, which is equivalent to 1·4 per cent. of GDP.
Another way to measure those figures is by the number of people employed in the sport-related economy. The Henley centre estimated that sport-related economic activity generated just over 467,000 jobs in 1990, which
30
accounted for slightly more than 2 per cent. of employees in the United Kingdom. It does not include the large number of unpaid hours put in by the tens of thousands of voluntary workers who give their services—estimated at more than 70 million hours in 1990. Sport is a significant industry and significant part of the British economy.
Sport contributes to the health of the nation and is a constant source of national pride, whether it is for Stephen Hendry and Steve Davis in snooker, Nigel Mansell in motor racing, Linford Christie or Sally Gunnell in Olympic athletics. All of them are world or Olympic champions who bring glory to a country which, all too often, has a tendency to under value its achievements.
Mr. Barry Jones: The hon. Gentleman began his speech with a reference to the one-day cricket game. I urge him to keep a keen eye on Glamorgan county cricket because Viv Richards—even at the age of 41—in partnership with Matthew Maynard, is going great guns and we should win something this year. I draw his attention also to the need, throughout Britain and certainly in Wales, for more all-weather pitches, with decent changing facilities, that are close to, or within, the large council estates. If we had more of those facilities throughout the nation, there might be less juvenile crime.
Mr. Coombs: I wish Messrs. Richards and Maynard success on all those occasions when they are not playing against my county of Hampshire, of which more anon. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman in his call for those facilities, which will enable cricket to flourish in Britain. Again, he has gone slightly ahead of my own comments on that matter, but if he stays with the debate long enough, he will hear what I have to say, and I hope that he will be pleased with it.
I hope that, in the debate, we can focus on some of the problems that sport faces today but not lose sight of our achievements. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage has it in his power to help British sport to fresh success in the future, but he cannot do everything. A complex network of organisations exists to ensure that sport is the prerogative of all of us, while those of real ability can be found, encouraged and trained to the level of international success. The pyramid of United Kingdom sport should have the broadest possible base and the highest possible apex, for all our sakes.
A number of the issues that I shall raise concern the funding and administration of sport, but I shall begin with the exciting prospect of the Olympic games coming to Britain. We are now firmly embarked on Manchester's bid for the Olympic games in the year 2000. Naturally, we all wish Bob Scott and his team every success in the campaign, which will culminate in Monte Carlo on 23 September. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given tremendous support to Manchester's bid, and his presence in Monte Carlo on that date, when the decision is to be taken, would be a great boost to the Olympic movement. It would significantly increase the chances of Manchester's bid being successful. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take that message to the Prime Minister and urge him to go to Monte Carlo in September.
I do not need to point out the importance of a successful bid by Manchester to the infrastructure of the north-west. As I see one or two Members from that region

31
in the Chamber, I shall leave such comments to them. I hope that they will take up that point, because it seems to me to be of crucial importance.
It is also worth pointing out that home advantage in the Olympic games is of inestimable value. We have only to consider the success of Spain in Barcelona and of South Korea in Seoul. Last year, Spain increased its gold medals from one in Seoul to 13 on its home territory. Four years earlier, South Korea won 12 gold medals in Seoul and was in fourth place in the medals table. Those countries wanted success and were prepared to invest in it—not only in new stadiums, but in support of their athletes.
We must decide how much success we want and how many medals we want to win. We must then be prepared to resource the effort needed to reach that target. The Sports Council recently announced its grant aid to Olympic sports leading up to the Atlanta games in 1996. The cash increases gradually from £5·1 million to £5·7 million, but, allowing for inflation, the value of the grant reduces. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear that in mind when he discusses such matters with the Sports Council.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of the Manchester Olympics bid and its importance to Britain and the north-west, will he say whether he agrees that one of the most crucial advantages of Manchester winning the bid, as I am confident it will, will be the enormous boost to tourism in Britain in general, and in the north-west in particular? With the vast majority of hotel beds in the north-west being in my constituency of Blackpool, I have an obvious interest in the Manchester bid succeeding. I very much welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has spoken about that today.
Mr. Coombs: One of the nice things about a debate on sport is that we all agree with each other on almost everything. For the third time, I am happy to welcome an intervention that supports my view. My hon. Friend is well aware of my interest in tourism. I share his optimism that the north-west will benefit in that and in other respects from a successful bid by Manchester.
I want to discuss where resources from sport will come from in future. My hon. Friend the Minister recently told the House that the proceeds of the national lottery that go to sport should be used more for capital projects than for revenue support. I agree with that in principle, as we do not want the lottery to shore up the costs of a whole series of white elephants. However, a case can be made for the short-term investment of lottery proceeds in the training of Olympic competitors, especially through the Sports Aid Foundation, to enable our elite sports men and women to reach their full potential in Atlanta and, perhaps, in Manchester.
Sporting facilities needed for training are generally good, but athletes need time to train. That means resources for scholarships or a top up for part-time work. We could help with that if the lottery's proceeds could be suitably directed to the necessary support for success.
Mr. John Bowls: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said about the facilities for excellence. Does he agree that the base for sport depends on the very basic availability of land, especially playing fields? In the past,
32
that has been threatened by local authorities that have sold playing fields. That practice must be stopped—[Interruption.] I was not seeking to be controversial, but now I shall be. That base for sport was also threatened by the former Greater London council and Inner London education authority, which consistently opposed any team sport. As a consequence, sport in London suffered and had to be rescued by organisations such as the London Community Cricket Association.
Mr. Coombs: I am beginning to think that if I give way again, nothing in my speech will sound original as I deliver it. I agree with my hon. Friend and I intend to refer to those matters in a few moments. However, I shall try not to repeat what he said in his excellent and helpful intervention.
Before I leave the subject of Olympic sports, I want to raise two specific points with my hon. Friend the Minister. The Government promised legislation to safeguard the British Olympic Association's use of the Olympic rings symbol for sponsorship and other purposes. Can my hon. Friend say when that legislation will be ready and when the House will have a chance to consider it, because it is of great importance in the lead-up to the next Olympic games in 1996?
Will my hon. Friend also listen to a special plea from the sport of ice skating? Mention of John Curry, Robin Cousins, Jayne Torville and Christopher Dean reminds us that we can compete at the highest level—but our facilities in that sport are so limited that our elite competitors must train in the middle of the night, when ice rinks are not used by casual, amateur skaters. Is my hon. Friend prepared to unfreeze the sources from the lottery to correct that situation? I appreciate that it will not be his decision, but I have no doubt that he has influence in that sphere, as in many others. I hope that he will exert it.
Ice skating is one sport which attracts enthusiastic beginners of all ages, some of whom go on to be champions. Another is swimming. We have enjoyed great success with swimming over the years. One thinks of Duncan Goodhew, Sharon Davies, and many others. However, too many children in this country never learn to swim and, appallingly, on average two children drown every week.
The efforts of the Royal Life Saving Society, the Amateur Swimming Association and the English School Sport Association have for several years been directed at a campaign for swimming in schools. In September, the Royal Life Saving Society will place definitive water safety and swimming resource materials in every school in the land. Young people must learn water safety skills in primary schools. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to endorse that campaign and to impress on the Department for Education the need to support swimming with national curriculum time and the necessary resources.
Mr. Stanley Orme: I accept that swimming education is necessary and should be encouraged. Can the hon. Gentleman say why facilities are being reduced so dramatically in inner-city areas such as my own, where local authorities have no funds to provide them?
Mr. Coombs: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that I am speaking up today for sport. I am not here to defend a reduction in swimming facilities; in fact, I want to see them expanded. If the right hon.

33
Gentleman is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that he will take up that point, which is crucial for the safety of our young people.
On 13 April, the Government published their own water sports safety review. They are aware of the issues, but I want them to be aware also that they should channel resources to ensure that water safety can be a reality for all our children in future years.
Swimming is one of the best forms of exercise. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members participate in it, yet the national picture in this country is unhappy and unhealthy. The latest national fitness survey estimated that 70 per cent. of men and 91 per cent. of women do not take sufficient exercise for a healthy life style. A recent study by Exeter university concluded that 13 per cent. of boys and 10 per cent. of girls were overweight while at school—partly through lack of exercise. Physical education is, of course, part of the national curriculum, but we need a commitment from the Department for Education to a minimum of two hours physical education a week if sufficient physical exercise is to be available to young people.
Resources and facilities are vital to physical education in schools, and no sport has been more seriously affected —at the level of popular participation—by a lack of resources, than cricket. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) and the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), who has now left the Chamber —mentioned cricket, and I wish to say a little about that fine sport.
The problem is not so much the selling off of playing fields as the fact that they were under-used and not properly maintained when they still existed. That, I fear, is part of the reason why they were sold off. According to a recent report by the National Cricket Association, 97 per cent. of those asked said that the lack of cricket in schools was the main reason why the game had lost much of its appeal and its following.
Gone are the days when tens of thousands flocked to county grounds on a Saturday to watch the first day of a championship match. Now, those who bother to go will see—if they are lucky—the third day of a four-day game, played on a flat, covered wicket, in which, all too often, the bat dominates the ball to an unacceptable degree. Cricket lovers are deeply concerned about England's lack of success in India and Sri Lanka; by the endless experiments with coloured clothing and white balls; and by the most curious selection policies that I can remember in my 40 years as a cricket lover.
Would it be asking too much for us to be allowed to watch David Gower coming out to bat for England against Australia at Lord's one month from today, preferably—if a Hampshire supporter may be permitted to say this—to join Robin Smith in a productive partnership of power and elegance?
Mr. John Carlisle: May I help my hon. Friend to select the England side? This is relevant to both the debate and the Front Bench. Might it be an idea to adopt the Indian system whereby the selectors have two Government nominees with voting rights on the board? I would certain nominate my hon. Friend as one, and possibly the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) as the other. We might then have a more balanced side.
Mr. Coombs: The all-party cricket group, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), is already beginning to influence the English selection process. It recently invited Mr. Ted Dexter to one of its meetings. I am not sure whether Mr. Dexter took away all our thoughts; we shall see when the team is chosen for the first test next month.
Let us be serious. Only if the game of cricket is enabled to flourish in our schools will we see its best aspects—the things that we all love—in future. I believe that time is running out for the recovery of the game we love.
I wish that time allowed me to do more than merely mention a range of other sports; I hope that other hon. Members will be able to say more about them. I should like to speak in more detail of our joy at Britain's having a world heavyweight boxing champion for the first time this century—I am sure that we all congratulate Lennox Lewis on his achievement. I wish that I could say more about the dominance of world golf by a British golfer, Nick Faldo; about the contribution of Widnes and Wigan to the game of rugby league in this country—following Saturday's game, perhaps we should mention St. Helens as well; and about the excellent family entertainment which speedway provides in my constituency and many others.
I should also like to refer to the Government's recent rescue of the British horseracing industry, in the nick of time. Perhaps at least one hon. Member will be tempted to speak of the problems of greyhound racing, and the question of evening off-track betting shop opening.
Let me address myself instead to the question of the administration of British sport and the resources available to it. In October this year, the new Sports Commission will begin its work, and the English Sports Council will come into existence to mirror those in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. To most people, that sounds a sensible arrangement, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that it should not, and must not, be allowed to be the reason for more bureaucracy and, hence, for the increased use of resources that would otherwise go directly into sport.
It worries me that, in a recent parliamentary answer, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage told the House that, whereas the Arts Council spends 3·6 per cent. of its grant in aid on administration, the Sports Council spends 37 per cent. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that in his reply.
I should not want the House to be misled by my reference to those facts. I am well aware of the wide range of excellent services to sport provided by the Sports Council. Nevertheless, we should concentrate on those administration costs for a moment, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to reassure us. Clearly, we do not need more bureaucracy in sport. We need resources directed at our sportsmen and sportswomen out of the £50 million that the Government give to the Sports Council every year.
By contrast, the new Foundation for Sport and the Arts spends only 2 per cent. of its budget on administration. The foundation has already disbursed more than £100 million in donations and, with the Football Trust, is making excellent use of the money released by the reduction in the pools betting duty that the Chancellor has initiated. The pools companies deserve our congratulations, too, on the way in which they have supported the foundation.

35
It is clear that the private sector as a whole has a major role to play in the funding of sports projects. It is vital, therefore that the expertise of leisure industry companies such as First Leisure is used in the planning of commercially sound joint ventures. In that context, my hon. Friend the Minister may care to note the view of the leisure companies that compulsory competitive tendering, although it is a step in the right direction, is not delivering the level of investment for which we had all hoped.
Some 84 per cent. of contracts in local government are won in house. That may well mean sharper management in many cases, but it does not bring in the expertise of the private sector or the investment that is so badly needed to improve facilities owned by local authorities. The right hon. Member for Salford, East referred to swimming facilities, but there are many other instances in which more resources and investment are badly needed.
If the proceeds of the national lottery are to go to local authorities to any degree or if capital receipts are to be used for sports projects, I believe that private sector expertise will be needed to ensure that those funds are used for the benefit of council tax payers, and not at open-ended cost to them.
I mentioned the Football Trust, and I want to conclude with a look at the state of our premier spectator sport. There is much to celebrate—not least England's superb effort in the world cup, not only in reaching the semi-finals but in winning the fair play award. Thanks in large part to the legislation introduced by the Government to control the consumption of alcohol, crowd behaviour has improved so significantly that the pitch invasion at Manchester City on 7 March stands out as an unusual occurrence, and the tragedies of Hillsborough and Heysel seem a very long time ago.
The recommendation of the Taylor report that football stadiums should provide only seating accommodation has been modified in respect of the two lower divisions, some of whose clubs would probably have been bankrupted by that requirement. But that threat still hangs over some first division clubs whose average attendances are lower than the best of those in the second division. On 3 May, Burnley and Rotherham, in the second division, had larger gates than Brentford, Charlton and Oxford in the first. Is my hon. Friend prepared to think again about the possibility of keeping some standing accommodation for clubs with average attendances over the season below 10,000—provided, of course, that the Football Licensing Authority considers that a club can meet safety requirements in respect of that standing accommodation?
My own club, Swindon Town, would very much like to keep its Stratton bank stand as standing accommodation even though it is now competing for a place in the Premier League. Without it, the ground's capacity would be reduced in 1994 from 19,000 to 14,000, even though the Football Trust has put up 60 per cent. of the cost of a new south stand.
There are many fans who still prefer to stand and who, I believe, can be trusted today to behave themselves. Yesterday's play-off game at Swindon against Tranmere Rovers was watched, without incident, by a crowd of 14,000, of whom 4,000 were standing. I hope that my hon. Friend will also be my flexible friend in this matter and
36
give careful consideration to a further change in the regulations to ensure that those who wish to stand at football matches can, within reason, be allowed to do so.
In the meantime, the ability of many clubs to improve their grounds depends on the ability of the Football Trust to support them. Will my hon. Friend set minds at rest and reaffirm the extension of the reduction of 2·5 per cent. of pools betting duty on which the Football Trust is obviously entirely dependent?
The passage of the National Lottery etc. Bill led to some welcome amendments, designed to ensure that the pools companies were less adversely affected than they had feared. I thank my hon. Friend for the understanding that he has shown in such matters. Perhaps he will say whether he is now prepared to consider further the possibility of allowing the pools companies equal rights to advertise on television and radio as will be afforded to the national lottery? He will appreciate that there is a risk that the Football Trust and football clubs could be the losers if the playing field is not level.
The motion congratulates the Government on "its continuing recognition" of the role of sport. I should mention in particular the £3 million a year grant to Sportsmatch, the business sponsorship incentive scheme for sport, which is evidence of the Government's commitment to sport, as is the securing of international competitions such as the world gymnasium championships last month and the European football championships, which will come to England in 1996.
I believe, and I hope that the House believes, that we have very much to be proud of in British sport, but there is still very much to achieve in order to enhance the nation's life and its prestige abroad.
4.37 pm
Mr. Tom Pendry: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) on breaking new ground by tabling a motion on sport. It is generally Labour Members who initiate such debates, and it is good to see that tradition being broken. In addition to the congratulations—with which I concur —that the hon. Gentleman passed on to individual athletes, the British Lions and many more, I was surprised that he did not congratulate his own team, Swindon Town, on winning in the play-offs yesterday. I am sure that he would wish to rectify that omission.
It is thanks to the hon. Gentleman that I am once again at the Dispatch Box and able to lock horns with the Minister to discuss the general state of sport in Britain. I cannot, however, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his wording of the motion. He clearly has a lot to learn about the state of sport in this country, and I suspect that the wording for the motion came from the Minister's own Department.
Before discussing that motion in detail, I am sure that the House will realise the importance that a successful national lottery could have for sport, and we all look to the Minister to ensure that sport gets a fair and honest deal. I must refer, however, to the pathetic charade that those of us concerned with the lottery have had to endure with the secrecy surrounding the GAH group report, which the Minister commissioned to assist the Government's thinking before the National Lottery etc. Bill was drafted. The Minister is aware of last week's scandalous revelation that the GAH group is now demanding £695 plus value

37
added tax for its own commercial report on the lottery —a report which any reasonable person would suspect is largely the product of work carried out at the taxpayer's expense. I received a letter from the Minister this morning informing me that in his view the GAH group commercial report
"bears no direct relation to the work we commissioned."
I am sure that the Minister was extremely careful in the choice of his words as he will have had the opportunity, as I have, to read a copy of the commercial report and to compare it with the terms of reference for the Government report given by his Department to the GAH group, which he set out in a parliamentary answer to me on 21.January.
I shall not dwell on the report today, but I shall be writing to the Minister in great detail to show him where I think that his assessment of the situation is wrong. However, he may wish to reflect on one aspect in advance of receiving my letter. Without using information gained as a result of its publicly funded work behind the scenes with his Department, how could the GAH group possibly produce a report providing information on the following: the criteria to be used to select the lottery contractor, the value of the contracts, the number of retailers and the work required in the preparation of the tender document?
There is one matter on which the Minister must put the House's mind at rest today. Has he made inquiries to ensure that the commercial report is the full extent to which the GAH group is seeking to profit from its access to privileged information and that the company is not working for any companies seeking to gain contracts for the lottery? I hope that the Minister will refer to that when he makes his contribution to the debate.
Before we leave the subject of the national lottery, the Minister will recall an interesting debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) about certain discriminatory practices exercised by the Rugby Football Union against the British Amateur Rugby League Association. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I am sure that he and other hon. Members will wish to use this opportunity to pursue that vital issue. Perhaps the Minister will be able to give a more forthright reply than he was able to on Report.
We are discussing not only the national lottery, but the glut of issues and challenges facing the Minister and his as yet fledgling Department in relation to sport. He will know by now that sport has had enough of being treated as a political outcast by Tory Governments and is demanding the respect that it undoubtedly deserves. Perhaps I am being unkind to the Minister, because he is without doubt an improvement on his predecessor, the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins).
However, I must inform the Minister that, if he wishes to make his mark in sport, he must get to grips with the mandarins and with his own civil servants who seem incapable of tackling the needs of sport in this country. The Minister must by now be aware that, if sport is to prosper, he must do everything in his power to prevent his Department becoming a mere conduit through which vital aspects of policy are passed to other Departments. If he will allow me, I shall give an illustration of the damage that can ensue when he fails to give a lead to the Government on sport. He must bang some ministerial heads together to get results for our sportsmen and women and for spectators.
38
The Minister will be aware that one of the very few concrete actions to come from the review of sports policy undertaken by his predecessor was the publication for consultation of a draft letter—not an actual letter—about school playing fields, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Swindon. The Minister's predecessor sent the draft letter for comment from local authority organisations on 19 December 1991–17 months ago.
In a parliamentary written answer to me only four days ago, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), informed me that within 61 days responses had been received from all but one organisation—the Tory-dominated London Boroughs Association. Much to the Minister's embarrassment, I am sure, his hon. Friend went on to tell me that the LBA was sent a further copy of the letter and then had to be chased on the telephone before it informed the Government that it was not bothering to reply.
The Minister might like to comment on the commitment to sport in the capital of his political friends in the Tory-dominated LBA or, more to the point, their lack of commitment, which knocks the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis).
Mr. John Bowis: I thought that the proof of the pudding was in the eating. If the hon. Gentleman were to come to the London borough of Wandsworth, he would see the "Sport for Youth" campaign which was initiated last year and which has been run by Wandsworth council. Its aim is to put back into the curriculum the sporting opportunities for young people which were woefully absent when the Inner London education authority was responsible.
Mr. Pendry: I regret giving way to the hon. Gentleman, who is merely plugging a particular borough and not the London Boroughs Association, to which I was referring.
Since the responses to the draft letter were received by the Department for Education more than 14 months ago, the Government have done nothing but sit on their hands. If the Minister is to have any credibility in sport, he must take this opportunity to apologise for the shameful lack of effort by his predecessor and promise the House that firm and decisive action will be taken without delay to halt the scandalous sale of those precious sporting assets—our school playing fields—to which the hon. Member for Swindon referred. I, and the House, look forward to that promise.
I must assure the Minister that his honeymoon period is well and truly over. We gave him an extended honeymoon, but it is now time he tackled the lack of concerted action and the unfulfilled promises which remain the hallmark of the Government's attitude to sport. For instance, I am sure that he will agree that it is high time he took a more positive approach to the problems facing our national game of football—a matter also mentioned by the hon. Member for Swindon.
My views on soccer are pretty well documented and, to be fair, I must acknowledge the positive attitude to football displayed by the Minister's previous boss, the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). Unfortunately, since the right hon. and learned Member left his post, football has seen precious little action from

39
the Minister's Department or any other Department. Indeed, there has been a distinct lack of leadership exercised by the Minister towards out national game.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who is the chairman of the all-party football committee, has asked me to apologise for his not being here, as Sheffield Wednesday is reorganising the ticket allocation for the replay on Thursday. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) is not only chairman of the all-party cricket committee but happens also to be vice-chairman of the all-party football committee—a versatile man—and he will no doubt try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
If evidence of the lack of leadership is required, I mention the deafening silence from Ministers following the recent pitch invasions on grounds throughout the country —most recently at Exeter City, where the referee was assaulted. The pitch invasion at Manchester City last March was especially significant because nearly two thirds of the fans came from the £7 million new stand which was built in response to Lord Justice Taylor's recommendation for all-seater stadiums.
I do not for one minute wish to imply that such incidents reflect badly on the recommendations of the Taylor report or that we should discourage the construction of new modern stands fit for the 21st century —far from it: I want to see more of them—but the Minister will be aware that an integral part of the strategy for football which Taylor envisaged was to balance the greater freedom afforded by the removal of fences from in front of the stands with the creation of new offences to deter those who might wish to abuse that freedom and invade the pitch.
The Minister will be further aware that, following the publication of the Taylor report, I repeatedly urged the Home Secretary to heed Lord Justice Taylor's advice and get the new offences on to the statute book. That was done, albeit belatedly, with the introduction of the Football (Offences) Act 1991. What is the use of getting those offences on to the statute book if the powers thereby given to the clubs, to the police and to magistrates are not used to the full to discourage pitch invasions? Had a mere handful of the original offenders been charged under the Act, fined up to £1,000, excluded from the team's ground and had their names published in every team's programme in the early part of the season, we would not have found too many so-called fans running on to the pitch.
The Minister must see that as lack of action on his part and tell the House today that he will speak to his colleagues in the Home Office to get them to agree to issue a circular to magistrates and the police drawing attention to the provisions of the Act and pressing them to enforce it so as to prevent any recurrence of such disturbing events next season.
As the Minister is no doubt aware, the Football (Offences) Act 1991 arose out of a recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee report, "Policing Football Hooliganism", which was published in February 1991. He must also recall that the throwing of missiles and the chanting of obscene and racist language was also outlawed in the Act. Can he tell the House how well he has monitored progress in that area?
40
The Select Committee report also recommended, in line with the Taylor report, that it should be made a specific offence to sell tickets on the day of a football match without the authority of the home club. Yet the Government saw fit to leave such a provision out of the Football (Offences) Act. Since then, I have written repeatedly to Ministers urging them to introduce legislation against ticket touts and I have had two undertakings from the Prime Minister that legislation to prohibit ticket touting will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows.
I know that the Football Association shares my concerns and it is a disgrace that, more than three years later, nothing has been done by the Government. It is vital that legislation he introduced as soon as possible because of the mounting evidence of the problems caused by touting, both throughout the domestic calendar and at prestigious events such as the FA cup final. If the Minister saw The Mail on Sunday yesterday, he will have read Simon Greenberg's article highlighting some of the touting problems at Wembley over the weekend.
I hope that the Minister has had a chance to read the fine report by the chief trading standards officer of Liverpool city council which shows that touting has undermined segregation arrangements between supporters at every cup final between 1988 and 1992. It was estimated that, in the 1992 cup final between Liverpool and Sunderland, a minimum of 1,200 tickets were touted, resulting in fans paying up to £138,000 in excess prices. According to the report, the level of touting was in reality much higher. Many fans were understandably reluctant to reveal how much they had paid and where they purchased their tickets.
It is not just football that has fallen victim to the universally condemned action of ticket touts. In September 1990, the authorities at Wimbledon, tired of Government inactivity, took action and introduced measures designed to safeguard the position of tennis-loving fans and to minimise the black market in Wimbledon tickets.
The problem was of sufficient concern for my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) to raise the matter last week and to ask whether the Government would consider the possibility of touting spreading to Buckingham palace, now that the decision had been taken to issue tickets in advance for the newly announced tours of the palace. The spectacle of ticket-touting spivs at the royal palace may make the Government sit up. I hope that the Minister will raise the issue with Home Office Ministers, and that they will introduce an appropriate clause, perhaps in the Criminal Justice Bill which is about to begin its Committee stage, or that he will at least support others who may wish to introduce such a clause.
The Minister's previous boss, the right hon. and learned Member for Putney, received a delegation that I took to him on the question of standing areas at football grounds —a matter touched on by his hon. Friends. I put to the then Minister the desire of football supporters organisations for safe standing areas within their grounds and, having listened to the arguments, he conceded the case for the lower divisions, but he would not go all the way with us. Some premier and first division clubs will not meet the deadline laid down for conversion of their grounds to all-seater stadiums by 1994–95 for a host of reasons—some

41
have planning problems with their local authorities or with the Department of the Environment—so the present Minister will need to show some flexibility.
What has also happened since the Taylor report is that the world has moved on, especially in terms of science, and even since we met the Minister's right hon. and learned Friend there have been some significant advances in safety technology as it relates to the question of standing areas at grounds. The crowd pressure monitoring system introduced by the NNC at Risley is one such example of a proven system which can be adapted to crush barriers on terracing to prevent any threat to the safety of supporters who choose to stand.
The system contains a series of sensors in a barrier which are linked to a computer which monitors the amount of pressure being exerted on the barrier at the front of the crowd. The system has been so successful that it has attracted considerable interest from Italian stadium designers and from crowd safety consultants in the United States of America. It is another example of a British invention being taken up by others but not by the British themselves.
It is clear that that system, in conjunction with the Football Stadia Advisory Design Council's guidelines on safer terracing published in March, can clearly meet the highest safety standards that the Government rightly demand. In the interests of football, will the Minister give an undertaking to look at those proposals and to reconsider the whole question of safe terracing for those clubs which are expected to meet the deadline; of the Taylor report? Better still, will he also undertake to visit Risley to see for himself—as I have done—a system which, if adopted, will please millions of football supporters?
I hope that the Minister has had the chance to read a new report produced this week by the Sports Council, "New Horizons, Sport in the 90s", which sets out an agenda for its remaining period of office. The report says clearly on page 59 that Britain is lagging behind its European partners in terms of investment in new sporting development. The Sports Council in its comparison of final Government expenditure on sport, based on the 1985 prices, with the various member states of the Council of Europe, found that with the exception of Portugal, the United Kingdom Government spent one third less on sport than other member states did.
That led the Sports Council to conclude:
"Other nations have been swifter to recognise the economic benefits of sporting success, as well as its value to national prestige. They have invested heavily in new sporting developments. Overseas competitors are often surprised how relatively little financial support their sport receives in the land of its birth and how well Britain's sporting men and women perform despite this disadvantage. Other nations in Europe recognise the economic benefits of sporting success as well as its value to national prestige—indeed our overseas competitors are often surprised at how little financial support sport receives in this country".
That is why I disagree with the wording of the motion. If the hon. Member for Swindon had read that report, he might have framed the motion rather differently. I hope that the Minister will address himself to the Sports Council's comments.
The Minister's Department stands condemned as it has failed to put into practice one of the few important recommendations to come out of the review by the hon. Member for South Ribble—the proposal to reform the national structures of sport, including the creation of the United Kingdom Sports Commission and a separate
42
English Sports Council. The Minister will understand our desire to press for further information about the exact date at which these bodies will be established as there is widespread concern that the Government's current plans will not come to fruition by October, as previously announced.
The Minister must recognise the concerns of those who are worried about the way in which the proposals for the United Kingdom Sports Commission are turning out. The Minister must be aware that a royal charter is not the property of Government, although once it is born, it can be revoked only by Parliament. It is not a political charter and, according to my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Howell, who knows about these things, it should not be imposed on Parliament or the sporting world in controversial circumstances, as it involves Her Majesty the Queen.
Opposition parties should already have been consulted, and as Opposition spokesman for sport I have yet to receive my official copy. Not only will the Minister offend Opposition parties, but he will offend his right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland unless fuller consultation is carried out.
The bureaucratic nature of the proposals is exactly as predicted by Lord Howell when he spoke from the Opposition Front Bench at the time of the initial announcement. Because the draft charters contradict much of what the review recommended, notably the breakdown of roles between the proposed United Kingdom Sports Commission and the Sports Council for England—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Robert Key): How does the hon. Gentleman know that?
Mr. Pendry: Because a charter has been leaked to me. However, it is a disgrace that I have not received a copy from the Minister.
The Minister will be aware that the hon. Member for South Ribble said in his review that the United Kingdom Sports Commission should be responsible for
"promoting higher standards of performance and excellence in sport at a UK level."
However, the wording in the draft charter is not "at a UK level", but for the "UK as a whole." That could lead to the interpretation that the UKSC has a responsibility for all aspects of sport in the United Kingdom causing no end of duplication and confusion between the proposed two organisations.
In short, the UKSC should be concerned with our international dimensions and the Sports Council with our national sports. The situation as it stands cannot be allowed to continue and I look forward to playing my part in the review process when the Minister has the courtesy to send me a copy of the charter.
An integral part of ensuring the success of the United Kingdom Sports Commission and the English Sports Council, whatever arrangements are arrived at for their eventual memberships and modus operandi, is securing a decent level of resources to back their efforts. In that respect, the hon. Member for Swindon has got it all wrong. We would expect the total amount given as grant aid to be more than the level of grant aid presently given to the Sports Council for Great Britain which, expressed in 1993–94 prices, has declined from £51 million in 1991 to

43
£49·9 million in 1991–92. Judging from the Chancellor's autumn statement, the Government do not intend to honour their pre-election promise to maintain their funding for sports and the arts.
I have received a number of complaints from leisure departments of councils throughout the country about the current capping of their budgets, which has resulted in severe restraints on their capital programmes for sport. Figures from 1992 Sports Council survey of actual budgets and past expenditure clearly show that capital expenditure by district and borough in 1992–93 has fallen to 44 per cent. of the 1989–90 level. Those figures represent a disgraceful picture, and they should be dramatically improved.
We also want the Minister to clarify his commitment given during the Committee stage of the National Lottery etc. Bill and guarantee not just the funding of capital projects for sport, to which reference has been made, but also the revenue expenditure necessary for those projects to operate effectively. The Minister must be more positive about revenue spend as it goes hand in hand with capital projects.
Already up and down the country, as a result of Government policy, we see sport being denied to thousands of people because of the lack of funding. Indeed, the situation would be much worse if local authorities had not exercised considerable ingenuity in finding ways of keeping facilities open. However, some of the means employed to do that have the effect of restricting access through reductions in opening hours, reducing quality of service or increasing prices.
I will give the Minister some graphic illustrations of that. Manchester city council, the Olympic city, has closed Victoria baths in Hathersage road. The London borough of Greenwich is in the process of transferring its leisure facilities to workers' co-operatives or trusts. Langbaurghon-Tees has reduced opening hours and transferred full-time jobs to casual staff. The London borough of Haringey has reduced opening hours and there have been reductions in access to its dual use centres. Dudley metropolitan borough council has had to close a demonstration project called "The Fitness Factor" which it was running in co-operation with the Sports Council.
There are many more examples, in Peterborough, Basildon, Brentwood, Braintree and Castle Point. This has nothing to do with Government action in relation to local authorities which is forcing those sports facilities to become if not white elephants, then at least part-time working facilities.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that only two years ago I was a councillor in Hammersmith and Fulham. We had exactly the same problem of a shortage of funds and an inability to keep the swimming pools open. I went to see the pools and I spoke to the staff, who were very pleasant. They explained that the pools could not be opened, purely because of the inefficiency of the local administration, and that it had nothing to do with the amount of funding provided.
Mr. Pendry: The hon. Gentleman could not have listened to his hon. Friend the Member for Swindon, who
44
referred to local authorities which had won the in-house tendering for those facilities. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) has clearly got it all wrong.
Not only does the lack of funding prevent the necessary refurbishment of aging, worn-out buildings and facilities; it also means that preventive maintenance is skimped. As a result, we are storing up grave problems for the future. Perhaps the Minister can give local authorities and others the assurances that they seek in that important area.
I referred a little while ago to Manchester as the Olympic city, and we all hope that that will be the case in the year 2000. Perhaps the Minister will comment on reports—a point to which the hon. Member for Swindon referred—that in a recent speech to Manchester business men the Prime Minister withdrew a vital paragraph from his proposed text in which he was going to give his clear commitment to attending this autumn's Olympic committee meeting in Monte Carlo to lead Britain's efforts.
The Minister must give some reassurance today about that because there are those—including, perhaps, the hon. Member for Swindon—who believe that the Prime Minister withdrew that commitment because he has realised too late that he cannot honour the spending promises that he made towards the Olympic bid and is desperately trying to get away from those commitments.
Mr. Key indicated dissent.
Mr. Pendry: If that is not the case, the Minister can tell us today, but that is the view widely held in the sporting world.
Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Pendry: No, I will not.
If the Minister moved in the circles of the sporting world, he might be aware of that view. He can end that worry once and for all by telling the House that the Government's financial commitment to the games will be honoured in full from existing spending programmes and without recourse to a raid on the millennium fund, which would fall foul of the additionality pledges made by the Secretary of State on Second Reading of the National Lottery etc. Bill.
I have given the Minister a shopping list of tasks on which I believe he should be taking action, and I do not wish to overburden him, but there is one area in which I believe he is duty bound to notch up a victory. I refer to one of the country's most popular participatory sports —angling.
The Minister may not be aware that the Foundation for Sports and the Arts, established in the 1991 Budget by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has refused to give a single penny to angling and has constantly chopped and changed its reason for that. On 13 January, the secretary of the foundation, Mr. Grattan Endicott, wrote to Ken Ball, the president of the National Federation of Anglers, telling him that the foundation would not give money to angling because the trustees' policy is
"not to grant-aid activities that directly inflict pain or harm on members of the animal world."
Once the NFA had written to the foundation conclusively demonstrating that angling does no such thing, the foundation accepted those arguments. However, in a further letter on 24 February, the foundation came up

45
with the astonishing comment that, even though the impending revision of the trust deed might indeed render angling eligible for funding,
"the president of the Board of Trustees would not contemplate giving support to angling even if it were allowable."
The Minister must agree that the antipathy that that comment shows towards Britain's millions of anglers is staggering. Perhaps that is why, in a third letter on 5 April, the foundation attempted to back-track and came up with yet another excuse for denying angling any aid. It said:
"angling is not athletic and funds would not stretch to such grants."
Surely the Minister will agree that it is deeply regrettable that out of an annual budget of £60 million the foundation feels that it cannot find a single penny for one of the country's most popular sports. As the Minister is the custodian of sport—and of that sport—in this House, he must do something about that. He must show today that he has the stomach to fight on behalf of the millions of anglers who look to him for a lead.
Mr. Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Pendry: No, I am about to finish and many hon. Members wish to participate in this debate.
I hope that the Minister will write to the foundation and ask it to reconsider its decision to deny angling access to the funds made available for all sport by the Chancellor. Furthermore, will he agree to accept a delegation from me and the National Federation of Anglers?
Mr. Key: Not another one!
Mr. Pendry: It is true that I keep the Minister working. It is time that he recognised that he will receive a lot more requests for meetings. Obviously, there are many other issues that must wait for another occasion. I have no doubt that other Labour Members will raise issues to which I would dearly love to refer, but time does not permit me to do so.
I conclude by congratulating the hon. Member for Swindon. The terms of his motion did not reflect the content of his speech, which was far more relevant to this debate on sport than the words of the motion. What are words, after all? The main thing is that he gave a good speech. The Minister should reply not only to the points that I have made and to those of the hon. Member for Swindon, but to the other points that will be made as the debate proceeds.
5.10 pm
Mr. John Carlisle: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) on bringing this important subject to the attention of the House. I express some regret that inevitably the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), as is his custom in such debates, gave us his usual whinge and whine that the only thing that would put sport right in the United Kingdom was funding and money. I wonder when the hon. Gentleman will understand that the sports men and women in the United Kingdom are capable of enjoying their sports to a certain extent to their own ability. Indeed, the last thing that they want is recourse to national or, indeed, local government funds.
There are many excellent organisations throughout the United Kingdom which the hon. Gentleman inevitably forgot to mention as he went down his cascading road of
46
worrying about the Government and the extent of their involvement. It is ironic that the Government should be blamed for pitch invasions during the coming season, when I recall that some years ago pitch invasions were a scourge of football in the United Kingdom. Every opportunity that was given to the hon. Gentleman to jump up and oppose various legislation introduced by the Government in the ensuing argument was remarkable. He spent many a long hour castigating the Government on the various measures, both in the Committee Rooms and on the Floor of the House.
However, we have got used to the hon. Gentleman's attitude. All I can say is that, obviously, his tenure on the Front Bench will not be as long as that of his noble predecessor.
Mr. Pendry: Can the hon. Gentleman give me one or possibly two examples of what he means?
Mr. Carlisle: Of course. The hon. Gentleman did not agree with some aspects of the Football Spectators Bill—he kept us in Committee for many a long hour. I think that the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) was also on that Committee. Time and again, when the Government were wrestling with an enormous problem at that time, we had little co-operation from Labour Members, especially the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde.
It is nice to see my hon. Friend the Minister back here after his weekend sortie to Cannes for the film festival. We were disappointed that he did not—this is no aspersion on those in the Public Gallery—bring back any of the bimbos who were apparently trying to avoid him. Perhaps his speech will enlighten us as to what sport he found at the film festival. He has been a sterling champion of sport in the short time that he has been in that office, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage. We look forward to the Minister's contribution this afternoon.
I was perhaps a teeny bit disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon did not mention that sporting organisation which held its annual general meeting last week—the Central Council of Physical Recreation. The president of that council is his Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, who perhaps should be mentioned more often in the House. My hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a speech at the end of the annual general meeting. I was pleased to hear him say that lines of communication with that excellent organisation were being not simply reopened but endorsed by Her Majesty's Government and the Department of National Heritage.
That must be welcomed, because there is a history of spats, including legal spats, between the Sports Council, which has been very much a Government-funded organisation, and the CCPR. It is good to see the olive branch being extended by my right hon. Friend, and I hope that that will continue.
Most hon. Members, especially Labour Members—I must give a bouquet to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, who has been a great champion of the CCPR —must understand the breadth of that organisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon talked about the broadest base of sport and the number of many and varied organisations which are either within the membership of the CCPR or which take an active part in its affairs—for example, the Organisation for British Blind Sport, the

47
Church Lads and Church Girls Brigade and the Spastics Society, as well as the British Darts Organisation, the Clay Pigeon Shooting Organisation and the National Rounders Association.
The voices of a broad band of organisations are often not heard, because they are not attractive for sponsorship, television coverage, or perhaps political activity. That is why I should like to pay tribute to those organisations for the work they do in representing all those minor sports.
Mr. Brandreth: I simply endorse the tribute that my hon. Friend is paying to the Central Council of Physical Recreation, which encompasses the whole breadth of sport and recreation. I also underline his point about the new sense of co-operation between the CCPR and the Sports Council. That co-operation was recently exemplified by their playing pitch strategy. In the past, they produced documents which may have been in conflict: they are now producing strategies in partnership for the good of sport throughout the United Kingdom.
Mr. Carlisle: The House should listen to the authority that my hon. Friend brings to this subject. I pay tribute to him for the work that he has done for the Playing Fields Association. Indeed, that aspect of the CCPR's work must be applauded—reference has already been made to it. The campaign for saving our playing fields, which received support from hon. Members on both sides of the House —contrary to what the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said—attracted enormous concern and some sympathy. The loss of playing fields is one of the various cudgels on which the CCPR has advised hon. Members in the past few years. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) is right to say that, if we are moving down the road of more co-operation, it must be good.
Another subject in which the CCPR is involved—my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon referred to this—is the basis of rating. I know that there will always be an argument as to whether local authorities should have the opportunity to grant some 75 per cent. relief. Credit must be given to the Government for giving local authorities that opportunity. It is partly due to the CCPR that the rating system has been examined.
There was some disappointment with the review of my hon. Friend the Minister's predecessor—it is known as the Atkins review—because the CCPR got only a passing mention at the end of the report. As we look with perhaps some uncertainty, which is expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, to the formation of the United Kingdom Sports Commission, one hopes that the CCPR will play a fuller part, in co-operation with the commission.
Inevitably, debates of this nature tend to focus on the funding of sport. It would be somewhat churlish if that were avoided, having expressed the sentiments that I did at the beginning of my speech. The question will always be whether money is available and, indeed, where that money will come from. I have always believed, as do many Conservative Members, that much of the funding for sport must come from within the sport itself. It must be said that some of the major sports, especially rugby union and tennis, are high earners in their own right.
48
It is true to say that rugby union is a net contributor to the Treasury, rather than a net taker. One must take one's hat off to the Rugby Union and, indeed, to the Scottish Rugby Union and the Welsh Rugby Union, because they have stood on their own feet—they have had recourse to public funds only in a minor way. They have got their house in order, and their sport is popular. Contrary to popular opinion, it is still an amateur sport—[Laughter.] I thought that I would get that reaction from Labour Members. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) should contain himself for a moment.
I would be the first to express some concern, even after the excellent speech by Mr. Dudley Wood to the all-party rugby league committee the other day, that rugby union must watch for the professionalism that is creeping in. It is not for me to get into an argument with the rugby union. Certainly, the matter may be raised later.
However, I must say to the Rugby Union that many of us who represent some of the junior clubs and, indeed, some of the junior so-called first-class clubs, are becoming increasingly worried that those in the top division are beginning to attract players by means which might be considered to be professional. It is true that such players are a tiny minority and that the practice does not filter down all the way to the junior clubs, as it does in association football. In football, even village sides pay professionals to play for them. However, some warning must be given to rugby union, not from the House but from fellow rugby union players. It must be told that many people are concerned about the way things are going. One hopes that rugby union will address those difficulties.
One regrets the passing of the true amateur. This year, the All England tennis club will provide £303,000 as the first prize for the men's singles winner. That is an enormous amount of money in anyone's book for the winner of the prestigious Wimbledon championship. It is certainly the championship of the world. The reasons given are that other countries offer similar prizes and that the exchange rate has fallen. It is not for me to criticise the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this debate. Lower exchange rates inevitably mean that the prize money must increase.
One must ask whether it is right that £303,000 should go to one player when tennis, especially for junior and school players, is crying out for funds. I should like to see some of the highly paid professional sportsmen who give us such enormous entertainment give something back. They obviously give something back in the form of taxation, but I should like to see them participate actively in training and coaching youngsters as they approach the end of their careers.
I welcome the formation of the Foundation for Sport and the Arts and the excellent work of Tim Rice and his team. Cash is now coming back to worthy causes. The other day, some money was made available for a girls' rugby union centre in my constituency. I cannot say that I find it a pleasing sight to see women playing rugby.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: Why?
Mr. Carlisle: It is just a male prejudice.
The girls are enthusiastic, and they have been encouraged. Money has been made available to them by the Foundation for Sports and the Arts, which is another initiative taken by the Government in consultation with the CCPR and others. Again, that is to be welcomed.

49
I also welcome the formation of the Football Trust, which puts money back into the game from the pools. Like Opposition Members, I welcome the Government's change of heart on the pools and the national lottery. I am delighted that there will now be a much more level playing field for the pools and the lottery. For example, the pools will now be able to enjoy roll-over prizes and so on.
The national lottery will obviously dominate the sports debate in the next few years. It is perhaps regrettable that, although funds were originally to be allocated in thirds, we have added another two categories—charities and the millennium fund. That will inevitably reduce the amount of money that goes to sport.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's estimate of some £150 million in the first year of the national lottery will be a serious underestimate. I believe that the national lottery will catch the imagination of the public. In that soft form of gambling, people will feel in their hearts that they are supporting sport. I hope that, as the take increases, funds from the national lottery will replace the money given by the taxpayer. I am aware that the Government do not necessarily agree with that.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde spoke about continental stadiums and so on. It would be nice if we could enjoy such facilities, but they should not necessarily all be provided at the taxpayer's expense. I hope that the national lottery will begin to yield enough money to enable us to take sport out of the political argument for local authorities and national Government.
Other funding has inevitably come from sponsorship. I give credit to the CCPR for forming the Institute of Sports Sponsorship under the Presidency of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. I also give credit to the Government for going ahead with the Sportsmatch scheme, which arose directly out of the institute. The pound-for-pound basis must be the way forward. We hope that the £3 million earmarked at this stage will be increased as the scheme becomes more popular. I give credit to my hon. Friend the Minister for setting up that institution.
I also give credit to the Institute of Professional Sport, which helps professional sportsmen who have fallen on hard times for various reasons—often as a result of injury. Mr. Garth Crooks and others are doing excellent work to help those who can very easily become the forgotten men of sport. Most of us who are involved in sport know how quickly a sportsman or woman can be forgotten by the public and by those who used to support them.
My concluding remark on funding and sponsorship is on the touchy subject of tobacco sponsorship. It probably has greater cross-party support than many hon. Members are willing to accept. I am glad that the Opposition have not included total opposition to the funding of sport by the tobacco companies as part of their policies.
Most of us understand the medical dangers of smoking, and also that the Government have discouraged tobacco sponsorship in the past few years with the two voluntary agreements of 1977 and 1986. In the past decade, smoking has been reduced by some 20 per cent. I believe that such sponsorship must continue to be available to sports, should they want it. We live in a free country where smoking is a legitimate pastime, and long may it remain so. I do not smoke—it is a filthy habit—but I hope that others will continue to smoke and, by paying their taxes, keep my tax bill down.
On a more serious note, the tobacco companies have a substantial part to play in sport, not only in glamour
50
sports such as cricket, motor racing and golf, but where money has, if I may use the phrase, filtered down to junior and other sports. If the Government banned the sponsorship and advertising of sport by the tobacco companies—I know that that has been mooted, not just in this place but in some higher echelons and even Downing street—it would be a sad day for sport. The substantial funding that comes from genuine people who want to help sport—and, admittedly, to sell their product—would be lost and the great institutions and events that have marked our sporting prowess over the past few years would also lose.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon on his excellent motion. If he had not moved it, it would certainly have been in my mind to do so, and I would have been more congratulatory of this excellent Government. At least we are doing something right, and that is the Government's policy for sport and recreation.
5.27 pm
Mr. Stanley Orme: I congratulate the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) on introducing the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) said, his speech was much sharper than the motion on the Order Paper. That often happens, as hon. Members are aware, and we have covered a wide area this afternoon.
I went to my constituency of Salford yesterday to see the beginning of Manchester United's victory parade. It started in Salford and went round the city in pouring rain. Thousands of people, many of them young, were out on the streets. Those young people were there to praise and congratulate the team. Many were participants in sport, but not enough.
The facilities in inner city areas have been dramatically reduced. As a consequence, we have to face the fact that sport has a part to play in the problems that exist in constituencies such as mine—youth unemployment and crime. If young unemployed people had something to do —such as sport—they would not become involved in such undersirable activities. Swimming has been mentioned in the debate. Councils in inner-city areas find it virtually impossible to maintain swimming pools because they are uneconomic and cannot be run at a profit. The councils need funds to do so. Those are examples of the problems faced.
In inner-city areas such as mine where land, particularly building land, is scarce, local authorities are forced to sell playing fields. When they do so, it means that those facilities have gone for ever—school playing fields no longer exist because they have been built on. We have recently heard much about the problems with the curriculum and teachers, who are giving up less and less of their spare time at the evenings and weekends to train and coach young people in sport. It is essential to have sports facilities and training if we want our society to be healthy.
The hon. Member for Swindon talked about excellence in sport, and named many of the sports people in the United Kingdom with good records. We applaud them, but the top footballers, cricketers and runners are in the minority in our society. The base must be strengthened. Unfortunately, the base has been weakened.
I was vice-chairman of the all-party football committee and am also chairman of the cricket committee. I asked a

51
question of the Secretary of State for National Heritage about the Sports Council's provisions for cricket and young people. The right hon. Gentleman said:
"The Sports Council is providing £130,000 per year for 1992–93 and 1993–94 to enable the National Cricket Association to employ 10 part-time regional cricket development officers, one of whose tasks is to promote links between schools and local cricket clubs. The council also gives £16,000 a year to the English Schools Cricket Association. In addition, three awards totalling £117,000 have already been made by our new Sportsmatch scheme to projects which will benefit youth cricket." — [Official Report, 10 May 1993; Vol. 224, c. 330.]
Such a policy is worthy, but it represents peanuts. Our national sport needs much more funding than it is receiving at present.
Reference has been made to the Sports Council and the national lottery. The problem is that the Sports Council spreads its net widely. Therefore, if we are not careful, sports such as the national game of soccer, as well as cricket, could lose out against other activities. They will particularly do so if sport is to be linked—as it apparently will be—to the national lottery. Funds must be provided through the state for the provision of sports facilities. Sport is one of the major activities in our society, and leads to a healthier and happier nation. We have a responsibility not merely to say that it is somebody else's job, but to tell the electorate that we shall allocate funds to provide sports facilities.
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that an effective way of making a little money go a long way would be to help many of the voluntary clubs, which exist in a great network up and down the country, to extend their facilities for coaching young people? The facilities exist, but are under-utilised, and topping up the finances a little might help to bring many people into a system that already exists.
Mr. Orme: I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. The facilities exist, and people must be encouraged to use them. I was present at a Cricket Council meeting only last week where coaching and involving young people in cricket was the paramount subject in the discussion. It is possible that pupils at public schools and grammar schools are being taught cricket, but such skills are not being developed at secondary schools in inner-city areas such as those that I and many of my hon. Friends represent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde spoke of facilities and the implementation of some of the proposals in Lord Taylor's report. I listened to what my hon. Friend said about standing room at some grounds, and the difficulties that many clubs face in providing the necessary facilities. The Minister must consider that issue seriously.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde also mentioned ticket touts; that problem exists not just in soccer but in all sports, the theatre and wherever there are shortages of tickets. I know that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) once described ticket touting as market forces at their best. However, one would not say that if one was outside some of the football grounds. The Taylor report means that football grounds are to be reduced in size. A ground such as Manchester United's originally held 60,000 or 70,000. When the all-seater provisions are completed next year, it will hold only just
52
over 40,000. Many other clubs will face a similar reduction in size, and the pressure for tickets will become greater and greater. If action is not taken, we shall have a recipe for trouble and danger.
Lord Taylor says something should be done about the problem, and he asked for legislation—I think that the Minister has ducked the issue and I do not know why. If we were to take action, I think that he would have the support of the sport and people. Ticket touts who exploit the position, whether at Wembley, Wimbledon or theatres, benefit only the minority. Only two years ago at Wembley, I saw tickets being snatched from people's hands. The police should have the power to detain those guilty of this offence before the game until it is over. I know that the practice cannot be abolished altogether. Tickets will always be exchanged elsewhere, but it should not be allowed outside grounds.
Mr. John Carlisle: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the Rugby Football Union issues tickets only through clubs, with the names of those clubs on them. If tickets are found to have been sold at increased prices later, the club in question loses its allocation. Would it not be better if association football did the same?
Mr. Orme: The sport has tried to tighten up, and we now know which clubs tickets have been allocated to, but some will always slip through the net. Much the same problem occurred this weekend at Wembley. I am all in favour of tightening up, but that is not always possible. Some form of legislation is needed.
As for pitch invasions, at Wembley stadium the other week I saw an experiment which, when implemented, will prevent people from climbing the barriers and invading the pitch. It involves a sort of moat, and a construction of metal on a firm base. Wembley hopes to introduce the system in time for the charity shield match in August.
Sometimes we are told not to worry about crowd invasions--after all, the fans of the winning team will usually be happy—but there can be difficulties when people try to stop games. We do not want a return to what happened at Hillsborough. I believe that action is needed, and the Taylor proposals should be implemented.
Support for Manchester's bid to host the Olympic games in the year 2000 is crucial. There is already widespread support for it, and the difficulties that remain can be overcome. Hosting the games will be beneficial not just for Manchester and the north-west, but for the whole of the United Kingdom. We will all thrive on, and benefit from, holding the games here.
5.42 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Robert Key): What an excellent debate this is turning out to be. I never doubted that it would be. It proves that when we are given the opportunity to debate sport in the House, we rise to the occasion. The subject is clearly important to many hon. Members.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) on introducing the debate. I share his enthusiasm for sport and I know that his constituents at the northern end of Wiltshire are as enthusiastic about it as mine are at the southern end of the county. Of course, it is true that large numbers of our constituents believe that sport is extremely important to the quality of their lives, and they are right. It starts in schools; it is part of having

53
a healthy mind and a healthy body; and it continues throughout life. It is a matter of pride that we have sports that can be pursued by anyone of any age, able bodied and disabled alike.
Ever since I witnessed the remarkable achievements of our paralympic team in Barcelona last year, I have redoubled my enthusiastic support for sport for disabled people. It can enrich the quality of their lives enormously. We can all help in one way or another.
We should also pay tribute to the vast army of volunteers who make up the backbone of British sport. We should not forget the vast army of teachers on whom so much of our school sport depends, or the volunteers who spend their days taking young sportsmen and sportswomen around the country, keeping their kit clean, keeping the teams fed and watered and organising transport and teams. They are the unsung heroes of sport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) rightly pointed out the overspill advantages of Manchester's Olympic bid, which the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) also welcomed. We are determined that the bid will succeed. I think that we have done all that we conceivably could so far, and we shall maintain the pressure right through until the end of September. Winning the bid will mean a great boost for the tourist industry in the north-west and throughout the country.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), my habitual opponent across the Dispatch Box, took me to task for quite a lot. It is always a pleasure to see him at any time of day—sometimes we debate these matters quite late at night, too. It is always a pleasure to receive the delegations that he likes to bring to see me. We have done some good business together as a result of them.
On a note of criticism, however, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman had a single new idea to offer the House today or a single suggestion of how he would have done anything differently. He certainly asked a great string of questions, which I shall try to answer, but perhaps this just goes to show that, in the year since the Department set out on its course, we have managed to keep on a fairly even keel alongside each other in our quest to improve the quality of people's lives through sport.
Mr. Pendry: May I remind the Minister of just two of my suggestions? One was that he should go to Risley and see the development of the new standing areas in football grounds. The second was that he should get the Foundation for Sport and the Arts to give some money to anglers. There were many more suggestions, too.
Mr. Key: The point about Risley had already crossed my mind before the hon. Gentleman mentioned it, but I will certainly consider a visit during my hectic schedule. The hon. Gentleman might even get there before me and tell me about it—
Mr. Pendry: I have been there already.
Mr. Key: That is good news. We can have a chat about it over a cup of tea later. I look forward to going. As for angling, I am, as they say, coming to that.
The hon. Gentleman said that I should not be merely a conduit for information to other Departments. It is actually rather important that I do convey information to other Departments with responsibilities for sport, but the
54
hon. Gentleman was right to say that I should not be just a lightning conductor for this or any other subject. I shall come to his points about ticket touts later in my speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) made some important points—about the CCPR and about playing fields in particular.
It is of course important to play to win: that is the whole point of excellence in sport. I have discovered during the past year that it is politically correct to talk about elitism in sport—the only area of national life where that is permissible. Nevertheless, winning is not everything. There is much more to sport than just winning.
Let us get our facts straight about money going to sport from taxpayers and other sources. A lot of sport always has been and always will be entirely in the private sector, and does not depend on taxpayers' support. That is good. However, we have not been neglecting the taxpayers' interest in maintaining sport. Since 1979, the Sports Council's grant in aid has increased by 225 per cent. in cash terms and by 31 per cent. in real terms to its current level of some £50 million a year.
We must also include local authority spending, to which I shall return, and look at the new sources of finance, such as the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. We can even consider the way in which we have designed rate relief and, of course, we have discussed the national lottery. We are for ever questing after new sources of finance. On individual projects and facilities, we should remember that although people are concerned about the closure of swimming pools, sometimes pools are closed on purpose because it is better to have one big pool than five little pools, as Sheffield has discovered. It closed 11 to pay for its big one.
In 1981, there were just 964 indoor swimming pools in England. The number has grown rapidly and now that figure has increased by about 200. In 1981, England had 771 sports halls, but in 1992 the number had grown to 1,507—almost double. Artificial pitches were specifically mentioned in the debate. In 1981, England had just 30 such pitches, but now there are almost 300, a tenfold increase. Those who call for more such facilities should remember that the numbers have increased. I am delighted to say that that is true even for ice rinks. In 1981, there were 23, but now there are 40—almost double.
I was asked about the Department for Education's letter about playing fields. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are pressing for a response on the outcome of the consultation exercise. We attach importance to long-term school and community need being taken into account before playing fields are disposed of. We discussed that in the last sports debate, and I hope that we are nearer a conclusion.
I was asked about the Foundation for Sport and the Arts in connection with angling. We have agreed to a subsidiary third purpose being inserted in the trust deed to enable non-athletic. activities that are likely to promote or enhance physical health or excellence to be the subject of grants. That is a step forward. I am pleased at the funding of angling by the Sports Council, because I am an angler. If I ever have the time after receiving delegations organised by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, I will no doubt be able to do more fishing. I have always been a fisherman and I am disappointed by the reported view of the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. Of course, it is a matter for the trustees, who are entirely independent of

55
ministerial or other imposition, and we must respect that. In the context of the new third purpose, I intend to try to establish the reasons for the foundation's attitude.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde spoke about the GAH report. As he kindly said, I wrote to him about that on 13 May following questions last Monday. As I said in that letter, the report does not represent the Government's views on the operational issues that it addresses. It will be for potential bidders to assess the extent to which the report will be of any use to them. GAH gave us an undertaking that it would not work for potential bidders. That is as far as I wish to go on that. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is clear that we have already been assured by the consultants that the report was an entirely separate document from the one that they produced for us.
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: As the Minister knows, there was what might be termed a song and dance in debate on the Bill, and certainly in Committee, about the GAH report. That report is now readily available to those who are prepared to pay for it, but it was never made available to members of the Committee. What has changed so dramatically in the interim to make it now available in the public domain when it was not available before?
Mr. Key: It is because it is not the same report. There is no doubt about that. It is up to that commercial company whether it wishes to sell the information. However, I hope that it will abide by the commitments that it gave us.
I mentioned the letter about playing fields. The National Playing Fields Association and the Sports Council want to prevent the loss of recreational land and the Sports Council's grant in aid settlement from the Government for 1991–92 included some £500,000 specifically to enable the establishment of a register of recreational land. Work is currently in hand and is progressing well with the Sports Council, the NPFA and the Central Council of Physical Recreation as co-sponsor. The register should be up and running by next month, which is good news.
In addition, planning policy guidance note No. 17 emphasises the importance that the Government place on the need for recreational land and open spaces. It asks local authorities to take full account of the community's need for recreational space and to consider the long-term need for playing fields before allowing them to be developed. It also asks them to consult sporting bodies when planning for sport and recreation.
I was asked about pitch invasions. Lord Justice Taylor said that there is no panacea that will achieve total safety and cure all problems of behaviour and crowd control. However, he was satisfied that seating does more to achieve those objectives than any other measure. Apart from being more comfortable than someone who has to stand, a seated spectator is not jostled or swayed and is not involved in crowd surges. Those who monitor numbers know exactly how many people are in a given area in an all-seater stadium because they do not have to assess crowd density by visual impression. Seating also has distinct advantages in assisting crowd control, in conjunction with stewarding and closed circuit television.
Mr. Pendry: I think that the Minister has missed the point. The statute book contains the Football (Offences) Act 1990 which specifically relates to pitch invasion. I asked the Minister to ensure that magistrates and the police were made aware of that so that the Act can be enforced. I also said that at Manchester City's ground people invaded the pitch from the new all-seater facilities.
Mr. Key: I do not think that there will ever be a way to keep everybody off the pitch all the time. We need to understand the reasons more clearly. The hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Salford, East spoke about the Football (Offences) Act 1990. I propose to quote the figures, which show that the Act is working quite well. The latest figures for 1991–92 show that there were 276 arrests for running on to the pitch, 42 arrests for throwing missiles and 77 arrests for chanting racial abuse. The legislation is beginning to bite and it will continue to bite.
The issue of ticket touts is important. The right hon. Member for Salford, East was right to say that the practice is disagreeable, to put it at its mildest. There have been wide consultations in government and with those who are affected. However, as the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said, the problem extends beyond football. He mentioned Buckingham palace, about which there was some concern.
The palace operation will take care of that problem. It is being designed by the Royal Household, which is in charge of it and has sought and been given a great deal of sound advice. The Palace Household is confident that there will not be a ticket touting problem, which would be most unpleasant and disagreeable. I confirm that the Government intend to legislate on the matter at the earliest opportunity, because we cannot side-step the problem for ever.
Safe terracing is an important topic, so I shall return to it briefly. We are consulting the Football Licensing Authority about the extent to which clubs will be required to upgrade their terracing in line with the recommendations of the Football Stadia Advisory Design Council report on safe terracing. That document was published at the end of March and it augments the advice already available to clubs in our guide to safety at sports grounds.
As to relocation and redevelopment, the all-seater requirement was not suddenly imposed out of nowhere. Clubs have been aware of it since the Government's response to the Taylor report was published in January 1990. It was accepted by the football authorities when it was first imposed. Most of the clubs that began to plan for all-seating stadiums at that time will have little difficulty in meeting the deadline. However, I recognise that some clubs face problems.
Mr. Michael Brown: My hon. Friend will recall that, only a few weeks ago, he kindly received a delegation from Grimsby Town football club. He was helpful in giving us advice as to what we should do there. However, I have to advise him that we have not yet heard from the Football Licensing Authority, which I know he was contacting on our behalf. Will he put further pressure on it to get in touch with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and me, as we are expecting to meet it following the representations that he was going to make on our behalf?
Mr. Key: Yes, of course I will. We had an extremely constructive discussion with Grimsby Town football club

57
and the Members of Parliament concerned. My hon. Friend was at his most reasonable, but was nevertheless forceful, in pressing the case of his constituents, but I have already pointed out to him that it is a matter for the FLA. If there is to be any departure from the policy, it must be on the recommendation of the FLA to Ministers. I hope that we can ensure that my hon. Friend's problem is solved. The FLA has given clear guidelines of the circumstances in which it would be prepared to consider a relaxation of the time scale and clubs are aware of that.
A number of hon. Members have mentioned to me the problem of clubs bogged down by planning problems. The Department of the Environment issued PPG 17 in September 1991 to encourage local planning authorities to give sympathetic consideration to proposals from clubs in the light of the 1994 deadline. It is for clubs to ensure that their development proposals are realistic and sensitive to planning concerns.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde asked about new horizons. I do not accept the Sports Council's analysis of local authority expenditure. Both the current and the capital spend have been increasing: in 1986–87, the net current spend was £362 million and in 1992–93 it was £462 million. The capital spend in 1986–87 was £161 million and in 1992–93 it was £240 million. There are also, as I mentioned a little while ago, substantial new funds for sport from the Football Trust, the Foundation for Sport and the Arts and, in future, the lottery. The Sports Council will have a key role in lottery distribution. We do not want to channel all the funds available for sport exclusively through the Sports Council.
I shall now comment on an important point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North, who drew attention to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the annual general meeting of the Central Council of Physical Recreation last week. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to reiterate what was said then. My right hon. Friend said that the Department for National Heritage
"has made substantial new proposals which assure the CCPR a stable and sound financial future and basis of representation."
He assured the CCPR that it had
"nothing to fear from the restructuring, nor the terms of involvement that the Government has proposed. The CCPR has expressed its goodwill and I hope that I have made plain the Government's."
That is important and I hope that any misunderstandings can be cleared up.
As the House will know, the Government are putting in place more sensible structures for Government funding of sport. After 21 years of service to sport, the Sports Council of Great Britain is to be replaced by two new bodies. I hope that it will be helpful if I clear up a few of the misconceptions. The logic is quite simple, and has commanded support across the sporting spectrum. The current Great Britain Sports Council has never been able to fulfil, even to its own satisfaction, a wider Great Britain role on issues that cut across home country boundaries. Therefore, it has operated, and been seen, largely as a de facto Sports Council for England. The Government recognised a gap between the need and the reality.
The United Kingdom Sports Commission will meet the need. It will, be a body that argues for Britain in international sporting arenas, making sure that no one doubts our status, or fails to understand our ambitions, as a major sporting nation. It will also take the lead in
58
bringing together home country interests on those major strategic issues that can sensibly be addressed only at United Kingdom level. Among those I number the promotion of sport here and overseas, research, the exchange of information and expertise and the development of the facilities and specialist services—doping control, sports medicine and science—that support performance and excellence and that are most cost-effectively developed at United Kingdom level for the benefit of all.
It is not a body that will be in charge of the home country sports councils or that will have ambitions to take them over—that way lies political and administrative madness. However, the UKSC begs a big question. The Government have played their proper role, and enabled and facilitated. We have provided the framework for right-minded and forward-thinking sports people to create a launching pad for sport into the 21st century. We do not claim to have created a sporting utopia, but we have created a forum that will allow others to achieve substantial forward movement. The question is therefore whether the full range of sporting interests are ready to take advantage of the opportunity that we have provided.
The second body to be created is the Sports Council for England. That recognises the reality that the current Sports Council has inevitably been primarily an English body. England will now have its own dedicated sports council, with a role compatible with the other home country sports councils. The Sports Council for England will have a natural interest in the development of performance and excellence in England, working with the UKSC. Its principal role will be creating the conditions which allow performance and excellence to thrive: getting people of all ages into sport and active recreational pursuits and helping the young to gain basic sporting skills. In that, there is enormous continuing scope for partnership with local authorities.
Membership of both bodies will be drawn from governmental organisations and the voluntary sports sector. It will also include a good leavening of non-representative members: people from those areas of life whose skills, in planning, management, business and law are essential in shaping organisations, people who can articulate what they are about and how they are going to go about it. I am also looking to increase the number of women in membership, and for members still active in their sport. We are also still on target for 1 October for completion of that stage of the process.
I have mentioned briefly the role of local authorities in working with the new Sports Council structure. I should like to emphasise that we recognise the achievements of local authorities as enablers and providers of sports facilities, which are so important to the implementation of Sport for All. The reform of local government provides an opportunity to provide a structure that reduces bureaucracy and enables more cost-effective service delivery of sport and recreation.
I congratulate local authorities on the way in which many of them already ensure that in planning their leisure services they take account of the mutual benefits and opportunities created by looking not only at sports but at arts, enjoyment of the countryside and tourism as aspects of leisure provision rather than as discrete and competing services. This is what the Department of National Heritage is doing, and it is not over-egging it to say that some local authorities have been doing that for some time anyway.

59
More can be achieved and the move towards a more unitary structure will facilitate an integrated approach to leisure management and provision. Unitary authorities in what are now the English shires will bring together many aspects of sport and physical recreation with libraries and other services that are the domain of the county councils and provide a single focus for the development and funding of the performing arts.
I assure hon. Members that I well appreciate the need to ensure that in any new structure the opportunities are there, through voluntary agreement and co-operation, to provide those specialist sport and recreation services such as coaches and sports development officers that may be beyond the means of any one individual authority.
The key task of the Department of National Heritage is to provide, at the national level, a stimulus to that integrated approach by melting away some of the barriers that might previously have existed between agencies, each concerned with its own aspect of activity. To that end, we intend to host a seminar later this summer to which we will be inviting our main sponsored bodies, including the Sports Council, to examine where greater co-ordination would be of benefit at national and regional level. In turn, that will provide the springboard for a series of regional conferences to foster the necessary regional collaboration to inform resource allocation decisions across the broad area of leisure service provision, including sport.
Important as the UKSC, the sports councils and local authorities will be in shaping the future direction of British sport, they cannot succeed by themselves. The continuing health of British sport is largely dependent on their ability to manage effectively and to promote individual sports. The new structure can be made that much more effective if it works in harness with an efficient and rejuvenated voluntary sector. Indeed, the potential of the UKSC to promote performance and excellence at the United Kingdom level can be fully realised only if it is buttressed and supported by the governing bodies of sport, as well as such key independent and influential agencies as the British Olympic Association and the Sports Aid Foundation, of which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) is now chairman.
It goes without saying that the best sportsmen and sportswomen deserve the best managers and administrators. Sporting success on the track depends to a significant extent on management success off it. Despite all its achievements, British sport has been justifiably criticised for neglecting the relationship between excellence in competition and excellence in administration. There are welcome signs that British sport has recognised that, to prepare itself for the 21st century, it must develop a meritocracy in which young and competent volunteers are trained, nurtured and rewarded on the basis of their talent and where the enthusiasm of volunteers can be complemented by the expertis of professionals.
Last October, I mentioned the proposed introduction of national and Scottish vocational qualifications in sport and recreation. They have now been introduced. The new qualification and occupational standards should provide a valuable framework that places people in the sport and recreation industry on a par with those in other sectors of the economy. There have been other efforts by the Sports Council, the British Olympic Association, the national
60
sports development centres and the British Association of National Sports Administrators to ensure that the quality of education is improved.
On the subject of local authority funding, I have referred only to the estimated outturn, but I can now inform hon. Members that provisional indications are that gross capital expenditure by local authorities in England for sport and active recreation rose from £166 million in 1986–87 to £240 million in 1992–93, although that latter figure is subject to revision. Therefore, there is increased funding for sport.
I am anxious to make progress because know that there are still many hon. Members who wish to speak. The Foundation for Sport and the Arts has been mentioned and I echo the congratulations of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North. Inner-city sport has also been mentioned. I take particular interest in that subject, not least as the city action team Minister responsible for Manchester and Salford.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Salford, East that inner-city sport is very important. I have visited the right hon. Gentleman's constituency many times, especially during the past two years. I was impressed by the quality of the teaching staff in the schools in his constituency—and, indeed, in other constitutencies throughout the country—and their determination to ensure that sport is an important part of the life of their schools, as well as part of the curriculum. Sportsmatch has also been a tremendous success since I launched it last November. I am sure that it will continue to be so.
Hon. Members referred to the national lottery, and much has been said on that matter in the House during the past couple of months. I hope that I have managed to answer the questions about football.
I want briefly to refer to Swindon Town football club because my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon initiated the debate. The club is renowned for playing attractive football—family football, not to put too fine a point on it. It finished fifth in the first division of the football league and therefore qualifies for the promotion play-offs for a place in the premier league next season. Swindon Town has been at the county ground since 1895. When the Taylor report was published, the ground had 5,030 seats; it now has 8,900 seats, partly due to the recent extension to the north stand. The total capacity for the ground is now 18,132. I understand that the average league attendance this season has been about 11,000—a figure which no doubt includes many of my constituents.
Swindon Town has abandoned its earlier plans to relocate to a new ground and is planning to replace, at the end of the season, the Shrivenham road stand with a new, 5,000, all-seated stand. That will cost about £1·4 million. There are also plans to seat and cover the Stratton bank stand at the end of next season, giving the ground an all-seated capacity of 20,100.
Swindon Town may face planning problems that could prevent it from meeting the 1994 deadline. As I told the House, it is for the Football Licensing Authority to decide whether there can be any moratorium. If my hon. Friend wishes to discuss any further details with me, as always I shall be delighted to accommodate him.
We have had a remarkably detailed debate. It is good when hon. Members can get down to the detail rather than just shout at each other across the Chamber. We shall wish to return to many, many issues, but I want to conclude my remarks with a few words about the Manchester Olympic

61
bid. There is no doubt that it is the most exciting prospect for sport in Britain for many years. The Government's commitment is absolutely certain and we do not envisage any problem with funding the bid from a variety of sources.
When we discussed national lottery funds in Committee, we explored ways in which it might be appropriate for the Manchester Olympic organisation to bid for some of those funds at some stage. That might be from the millennium fund or from some other part of the lottery funds; that is not for me to decide. However, surely there is no need to rule out that possibility at this stage. I find it astonishing that some hon. Members, including some from the Manchester area, seem determined to rule out that potential source of finance.
I would not like to predict the result when the International Olympic Committee votes in Monaco on 23 September on which country will host the Olympic games in the year 2000. The Manchester bid—which, after all, is also the British bid—offers a great opportunity for Olympic celebration. It is thoroughly realistic and I still think that it will win. It certainly deserves to succeed. I look forward to decision day with great optimism.
There may be points that I have not covered during my response and I should be happy to pursue them outside the Chamber. I hope that I have answered the debate generally and the points raised in particular. I look forward to doing so on the next occasion that we debate sport. We have already had two sports debates in the past year, which is a record. I hope that we continue to reflect the sporting aspirations of all our constituents, which are so important to the quality of life of our people.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Only 42 minutes remain for this debate and there are still five hon. Members wishing to catch my eye. With a little co-operation, all may be successful.
6.18 pm
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I had not intended to speak in the debate; I came only to listen. It was my understanding that my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) intended to speak about rugby league fooball. However, he was at Old Trafford yesterday and was last seen in a state of some emotional distress after Wigan was beaten—thank goodness—by St. Helens.
I must say how nice it was that Featherstone Rovers won the divisional championship. We, too, had a first yesterday, because my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) attended his first rugby league football game. He also had his education completed at Old Trafford yesterday.
This debate has been interesting and wide-ranging, but it has tended to concentrate, understandably, on soccer. The second most popular spectator sport in Britain is rugby league football. Many do not understand the importance of that sport.
Those of us who have the good fortune to come from rugby league-playing areas are concerned that many soccer-related problems have come home to rugby league clubs—which have had to pick up the tab for meeting the statutory implications of sports ground safety legislation and of the Taylor report.
62
Spectator safety applies to every sport, but rugby league—which has an excellent reputation as a well organised family sport that attracts big, extremely well-behaved crowds—was faced with huge bills and big problems as a consequence of problems that first arose in another sport. I hope that the Minister will address that point more so than has been the case recently.
I made a lengthy speech during the Report stage of the National Lottery etc. Bill, and I will not repeat the points that I made then, but I emphasise the concern in rugby league at the clear and blatant discrimination against many involved in that particular sport—primarily by the rugby union authorities.
The question of professionalism within rugby union was mentioned by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). I agree with him that the Rugby Union's view of amateurism is looking a little like the emperor's new clothes—extremely thin. Everyone knows that, to all intents and purposes, rugby union in many areas is totally professional—much more so in many respects than rugby league. One or two of us are growing tired of that, and I hope that the Minister will address with the rugby union authorities the manner in which they treat certain people, which is somewhat outdated, to put it mildly.
There is concern also in rugby league about discrimination in the armed forces. It seems strange in this day and age that those who want to play rugby league in the armed forces are refused permission to do so. I hope that more progress can be made with that, because such discrimination is unacceptable.
There is concern about the way in which the media treat rugby league. The media, based as they are in south-east England, largely disregard rugby league, although it is the second most popular spectator sport in the country. Very little effort is made to report the game. Some of us are getting fed up with the way that the media trivialise certain issues. We are sick to death, for example, of reading about the problem of Gazza's knee. Millions of people in this country could not care a damn about Gazza's knee. We want to read about sport, not that kind of nonsense.
That struck me when I was returning from a meeting on Friday evening, and listened to the news headlines on Radio 2. The lead item was the Venables affair at Tottenham Hotspur—not Bosnia or the schoolchild hostages in Paris. Do the people who run the media in this country really think that is the kind of thing that people want to hear or read about? The consequence of such an approach is that millions of people are largely ignorant of the important sport of rugby league.
I vividly remember having a conversation, just over a year ago, with the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), who was then the Minister responsible for sport. He had just attended his first ever rugby league. He had never seen one before in his life, yet he is roughly the same age as me. He raved about what a spectacle it was, with its finesse and the skills of its players. He had never seen it before except on television, presented by the likes—sadly—of Eddie Wareing. Our game deserves better, and I hope that the Minister will mention in appropriate places that rugby league needs to be treated more seriously.
Many of my hon. Friends not present for this debate subscribe to the game of rugby league and want it to have a fairer deal than it does now. We want proper recognition of the important contribution that sport makes, and action on some well-known problems.

63
It strikes me that this has been an all-male debate—no female Members are present in the Chamber at the moment. Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House should address the fact that sport and debates on sport tend to be all-male affairs. We lose as a nation by disregarding the interest and role of women in sport.
One of the most rapidly expanding sports in Britain is women's rugby league. For the third or fourth year running, my constituency boasts the champion women's rugby league side. I hope that we will address women's issues as well as the wider issues of rugby league and of sport in general.
6.26 pm
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: Much has already been said, very ably, by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) and by other hon. Friends and Opposition Members. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) reiterate his arguments about rugby league, because, although I follow both rugby union and rugby league avidly on television, I had no idea of the complications that have entered into the relationship between rugby union and rugby league, or of the way that rugby league players have been treated by rugby union officials. It is good that such issues can be aired in a debate such as this, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will use his good offices to resolve that matter quickly.
Sport has an important role to play in our country in social cohesion, particularly in urban areas. I do not underestimate the importance of country sports to the way in which people live in the country and appreciate the countryside—but in urban areas, sport offers cohesion, a sense of belonging, and a degree of humanity to vast numbers of people, who can occupy their time in a pleasurable way.
That is particularly true of inner-city or urban areas. I am pleased at the way that my own city has, on a bipartisan and apolitical basis, promoted the provision of facilities with our national indoor arena, which was recently the venue of world gymnastics competitions.
Having served on the Committee that considered the National Lottery, etc. Bill, I greatly look forward to its introduction. Money from the lottery will greatly aid the provision of capital funding for some of the purposes to which right hon. and hon. Members have alluded, such as all-weather playing fields for football or cricket and of indoor tennis courts—in which this country is sadly lacking.
There is a simple reason so few British players win at Wimbledon. For most of the year they cannot play, because there are not enough indoor tennis courts. Surely that is an ideal target for capital funding from the national lottery.
Hon. Members have also referred to skating rinks and swimming pools. Recently, a community centre was set up in Hall Green, in my constituency: I hope that swimming pools will be provided in other areas, especially urban areas. I also hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will use his influence to ensure that Olympic-sized pools are not forgotten.
A plethora of community centres are springing up around the country, with engagingly shaped pools—
64
kidney-shaped and heart-shaped—but such facilities are no good for sportsmen. I hope that my hon. Friend will encourage local authorities, planners and designers to provide straight runs. This is a practical proposal, and one that will not cost money: it is simply a question of directing influence appropriately.
I also hope that the Minister will consult more widely about the role of the organisations that look after British sport. I am thinking of the CCPR—which has already been mentioned—and the Sports Council, and about the effectiveness of the distribution of money.
My hon. Friend has mentioned the sizeable administration costs incurred by the Sports Council, and, in Committee stage on the National Lottery etc. Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth (Mr. Coe) spoke of trying to get to grips with the problem when he was a member of the Sports Council. He found it somewhat intractable. I hope that the Minister will try to ensure that sport is rather better served by the institutions that are there to promote it.
I have a particular interest in two or three specific issues, one of which is greyhound racing. I know that the Minister has no responsibility for such matters as evening betting; let me remind him, however, that greyhound racing is very popular. Huge numbers of spectators turn up and enjoy it greatly.
I agree with many others interested in the sport that, if betting shops are allowed to open late to cover such meetings, it is only reasonable for them to pay a levy towards an activity from which they are gaining a living; that applies to horse racing, after all. I hope that my hon. Friend will make that point to my hon. Friend Minister of State, Home Office, who spoke on such matters in Committee stage on the National Lottery etc. Bill. Greyhound racing needs support, and that support should be given by those who make a living from bets on it.
I know that my hon. Friend would expect me to mention drugs. The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) has told us that sport can contribute to the creation of a happier and healthier nation, but we want to ensure that sport itself is healthy. Nowadays, sadly, professionalism is creeping in—along with a number of parasites who insist on trying to promote the use of drugs. They persuade sportsmen—sometimes kidding them, sometimes cajoling—that they will perform better if they fill their bodies with unspeakable chemicals.
I was concerned to hear from various sources that the Sports Council had cut its subsidy to clubs, associations and sports that undertake voluntary drug testing. I hope that my hon. Friend will investigate that, and will put all the necessary pressure on the Sports Council to devote the necessary resources to this serious problem.
I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House would feel very ashamed if—in the next Olympic games, or in those held in Manchester—more British athletes were sent home. having been disqualified on the basis of drugs charges. Such incidents are a disgrace to us, and a disgrace to British sport.
I hope that the Minister will take the problem seriously, and will continue to try to persuade his colleagues at the Home Office that a change in the law is required. I hope that he will help to ensure that—within the structure of sport itself—it is accepted by federations, promoters and sponsors alike that they should sponsor only sportsmen who are prepared to be tested for drugs.

65
Perhaps he will have a gentle word with the Institute of Sports Sponsorship, the Advertising Standards Authority and the companies that are major sponsors of sport. I am sure that he is in regular contact with them. I do not believe that any hon. Member wants sportsmen who abuse drugs to be promoted or sponsored by commercial companies.
Mr. Key: I was surprised to hear what my hon. Friend just told me; I shall, of course, check it. The Sports Council spends some £750,000 a year on drug testing.
My hon. Friend may wish to know that, in recognition of this country's contribution, we have been chosen to host the fourth permanent world conference on anti-doping in sport, which will take place in London in September.
Mr. Hargreaves: I am delighted to hear that, and I thank my hon. Friend for investigating the other matter that I raised.
We can tackle the drugs problem, without spending huge amounts, by ensuring that everyone is on the same side—the side of clean sport. That includes promoters, television companies, sponsors and federations. I understand that some of those—including the television companies—have said that, in future, they will contemplate drugs testing; I hope that the promoters will take into account, and that the Minister will give them the necessary encouragement.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) for choosing such an excellent topic, and appreciate the comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
6.37 pm
Mr. Bryan Davies: Given the phrasing of the motion, Conservative Members were bound to exhibit a certain complacency; however, I do not think that, at this juncture, our sporting nation has any cause for complacency. First, I do not think that enough of our people participate in sport, because they do not have the facilities or the opportunity to do so. It is no accident that Britain is the cardiac capital of Europe; that may have something to do with diet, but it is also due to a lack of exercise and participation in sport.
We have nothing to be complacent about in our country's sporting achievements. Our national football side has played only once in the world cup final—when it had the advantage of playing on home ground; our national cricket team had disastrous tours of India and Sri Lanka recently, it lost at home to Pakistan last year and in general has had a grim record in recent years.
I wish the British Lions rugby team well for their tour of New Zealand, but I think that it would be optimistic to expect them to do tremendously well against a New Zealand side playing in its own hemisphere.
As has already been pointed out, Britain last produced a tennis champion more than 60 years ago. Our achievements are nothing to write home about. The overall performance of British teams give no cause for complacency.
I have one plaudit to bestow on the Government: I realise that £55 million has been devoted to pump-priming the Olympic games bid. We are all—not least those of us who represent constituencies in the north-west—united in hoping that that bid proves successful.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: Reference has been made to the fact that the debate is male-dominated. Will my hon. Friend therefore acknowledge that Britain has produced some women tennis champions more recently than in the past 60 years?
Mr. Davies: I accept that. I should have made it clear that I was referring to male tennis champions, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for correcting me.
I congratulate the Government on their support for the Olympic games bid, whose success would, of course, bring particular advantages to my constituency, not least because we hope to stage the hockey tournament at Boundary Park in Oldham.
There are three respects in which the Government ought to take a much more proactive part in the development of sport. First, we need a full audit of our sporting facilities, including the extent to which local authorities have been obliged to cut their capital expenditure in recent years and the consequent withdrawal of sporting facilities. The reduction in shared, joint-use facilities in schools is partly attributable to the development of local management of schools. I feel that opting out will increase the extent to which schools protect their own resources and will make them less willing to make those resources available to the wider community; I regret that.
Secondly, I see no reason why we do not accept that the Americans have it right. Why on earth should not excellence in sport extend to higher education? Why should not we have sporting scholarships? Why does not the Minister speak to his colleagues in the Department for Education and say that he expects our universities—many of which are at last laying greater emphasis on skill rather then merely on the cultivation of the intellect—to use sporting scholarships to encourage excellence in sport? What of the income that we derive from staging the most prestigious tennis tournament of them all—the Wimbledon millions? Not enough of those resources are ploughed back into the sport.
At the very least, our universities could give more support to tennis. Someone with slightly sub-standard A-levels can get in to Oxford or Cambridge if he shows promise in rowing or rugby, and I have always failed to understand why it is all right for those two sports to be encouraged at those institutions of higher education, when our major sports are not encouraged by the development of sporting scholarships in higher education.
Finally, let me refer to the spectre at the feast, to which little reference has been made today. The Minister and his Department have some direct responsibility for the role of television in the development of sport. In this age of fragmented culture, individualism and loss of identity, we should recognise the extent to which major sporting events provide some social cohesion. Sport is something to which people can relate, and television is bound to play its part in the process. I do.not think that the list of great sporting events available on national television is long enough.
I regret the BSkyB deal, which has fragmented the presentation of British football. In particular, the Minister will come in for severe criticism later this year when crucial matches—in which England will take on Holland and Norway and which will help to secure our participation in the world cup—will be on restricted television because of that ridiculous deal. The Broadcasting Act 1990 is defective, and it is time that something was done about it.

67
The strength of British sport depends on the extent to which we can nourish the grass roots of the next generation. That means that we must do three things: we must monitor local authorities' performance and give them more resources; we must badger the Department of Education to increase sporting scholarships; and we must protect our sporting culture by ensuring that nationwide television has the right to broadcast all our key sporting events for a national audience.
6.45 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins: I am delighted to have the opportunity to address the House—albeit briefly, as I know that at least one other hon. Member wishes to speak—and I join those who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) on having initiated the debate.
I have the great privilege to be the secretary of the Conservative Back-Bench sports committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). As a new hon. Member, I have done my best to become involved in the promotion of sport.
Given that I represent half of one of Britain's great sporting towns, it gives me particular pleasure to be able to address the House in the week of the 40th anniversary of one of our greatest sporting triumphs—the Matthews FA cup final. I have been pleased to note the tributes that have properly been paid this week to the great team that won that final, many of whom still live in my constituency and one of whom I know well; I refer to Bill Perry who, at the very end of that historic final, scored a goal from Sir Stanley Matthews's pass to beat Bolton Wanderers 4–3.
What a pleasure it has been to be able to celebrate the 40th anniversary of that historic triumph while also celebrating the fact that Blackpool has managed to escape relegation by a single point a season after rightfully winning promotion. I look forward to great triumphs for Blackpool next season, when it is hoped that we will be promoted yet again, and I pay tribute to all those who have been involved with the club this year.
I also pay tribute to those involved in other sports, including rugby under both codes. Despite what has been said today, there are many towns, including Blackpool, where rugby league and rugby union are well supported. Swimming is also doing well in Blackpool, as are many other sports.
I wish to address some of the wider sporting issues that have been raised in the debate. I was fortunate enough to be heavily involved in the campaign to raise funds to enable two distinguished disabled athletes in my constituency to go to the paralympics, in which they participated with great success. Both were members of the British paralympic fencing team, which was highly successful, and both came back with medals. I pay tribute —on a cross-party and a non-party basis—to all those who worked hard to raise funds to enable those athletes and others to attend. It has been a privilege for me to champion in the House the cause of sport for the disabled, and I hope to continue to do so.
I also join my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon in paying tribute to the National Coaching Foundation. Early in 1991, the Government gave £700,000 to promote
68
quality after-school sport opportunities for young people. A scheme known as Champion Coaching was the product of that funding. The project was designed to provide coaches to help young people to develop their sporting abilities and adopt active life styles. It got off to a strong start and, by the beginning of 1992, it had agreed to sponsor no fewer than 24 training schemes throughout the country as well as setting up no fewer than 136 schools of sport, each with a professional coach, 24 physical education roadshows and 24 parent workshops.
Those of us who have participated in the, Lords and Commons rugby XV were fortunate enough to meet last autumn some of those involved in the National Coaching Foundation. I pay tribute to everyone associated with the foundation, and to the chief executive, Sue Campbell, for all her work. I pay tribute, too, to the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, which has been mentioned in the debate and whose tie I have the privilege to wear today. The FSA was able to increase the NCF's funding, with an initial grant of £300,000 in recognition of the fact that it was of enormous benefit to children throughout the country and deserved to grow.
A few months later; the Foundation for Sport and the Arts gave a further £1·3 million, set aside by the trustees of that foundation to fund future expansion and new projects for the National Coaching Foundation. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon was right to pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues in providing funding for the National Coaching Foundation, and I look forward to its work continuing.
The hon. Members for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) were, uncharacteristically, somewhat negative and grudging in their remarks about what the Government have rightly done for sport. I know that both of them believe, as I do, in the future of sport, and particularly in the development of sport for young people. I know that their speeches were uncharacteristically negative and that they would wish to join me in paying tribute to the work done for sport in this country.
I hope that we can look forward to a successful cricket season. I should mention, in the light of the comments made about the absence of lady Members, that we should pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) who became the first two lady Members to play for the Lords and Commons cricket side. I have played cricket with them in successive fixtures already this season. I look forward to the continued participation of lady Members in sport in the future.
Once again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject. I look forward to speaking at greater length on this important issue in a future debate.
6.50 pm
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: I am probably a unique participant in this debate because in the halcyon days of my youth, before I, like the Minister, was horizontally challenged and before the colour of my hair matured, I was a physical education teacher. I take issue with the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) because his motion ignores the symbiosis between sport and

69
physical education. The one cannot be separated from the other. The motion could have been corrected by that addition.
My speech, in common with those of my hon. Friends, will be somewhat negative because I do not see a great deal to congratulate the Government on over the past 14 years. I will explain why. Very simply, there has been a tremendous failure to foster school sport. It is not a failure of the past 14 years, but a cultural one, because this country has not recognised the importance of sport and physical education.
One of the things that I learned when rounding myself as a person, metaphorically speaking, during my physical education course was a lot about the history of sport and physical education. I learned a lot about the philosophy of the ancients towards sport and education. It was something that was adapted over the centuries and integrated into the public school ethos, and later the university one towards sport and physical education. But it is not something which fits with our time.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) that our universities are much ignored at the present time. They face a particular problem. The university athletics unions are very concerned about the effect on sport of the Government's measures involving the student unions. I urge the Ministers to assuage their doubts about the future of sport in the universities.
I think that we should take the Olympics with a pinch of salt. The ancients treated participants in the Olympics as great heroes. In this day and age they are heroes of a different sort; for many of them the Olympics are a means of making an awful lot of money rather than anything else. I accept, however, that the Olympics are the apex of the sporting pyramid.
If I had to give any advice to the Minister—far be it from me, a humble Back Bencher, to give him advice—I believe that he should encourage participation in sport as opposed to the spectator element. We have all witnessed the unseemly row between certain elements controlling Tottenham Hotspur football club. I do not believe that that has done that club any good. Hon. Members have commented on the way in which the media have reported it. That row has not done the media or the sport any favours, and it certainly has not done any favours to our young people.
I echo what other hon. Friends have said about women's sport. I hate to say it, but the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) gave a great deal away about the reactionary attitude towards that sector of sport. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was expressing his own prejudices and was honest enough to admit that, but we must recognise that half the population is made up of women. They have had a tough time and they deserve a far better deal, whether they are playing rugby union, rugby league, touch football, hockey or amateur soccer. It ill behoves us not to provide that better deal and I sincerely hope that the Minister will do so.
One of the other things that I learned from my student days studying physical education was that sport and physical education have been neglected by all Governments. There is an indissoluble link between the physical condition and the mental one. I am sure that the Minister will remember that immortal Latin phrase "mens sana in corpore sano". That certainly applies to the health
70
of the nation. The only time that any Government ever appear to take any note of the worth and value of sport and physical education is, sadly, in time of war, when the people who have been recruited are found to be totally unfit. Governments then provide the impetus for improved standards of sport and physical education for the great mass of the population, not the elite.
It would certainly be in the Minister's interest and that of the nation if he remembered that there is a huge, growing problem with general fitness. That problem is not evident only among people of my own age or that of the Minister, but applies to the younger generation. We must catch them young and we must encourage them.
We must be careful, however, to avoid extremes. We do not want the Government to act with complete dereliction of interest towards sport, nor do we want to follow the former East German example, where sport was used purely for propaganda purposes. The American example represents the limbo between those extremes. Extremely high sporting standards are achieved by that country whether in Olympic, collegiate or professional sports, but the vast mass of American young people do not participate actively in sport. I hope that the Minister will take note of that.
I also echo the concern expressed by a number of my hon. Friends about the damage done to school sport by a number of factors, including the burden imposed on teachers by the implementation of the national curriculum and testing. Of even greater importance, however, is the fact that morale in the teaching profession has been so undermined that teachers often have neither the time nor, sadly, the inclination to give up the many hours that they used to devote to sport. That is a sad feature of the new system.
I need not repeat what my hon. Friends have said about the number of school playing fields that have fallen into disuse or have been sold off and will never be bought back. It is tragic that local authority after local authority, regardless of political complexion, has had to sell off that land to balance the books. That is no way to encourage sport.
I should like to end on an optimistic note. I have always opposed the national lottery in principle, but I accept that one will be introduced. I urge the Minister and the Secretary of State to do all that they can within their power to correct the imbalance whereby a projected 4 per cent. of the proceeds will be spent on sport while, in marked distinction, 12 per cent. will go to the Exchequer.
If we are to have a national lottery, the money raised should be divided between sport and other good causes in the proportions that most people expect. It would be a tragedy if—despite the hopes and aspirations not only of the Minister, Conservative Members and my colleagues who have supported the idea of a lottery, but of those who buy tickets—three times as much money from the lottery were to go to the Exchequer than to good causes such as sport. If the Government are serious, let them put their money where their proverbial mouth is.
It being Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by direction of THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 16 (Time for taking private business), proceedings on the motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business).

British Waterways Bill [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
7 pm
Mr. Robert B. Jones: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
You will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the last time I spoke when you were in the Chair was during a debate on the Select Committee on the Environment's report on coastal planning and protection. I complained bitterly that, although I was very interested in the subject, my constituency could not be further from the sea and that the nearest I got to it was having the grand union canal run through my constituency. However, this evening, our time has come for a debate on the canal system, and I am delighted to sponsor the Bill.
As a past chairman of the all-party waterways group and a member of the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council for many years, I have followed matters affecting the canal system with considerable interest. The Bill tackles many of the problems that have been identified over the years by not only the user groups but the British Waterways Board and the Select Committee on the Environment in its report.
I am delighted to see here colleagues from both parties who have taken a close interest in waterways. I know that canal users and the British Waterways Board greatly welcome the interest and affection that there is in the House for our canal system. It is about 200 years since the legislation that first established the canal system was introduced, so it is not inappropriate that we are now debating a Bill that deals with some of the problems that have arisen in the intervening period.
British Waterways is responsible for 2,000 miles of inland waterways, 1,500 miles of continuous towpaths, 2,100 listed structures and monuments and 64 sites of special scientific interest. The Bill is promoted by British Waterways primarily to secure the additional safety of waterway users and the owners and occupiers of adjoining land, to create new conservation, environmental and recreational duties and to enable British Waterways to generate more income from reinvestment in the waterways.
The non-repair of waterways and associated works at times of emergency gives rise to the risk of serious danger to persons and property. The board believes that there is a need for specific provision granting the right to enter land for such purposes. The power of entry to third-party land to facilitate repair and maintenance was referred to in paragraph 3.29 of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report of May 1987. It drew attention to the fact that British Waterways has no effective statutory rights of access across private property, even in the direst emergency when life and property might be endangered. Paragraph 3.31 of the MMC report states that a general powers Bill would be the appropriate way to correct that deficiency, and that is what we are debating.
The board is unusual among statutory undertakers in having no general powers to enter land. Among the utilities, British Waterways is alone in lacking powers to deal with emergencies that threaten life and property. The National Rivers Authority can effect entry on to premises for the purpose of carrying out its water resources
72
functions and to act without notice in an emergency. In its capacity as a navigation authority, the NRA is in a different position from British Waterways because the natural rivers for which it is mainly responsible—it has a few canals—do not present the same risks.
It is worth drawing attention to the fact that a high percentage of canals are on embankments where the real problems lie if overtopping occurs and there is erosion of the embankment or if tree roots penetrate the lining of the canal, leading ultimately to the instability and collapse of the embankment itself. That was the cause of the recent example on the Lancaster canal, which was a worst case scenario.
The breach occurred on the offside, where British Waterways usually owns no property, late on a Friday afternoon—as always seems to be the case. The canal immediately flooded the grounds of adjoining property and threatened houses, including one occupied by a lady of very advanced years. But for the willingness of the landowner to permit British Waterways entry, to fell trees and to provide vehicular access, serious property damage would have ensued. However, in the past, not all landowners have been so accommodating, with resultant risks to public safety.
Of course, the Bill provides for the payment of compensation for loss or damage caused as a result of the exercise of the powers of entry and for the payment of a sum in the nature of a rental. That matter was raised at a recent briefing for hon. Members in the House. Moreover, the board has agreed a code of practice as to how the powers should be exercised.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Why was that provision added later? If it is so important for British Waterways to have these emergency powers, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, why has it taken more than two years—probably longer, since promotion of the Bill was announced—for the provision to be added? Would it not have been good sense to concentrate on that narrow aspect, about which no one disagrees, rather than tie in with it a series of other provisions which have been controversial?
Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is right to believe that safety is the primary purpose behind the Bill, but many other issues are involved and I shall deal with them in due course. The hon. Gentleman is far more of an expert on private Members' Bills than I am. He will know that they proceed slowly because people take the opportunity to raise matters that are perhaps not strictly relevant to the Bill but they wish to air. That is why it has taken so long.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is the hon. Gentleman going to state that there are five points which the Inland Waterways Association would like to be added to the Bill and which have, I believe, been agreed? I must declare an interest as I am a member of that organisation. Some people who use their craft to seek work have some reservations about the protection afforded. If such matters were covered, I am sure that the Bill would get a fairer wind.
Mr. Jones: I shall deal with that issue. I am trying to go through the Bill in order so that hon. Members can follow my points.
Environmental and recreational duties are close to my heart because they stem from the Select Committee's

73
recommendations. Clause 23 is included to discharge an obligation, which has been accepted and supported by the Government, that British Waterways should be subject to the same general environmental and recreational duties as the NRA and the privatised water companies. The clause is directly adapted from section 8 of the Water Act 1989 and uses the same language. The Select Committee on the Environment's report on British Waterways, which was published in August 1989, recommended that a duty similar to that under section 8 should be applied to the BWB. The Government endorsed that recommendation in their response of February 1990, and it is now before the House.
Clause 23 has caused some concern among those involved with recreational interests about its precise effect. It maintains the existing equilibrium between the recreational use of waterways and their conservation and environmental value. It has been confirmed to British Waterways in advice from leading counsel that the effect of the clause is to confer additional environmental and recreational duties without diluting its maintenance obligations under the Transport Act 1968, which, in relation to commercial and cruising waterways, are of considerable importance to those with boating interests. I understand that any difficulties that the new provision would cause would in no way go beyond the normal difficulties of making a balanced judgment which many statutory bodies, including British Waterways, have to make on a daily basis.
British Waterways will be required to enhance and to conserve flora, fauna and natural features of special interest and to take equal care to protect and conserve buildings and sites of historic interest. It will also have to have regard to preserving access to towpaths for walkers and others as well as to protecting derelict waterways with potential for future recreational use. I have the Wendover arm in my constituency and I hope that it will once again come into use some time in the next 10 or 20 years.
Those duties are reflected in the new leisure and tourism strategy and environmental policy. The board recognises that towpaths are widely used for different purposes. Some are public footpaths or bridleways and will always maintain that status. The others, with no public rights of way, will continue to be available free of charge for pedestrian use. That is an unequivocal commitment which I give on behalf of British Waterways.
Ms Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman has given a very important commitment. However, clause 23(4) states:
"Nothing in this section shall require recreational facilities made available by the Board to be made available free of charge."
Can the hon. Gentleman give that commitment when the clause does not seem to back him up?
Mr. Jones: It is a matter of whether one looks at it from a lateral or from a linear point of view. The hon. Lady knows canals well because she represents a Birmingham constituency. She will know that some towpaths are wide and some are very narrow. There is no intention of causing any problems for those who want to walk along canals. On other parts of the canal system, such as Gloucester docks with which I am familiar, British Waterways has agreed to areas being cordoned off so that the Inland Waterways Association can have a rally for which it makes a charge. There is no problem about walking along the towpaths
74
free of charge. However, some part of the wider areas might have to be cut off for some purpose or other. I hope that that answers the question.
Mr. Bob Cryer: There are real concerns about charging for access to towpaths which have been accessible to the public, by and large, since the construction of the canals in the 18th and early 19th centuries. Should there not be a further provision in the Bill? If a dispute arises, not the hon. Gentleman but the Bill will be quoted. There should be a provision in the Bill to give the guarantee that the hon. Gentleman has given.
Mr. Jones: That is difficult to do. I have given a commitment that British Waterways takes as serious and categorical. From the point of view of most of us who like to use the canals for recreational purposes, that seems acceptable. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been to many rallies. He will know about the arrangements to generate funds for the Inland Waterways Association and for the restoration of canals. If the IWA could not charge for such rallies because people had the right to go all the way across a towpath, it would be difficult for it to raise funds. I should not wish that to happen and I do not think that British Waterways wishes that to happen.
Part III contains powers for the safe and effective regulation of the board's waterways in the interests of all users. Part III has aroused opposition from certain boating interests which are anxious to ensure that the new controls are not unduly onerous. As a result of such obligations, a number of amendments will be proposed in Committee, if the Bill is given a Second Reading, to provide safeguards for boat users and for others. The amendments have been agreed with the IWA, the Royal Yachting Association, the Residential Boat Owners Association, the British Marine Industries Federation and the Association of Pleasure Craft Operators.
Part III would impose new minimum fire and safety standards on boats and would prevent pollution. According to Home Office statistics, between 1983 and 1988, there were more than 500 fires on boats on inland waterways; a spectacular example featured recently on BBC television news was of a pleasure boat on the Thames which was completely burnt out. The standards include specifications for engine installations, fuel systems, fire extinguishers, liquid petroleum gas and electrical appliances, ventilation systems and fuel storage. The NRA and the Broads authorities have agreed with British Waterways that there should be a common approach to craft safety. The boat safety standards will, therefore, apply to vessels on the majority of our navigable waterways. That harmonisation is welcome.
Each boat on the waterways will be inspected, as in an MOT test, but normally every four years rather than annually. Existing licence holders would have until at least July 1994 to comply if their boats were built after 1970, or until July 1995 in the case of older vessels. A standards appeals panel is to be set up on which British Waterways will be in a minority. It will include representatives of boat users. The owners of historic and other boats using the waterways may apply for exemption from the standards. Pleasure boats of all ages must be covered by third party insurance and houseboats must have moorings with

75
proper facilities. British Waterways estimates that already almost 90 per cent. of private pleasure boats carry third-party insurance.
At present, about 1,000 house boats are illegally moored on waterways. They, too, must have moorings with proper facilities. As a result of the current housing shortage, the board has announced a five-year moratorium on enforcement action which runs until 30 April 1996 on terms that could allow those house boats to remain until fully serviced permanent moorings were found. Following the Bill, houseboat owners will be offered three, five or seven-year agreements modelled on existing legislation for mobile homes which will replace the current annual agreement.
Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman has listed a series of concessions that have been wrung out of the promoters. He began by saying that the Bill was an urgent safety measure. Why did the promoters not make those concessions in the House of Lords, or why did they not make them when the Bill first came to this House? Because it has taken so long to get the concessions, there is still a great deal of suspicion outside. There is also a belief that if we spin out the procedures, even more concessions will be given. Would it not have been far better for the promoters to meet the objectors at the beginning and do a deal then? I have no doubt that the promoters will have to make more concessions if they want the Bill to be enacted.
Mr. Jones: As I know from some of the points raised with me, it is difficult to pin down some of the objectors to saying what they dislike and what they want. It is only through the process of negotiation and consultation that these matters emerge. I appreciate that it is a lengthy process which has costs in terms of the matters about which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) cares. However, that lengthy process has resulted in a far greater awareness of the problems perceived by some of the groups who have objected. Those problems were not always terribly clear when they were first raised.
New permanent mooring sites are being identified and discussions are well advanced with local planning authorities. Some 92 residential moorings, both British Waterways and private, have been granted planning permission and are in various stages of development and occupation. More planning applications are expected shortly. A planning application will be made shortly for a site in Birmingham for 42 boats. Those registered are being allowed to remain on temporary moorings while the permanent sites are being developed, and most stay where they are.
I emphasise that nothing in the Bill alters the general rule that boats are free to moor against a towpath in any one place for up to 14 days except where that would cause a navigational hazard. Restrictions are necessary in the interests of securing safety and preventing congestion. They will apply only at permanent mooring sites, at water points and at certain popular sites which have special conditions, such as time limits to be fair to all users. Those will be clearly signposted.
Part IV contains provisions to extinguish unexercisable fishing rights, and rights found in old canal Acts to construct works and to provide facilities which have not been exercised since the Acts were passed up to 200 years
76
or more ago. The rights include rights to construct roads, railways, branch canals and other works, as well as fishing, sporting and boating rights. Those rights were created to compensate those whose land was severed and to facilitate the commercial exploitation of the canals by freight traffic.
Any modern claims to exercise those rights are for wholly different purposes and are inappropriate in modern conditions. The rights concerned are, by definition, obsolete, and attempts to exercise them can cause the board genuine difficulty in efficiently managing its operation. It is important to emphasise that the Bill provides for compensation to be paid to the owner of an extinguished right. If there is any dispute about compensation, the Lands Tribunal will arbitrate.
Quite a number of those who petitioned against the Bill made a point about bridges and the opportunity to join two pieces of land separated by a canal. I can understand that point, and British Waterways has agreed to drop the word "bridges" from the Bill to overcome that difficulty. However, as they are heritage structures, I hope that any bridges built over a canal will be in keeping with the heritage structures and that those who wish to take advantage of the opportunity will not in any way diminish our heritage.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: My hon. Friend will be aware that some people challenge the contention that the rights are extinguished; indeed, they may be challenged in court. My main concern was about bridging and I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for the concession that he has announced and the amendment which will presumably be tabled in Committee. However, rights do not just have to be exercised over canals. In some cases—for example in relation to drainage—pipes may be required to go under a canal. On the same terms, will my hon. Friend make the same concession and therefore satisfy my lingering and remaining doubts about the Bill?
Mr. Jones: I do not see any problems with that, provided that whatever went under a canal in terms of drainage did not interfere with the canal itself—for example, by causing fracturing. Otherwise, my hon. Friend's point would not cause any difficulties, and I am happy to give him the assurance that he seeks.
The majority of the 44 petitions deposited in the House were concerned about the proposals embodied in clause 27. Extensive discussions have taken place and a number have been withdrawn. Perhaps more will be withdrawn as a result of my comments this evening. On behalf of British Waterways, I invite the outstanding petitioners to submit their cases to the Committee where the issues can be debated and deliberated on.
The Bill will also give British Waterways powers for the acquisition by agreement in relation to the development of land. That should generate income over and above the grants payable by central Government and help to develop the network for leisure activities and enjoyment.
At earlier briefing meetings with British Waterways, some hon. Members voiced concern at what they described as the hidden agenda behind these powers. There seems to be a fear that the powers are a precursor to privatisation and will facilitate the sale of the most lucrative British Waterways assets before privatisation. That is untrue, as the Government have made clear on many occasions, including, to my knowledge, before the Select Committee on the Environment when we considered the matter.

77
For the foreseeable future, our canals and waterways will depend on considerable Exchequer support. However, that does not mean that there is no potential for British Waterways to raise additional resources from disposing of redundant assets. It is worth emphasising that, over the past five years, the selective sale of properties with no operational use and not required to protect the environment or heritage, has yielded £27·4 million. Reinvestment on the waterways over the same period totalled £28·4 million.
British Waterways is committed to ensuring that the disposal of any land or buildings surplus to requirements results in developments that will complement and enhance the waterways. Clause 23 effectively imposes such requirements on British Waterways. There are many examples around the country of new developments alongside our waterways, such as Gloucester docks, which positively enhance and encourage the use of our waterways. I do not know whether the gas street basin is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), but I visited it when the Select Committee considered the subject, and I was very impressed by the obvious recreational pleasure derived by the local residents there.
Finally, British Waterways has recently been through a period of major change, with management being devolved from the centre to its regions and waterways. Considerable effort has been expended by British Waterways throughout the promotion of the Bill to reassure its users that those changes were for the better and much has been achieved through the publication of statements of intent about British Waterways' future polices and commitment to consultation. In particular, in January 1992, British Waterways published in the form of a customer charter, a document entitled "Caring for our Customers" which explained what the public could expect in terms of the spread and quality of services.
The charter included an internal complaints procedure involving successively the waterway and regional managers and then the board's chief executive. It committed British Waterways to the principle of an independent external review in appropriate cases where complaints have not been satisfactorily resolved through the internal machinery.
Mr. Cryer: I hope that the charter is a help. However, we are unfortunately dealing with legislation. The hon. Gentleman said "finally" as though he were approaching the end of his speech. Will he consider clause 13 which, in relation to houseboats, gives the board absolute power to provide
"such further general terms as they think fit, in addition to or in substitution for those set out in the said Schedule I"?
A charter may be all very well, but it has absolutely no statutory force. In effect, we are giving British Waterways the power to produce statutory terms and conditions. However, such powers were clearly defined in the Transport and Works Act 1992 in terms of delegated powers to Ministers. As I recall, every aspect of that Act is subject to statutory instruments under the negative or affirmative procedures. Should there not be that kind of parliamentary accountability when many thousands of houseboat owners are affected and not this absolute power which is being given to British Waterways?
Mr. Jones: I was explaining about the code of practice. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured by my
78
comments about an ombudsman and his powers. British Waterways has developed proposals in consultation with the Department of the Environment to establish a non-statutory waterways ombudsman to investigate complaints of maladministration by the board, which will be bound by his or her recommendations. That is more than can be said in local government or in relation to the reports of other ombudsmen. I am pleased to say that the appointment of the waterways ombudsman, which will be endorsed by the Secretary of State, will be announced shortly and will thereafter take immediate effect.
We all have a great affection for the canal system, and I hope that the Bill will enhance it for many years to come.
7.26 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): It may be convenient for the House if I intervene at this stage to give the Government's view of the Bill. First, I should say how much I welcome the opportunity to have a debate on our inland waterways. They are part of the glory of our islands and we are committed to their fullest possible development, for the widest possible range of leisure and recreation activities, as a precious environmental and heritage asset. That commitment is demonstrated by the continuing payment of Government grant to British Waterways totalling £50 million a year and by the record level of investment in waterways maintenance in recent years.
Most objective observers would agree that the waterway network is now in a better condition than it has been for many years. Indeed, this month sees the publication of the 250th issue of that excellent journal, Waterways World, in which the editor, Hugh Potter, reflects on the 21 years during which Waterways World has been published. Looking at the achievements of the past 21 years, he says:
"In 1972, the restoration of the Kennet and Avon was just a dream; the Huddersfield and Rochdale canals were impossibilities. We now have the Kennet and Avon open and the trans-Pennine canals well on their way to full restoration. The Caldon and Basingstoke canals, the Great Ouse and the Upper Avon have all been reopened. How many boaters navigating those waterways today have the slightest idea how fortunate they are? They are experiencing 200 years of history, but if it had not been for the remarkable events of the last 21 years then boaters might not have had those waterways to give them such pleasure today."
Much has been achieved in recent times. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) has said, 1993 is a particularly joyous year for canals in Great Britain as it marks the 200th anniversary of the passing of the first enabling Acts allowing for canal construction in this country.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: The Minister rightly quotes from Waterways World the achievements of those canal restoration schemes. However, all those schemes, like the Barnsley canal restoration scheme in my area, have received no support from the Government. The restoration schemes were left to small groups of volunteers who fought hard over many years to bring into being the idea of restoring some of the famous waterways, so it is wrong for the Minister implicitly to claim credit on behalf of the Government for the achievements mentioned in that magazine.
Mr. Baldry: Over the years, the Government have made considerable sums of money available to the British Waterways Board, and we continue to do that. As I said, we have given £50 million in grant aid. I readily pay tribute to the thousands of volunteers up and down the country who have helped to restore our canals and waterways. The Kennet and Avon and many other canals and waterways that have come back into use have done so as a result of the considerable work done by those volunteers. I hope that that interest will continue because their involvement in the waterways is much appreciated and much valued by the British Waterways Board and by hon. Members.
The British Waterways Board is at the forefront of the events celebrating two centuries of canal life, especially the weekend of "Canals 200" festivities across the country next weekend when a large number of organisations will take part. The Royal Mail is also celebrating our canal heritage by issuing a set of commemorative stamps in July. Looking around the Chamber today, I think that most hon. Members have a waterway or canal interest in their constituency, including the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston): the Oxford canal runs through my constituency.
We have considered the contents of this private Member's Bill and, in principle, have no objections to its proposals. They are consistent with the board's existing statutory responsibilities. The powers that the board is seeking are designed to improve the safety of its waterways and allow BW to manage its assets more effectively and efficiently. The proposals are aligned to British Waterways' integrated business strategy, which was endorsed by the Government and, indeed, welcomed by the Select Committee on the Environment in 1989.
The strategy provides for the development of the board's property assets in partnership with the private sector as an integral part of BW's waterway management. Increased income from property development can be ploughed into waterway improvements to the benefit of all waterway users. The strategy has allowed BW to reinvest some £28 million in the waterways over the past five years. Sixty per cent. of BW's operating and maintenance costs are currently paid for by the taxpayer through Government grants totalling some £50 million a year. British Waterways' boating customers directly contribute less than 12 per cent. of those costs. Against that background, we are encouraging British Waterways to broaden its customer base and increase revenues from those who benefit from the waterways. Given the level of taxpayer support invested in British Waterways, we are also pressing the board to improve its efficiency and cut running costs.
The board's proposals in the Bill—to be given powers of emergency access over third party land, as discussed in the 1987 report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and improve the management of its assets—are consistent with a drive for greater efficiency. If enacted, the Bill will generally speaking leave the board in a similar position to other statutory undertakers.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: I thank the Minister for giving way op that point. Recently, there were two breaches on the Lancashire stretch of the Leeds to Liverpool canal and there was considerable difficulty with access. The matter of access is urgent because, obviously,
80
breaches cannot be dealt with quickly if people do not have access. That part of the Bill must be welcomed so that BW can deal with such problems speedily.
Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point—I am sure that it will be supported by all hon. Members who take a common sense approach to the Bill.
I understand that concern has been expressed about the Bill representing some sort of hidden agenda for privatising British Waterways. I must make this absolutely clear: I assure the House that the Government have no plans to privatise the British Waterways Board, nor are there proposals to phase out Government subsidy. We recognise that the heritage, educational and environmental value of waterways merits continuing substantial support from the taxpayer.
Ms Clare Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Baldry: I shall give way in a moment.
I know that other concerns about the Bill in the past have been raised by the Inland Waterways Association and other organisations. It is for the Bill's promoter, British Waterways, to satisfy the House that the powers that the BW board proposes to take are justified. Recently, it has made considerable efforts to meet objectives and respond to objections. It is not without significance that there is not one mention of the Bill in the current issue of Waterways World. If there had been continuing concern from boat owners, boat operators and others with interests, I would expect that concern to be reflected in current publications relating to waterway interests.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I assure the Minister that people are still writing in with a great deal of concern. A lot of concern has been expressed in publications relating to waterways in the past 18 months. I should like an undertaking from the Minister that the Government will keep their promise and not privatise the whole waterways network. If they encourage Inland Waterways to sell a particular section which might be profitable or too expensive to keep in terms of a canal, that would break up either the existing network or the potential for the future of the network. Can we have an assurance that there is no intention to fragment the waterways by selling parts of them?
Mr. Baldry: I readily give that undertaking. British Waterways has a statutory definition as to what is a waterway and we have no intention of reconsidering that definition. As I said, we are committed to British Waterways and to maintaining the waterways network in the United Kingdom.
Ms Short: Many peope are concerned about the danger that the Government may privatise British Waterways. I listened carefully to what the Minister said. He said that the Government have no plans so to do. Before the election, the Government told us that they had no plans to increase value added tax, but we know what has happened in relation to domestic fuel. We know that the Government are planning to privatise the forests and railways in Britain, so I am sorry to say that I am a little suspicious about what the Minister said. Will he give us an absolute commitment that in the lifetime of this Government there will be no move whatever to privatise any part of British Waterways?
Mr. Baldry: The proposal to privatise or take powers with regard to British Rail, British Coal and other industries was a clear manifesto commitment which the Government are properly honouring. All that I am saying is that the Government have no intention, in this Parliament or any subsequent Parliament—so far as I am aware—of privatising any part or the whole of British Waterways.
I should mention the proposals in clause 23 on the board's general environmental and recreational duties. That clause has the Government's full approval as it fulfills our commitment to the Select Committee on the Environment to extend to BW the environmental and recreational duties for water companies and the National Rivers Authority in section 8 of the Water Act 1989. As a public body, BW is already under a general duty to have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside. Clause 23 clarifies that duty in accordance with the wishes of the Select Committee and is framed along the same lines as the provision in the Water Act 1989. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) stressed that the clause does not undermine the board's maintenance obligations under the Transport Act 1968.
While the Government believe that generally the Bill contains a sensible set of proposals, I recognise that not all of them are non-controversial. The Bill received extensive consideration in another place in the last Parliament, and I understand that negotiations on outstanding concerns have continued. That has been evidenced today by a number of the concessions that my hon. Friend has made.
Mr. Cryer: The Minister referred to the general principle of the Bill. The powers in the Bill enable the British Waterways Board to delete the whole of schedule 1 and substitute its own terms and conditions. If the Bill is passed in its present form, we shall be allowing the British Waterways Board to legislate. We shall be allowing it to alter the terms of primary legislation passed by the House. Surely the Minister cannot agree to that sort of thing. The House takes a keen interest when Ministers seek what are known as Henry VIII clauses. Surely we should not allow outside bodies to have such powers.
Mr. Baldry: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the Bill is one that I would share. It must be for the House to decide whether the powers that the promoters of the Bill seek to take are justified. My concern and that of the Government in relation to a private Bill is to ensure that nothing in the Bill conflicts with the general principles of Government policy or public policy, and there is no such conflict in this case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West mentioned some amendments to part III of the Bill which have been agreed with a consortium of boating organisations, including the Inland Waterways Association and the British Marine Industries Federation. As a member of the IWA, I welcome that agreement, both in itself and as a sign of a co-operative spirit between the boating organisations and the British Waterways Board. I have already touched on the need to increase public awareness of the value of our inland waterways and to broaden the customer base of BW's waterways in order to secure its long-term future. That is a challenge for both BW and its customer organisations. A constructive dialogue between the two is to be welcomed.
82
I know that in the past concerns have been expressed about the way in which British Waterways liaises with its customers. It is for BW management to ensure that adequate arrangements are in place for consulting waterway users and dealing with complaints. It has already put a great deal of effort into improving customer relations and has recently examined how complaints could be more effectively handled. Early in 1992, the board introduced a formal complaints procedure and gave a commitment to the appointment of an independent ombudsman. His or her role would be to look into cases of complaints against BW and decide whether they were dealt with fairly and reasonably.
I am delighted today to welcome the creation of that post, which will come into effect as soon as possible. I see that positive development as yet another successful example of the principles of the citizens charter in action, building on the Government's determination to improve quality of service in the public sector.
It must, of course, be for BW as the Bill's promoter, to persuade the House that the powers that it proposes to take are justified. The Committee which will consider the Bill will be in a better position than we are in this debate to consider points of detail—it is clear that there are several points of detail to be dealt with—and to hear expert evidence on them. I hope, therefore, that the Bill will be given a Second Reading and allowed to proceed to Committee for more detailed consideration.
7.42 pm
Ms Clare Short: People throughout Britain are increasingly conscious of the enormous value to their quality of life of Britain's canal system. Until not so many years ago, people read about the importance of the canals in the development of the industrial revolution. They often saw them as dirty old waterways somewhere in the middle of their city. Although boat and barge owners always treasured the canals, in the general popular consciousness the canals were perhaps not as valued as they might have been.
That position is changing remarkably. Certainly in my city, people are beginning to see the enormous value of canals in cities that do not have many rivers. They realise the value of waterways and walkways and the possibility of having pleasure in boats, by walking or cycling along the canal, and so on. There has been a great shift in the value attached to the canal system. People realise that it improves the quality of life in our cities, especially where there is no other access to water. That is the context in which we should consider the Bill.
We should regard our waterways as national treasures to be nurtured and cared for so that they can give pleasure to the present generation and future generations. Given the costs of transportation, perhaps we shall look to the canal system to transport heavy goods again; we now pollute our countryside by trundling massive lorries up and down our motorways. I should not be surprised if in future years the canals were used increasingly for transportation as well as for pleasure.
I am sure that many hon. Members share my experience of the Bill. My first real knowledge of it came from increasing numbers of letters from people who know and care for the waterways. They were desperately worried

83
about the detailed provisions of the Bill. People who lived, worked and played on the canal were worried that their rights would be undermined by the Bill.
As I read those letters, I shared the anxiety expressed in them. I thought that many of the objections were reasonable. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said, the Bill was first introduced in our second Chamber, as I like to call it. The second Chamber has done an excellent job on the Bill. If I may digress, Madam Deputy Speaker, in a system such as ours, in which power is so concentrated in the Executive, there is a strong case for a second Chamber. That has been demonstrated in the work that it has done on the Bill. It is just a pity that it is not elected.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish said, enormous concessions and changes have been made as a result of the work put in by the second Chamber. It is a great pity that the Bill was introduced in such an unacceptable form. All sorts of fears and reasonable alarms were created. The Bill has been massively modified. British Waterways would have been better advised to consult more broadly before it introduced the Bill.
I am sure that everyone present has read the proceedings of the Select Committee of the House of Lords. It is impressive to see in our democracy ordinary citizens petitioning and making objections and the promoters of the Bill making major concessions because those objections are reasonable. I should like to think that the Government, who so nakedly fail to listen to any objection, however reasonable, might learn a little from the reasonable nature of that process.
The Bill that we are considering is much better and much less objectionable than the original Bill. The Labour party had three major fears about the original Bill which were summarised in a briefing prepared by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and circulated to all Labour Members. I can do no better than to quote the paragraph that summarised our concerns. It said:
"Labour has three prime concerns about the Bill: first, that the British Waterways Board may cease being custodians of part of our national heritage and instead become more a property selling and developing agency; second, that the Bill contains a number of impositions on boat owners, some legitimate but some fairly arbitrary; and third, that the Bill might allow the Board to charge for recreation and access to the canal system."
Major concessions have been made on all three points.
With regard to our fear that the Bill might turn the British Waterways Board into a property development agency, we are reassured that the environmental duties imposed on the board have been strengthened. The board has dropped subsection (5) of clause 23, which made it clear that the strengthened environmental duties were unenforceable, so the Bill is much more acceptable and stronger in terms of environmental protection, which would come before any commercial motive. Therefore, that provides real reassurance on that important matter.
I am grateful to the Minister for what he said about any possibility of privatising the waterways. The terms in which he summarised the position the second time were unequivocal. He made it clear that he had no plans to seek
84
to privatise any part of the British waterways in the lifetime of this Parliament. We are all grateful for that, because the fears were real.
It is clear that the environmental duties laid out in clause 25 restrict the board in any proposals that it might have to act as a property developer. The amendment promised in paragraph 45 of the House of Lords Select Committee report on remaining waterways that might have potential use strengthens that undertaking even further, so waterways that are not in use now but might be brought into use are also protected by that general environmental undertaking. That is good.
I mentioned another subject in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones). Clause 23(4) states:
"Nothing in this section shall require recreational facilities made available by the Board to be made available free of charge."
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said on behalf of British Waterways. He gave an unequivocal undertaking that there will be no charge for using towpaths, to which people now have access. I understood his undertaking, which was quite clear.
The hon. Gentleman also said that there might well be developments alongside waterways and canals, from which it may be possible to raise funds to be used to clean up pollution. No one is opposed to that. I am worried that the presure being applied by the Government on British Waterways might cause BW to have to raise funds to meet more and more of the costs. The Minister said that more of the costs of waterways should be raised in funds.
I do not think that British Waterways would be self motivated, but, despite the undertakings given by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West, I believe that over the years there may be increasing pressure on British Waterways, especially as the Government may reduce the money allocated to support the waterways. British Waterways will be under growing pressure to charge for the use of waterways. I understand the undertaking given by the hon. Gentleman, who I am sure made it sincerely on behalf of British Waterways. However. given the Government's attitude to obtaining commercial returns from the waterways and given what the Minister said earlier, I am still not satisfied that unreasonable charges will not be imposed on people who now take their use of the waterways for granted.
Mr. Baldry: It may be helpful if I clarify how the Government understand that part of the Bill. As I suspect the hon. Lady may know, for more than 30 years British Waterways has had the ability under section 43 of the Transport Act 1962 to charge for any recreational facilities that it provides, but it has not charged for access to towpaths. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) made clear on behalf of British Waterways—he gave an undertaking to the House —it has no intention of doing so.
The Bill is not designed to increase British Waterways' commercial assets. It does nothing and adds nothing to the powers of charging which the board already has. It merely clarifies that any facilities that BW provides under the clause need not be free of charge. If the board incurs costs in providing facilities for organised sports events on land, it should be able to recover a contribution from those who benefit. It is very much in that context that the Government understand that part of the Bill.
Ms Short: I hear what the Minister says. We all agree that it is wholly reasonable to charge for some activities that take place on the waterways in order to raise funds and use the money to clean up pollution and carry out necessary work. However, I remain concerned, and I think that the matter must be discussed in Committee and further undertakings must be sought from BW. I am worried that the pressure exerted by the Government on BW to cover more and more of its costs will inevitably lead to charging people for walking on towpaths that they have used throughout history. I understand the undertakings, but they have not been made in the Bill, and I remain concerned about that.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: The hon. Lady mentioned cycling, and the pleasure affforded to those using the canal towpaths. British Waterways recently stopped charging for permits. If BW were under the sort of pressure described by the hon. Lady, the reverse would be the case. British Waterways has first to consider the practical aspects. There is no way that a system for charging for the use of towpaths for walking could be introduced. It benefits the canal system if many people use the towpaths. Many of the reports of damage and potential danger come from members of the public, as I know because I have a long length of the Grand Union canal in my constituency.
Ms Short: The hon. Gentleman pooh-poohs my fears, but I heard what the Minister said. As I recall it, he said that the Government gave a subsidy or allocation of about £50 million a year to the waterways. I also recall that he said that about 10 per cent. of the costs of boat users were raised in fees—
Mr. Baldry: Boat users contribute 12 per cent. of the costs of British Waterways.
Ms Short: I am grateful to the Minister—the figure is 12 per cent. I am worried by those two figures. The Minister also said—and I think that it is in the framework of law —that British Waterways is required to make a commercial return as often as it can. The logic of that is that it will seek to make more and more charges. We all agree that charges for some additional services would be reasonable, but I remain worried that that might lead to charging for basic uses of the waterways. I hope that more undertakings will be given in Committee.
Mr. Bennett: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that a charge is no longer made for a general bicycle permit. Many people, certainly those on the canals around Greater Manchester, are concerned that there is competition between walkers, horse riders —riding horses on towpaths is a traditional activity—and cyclists—who have been using the towpaths for at least 70 years. Earlier this century, cycling was an important means of getting from the locks. There is considerable wear and tear on the towpaths. It has been suggested that one way to ration the use of towpaths would be to insist on permits for cyclists and horse riders and, possibly, on a charge for walkers. I realise that it is difficult to maintain towpaths for those three activities. I hope that my hon. Friend will seek assurances that there is no intention to circumvent that rationing or sharing policy by imposing charges.
Ms. Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who elaborates the general worries that I am trying to describe. I am sure that he will seek his own assurances. I am not
86
certain that we shall obtain any more assurances today than those we have been given by the Minister and the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West. The Committee that discusses the Bill should return to the subject and table amendments to protect people's right to enjoy the canals.
I said that there were three reasons why the Labour party originally had doubts about the Bill. The first related to the drive to privatise or make commercial development the Bill's overwhelming purpose. Protection against those moves is afforded by the strength of clause 23 and relevant amendments. We have discussed the possibility of charges; I have stated that I do not believe there is strang enough protection and I hope that the Committee will return to the subject. The third reason for our doubts involves the impositions on boat owners.
There is absolutely no doubt that major concessions and changes have been made to the Bill due to the very reasonable objections and petitions of boat owners and those who live in boats. Those fears have been considered in our second Chamber. However, I have a letter from the Residential Boat Owners Association which was passed to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. I noticed that he was honorary president of the association, so I thought that I should take the letter seriously.
It seems to summarise the remaining concerns of residential boat owners. We all know that they have been very concerned, and that many negotiations have taken place and many concessions have been made. The letter summarises the association's three remaining concerns. It states that its first concern relates to clause 13(1) and schedule 1. The letter states that the provisions lay down
that
"the Board would have the right to terminate a houseboat certificate if 'the houseboat or any equipment is having a detrimental effect on the amenities of the locality on the site.' This clause is the same as in the Mobile Homes Act, and in the Mobile Homes Survey (1992) published by the Department of the Environment it was shown that this provision is open to subjective judgment and therefore to abuse. It would be better to write any regulations about the condition of a residential boat and its mooring into the local mooring agreement rather than fix it in statute."
I hope that we will get an answer to that point from the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West.
The association's second anxiety has to do with clause 15, which is about penalties. The association suggests that the board already has enough penalty-making powers and does not need more. It suggests consolidation of existing legislation. The same point was made in the House of Lords Select Committee report. We hope for an answer from the Bill's sponsor.
The third concern of the association is that it would like to amend section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983 to permit the owners of boats seized by the board to have immediate access to their possessions on the boats. I understand that that provision had been removed or softened, but I hope that the sponsor will be able to give me an assurance on that—
Mr. Robert B. Jones: To respond to the hon. Lady's point about dangerous or deleterious houseboats: I understand that the Department of the Environment is reviewing the relevant part of the mobile homes legislation because it has not worked terribly well in practice. I am happy to add that the BWB is looking into that and is in negotiation with the association whose concerns the hon. Lady has read out to try to resolve the matter amicably.
Ms Short: I am grateful for that. It still leaves the two other points. Perhaps if I give the hon. Gentleman a copy of the association's letter he may be able to help us further. For people who live on boats, this is a serious matter because all their property can be seized. I had understood that the danger had now diminished, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman can fill us in on that later.
My final point is to be found in paragraph 54 of the Select Committee's report. It has to do with the relationship between the BWB and those who live on and enjoy boats. The report says that that relationship has been poor, and that consultation and complaints procedures have been poor. I am glad of the progress represented by the commitment to an ombudsman. If he or she is to have the power to make binding arbitration, he or she will be much more powerful than, say, the local government ombudsman. I know of a frustrating case in which the latter ruled against a local councillor, but there has been a refusal to implement the ruling.
We expect more problems in this area, even with the best will in the world. There are 20,000 boats on our canal system, 2,000 of them with no moorings. We want people to enjoy their boats, but the chances are that more and more of them will want to mess around in boats. More and more people in our estuaries have nowhere to moor their boats, and they are beginning to interfere with the wildlife. Given that increasing ownership, there will have to be some regulation to protect the quality of our canals. Similarly, although there are 169 authorised houseboats, we know that there are another 1,000 that are unauthorized—a serious problem. Clearly, we need permanent, good moorings for people who want to live in their boats.
The BWB has made some major concessions to allow those with no authorised moorings a longer time in which to acquire authorised moorings. I am still worried that the BWB may not give undertakings to all who register in the hope of getting moorings that they will be certain of acquiring them. Under the Bill, it remains possible that some people who have lived in boats for a long time will not be offered permanent moorings after the transitional period. There is certainly no absolute assurance of that.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: May I offer the hon. Lady a personal observation? I have dealt with the BWB throughout the 10 years I have been in the House. At first, I thought that it was awful and unresponsive. It is still not perfect—none of us is—but the improvement over the years has been immense. I am happy to pay tribute to the local staff of the BWB for their responsiveness now.
Ms Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; what he says is good. When I first came to the House 10 years ago —it sometimes feels longer—I used to receive a lot of letters about trivial matters that troubled people living on boats—disputes that should have been resolvable without involving a Member of Parliament. There has indeed been a considerable improvement. I maintain, however, that the possibilities for conflict, if everyone is not guaranteed a mooring, are great. We need fair consultative procedures so that boat users can agree certain standards. Then, if certain irresponsible owners will not comply, they will know that the standards have been reasonably arrived at.
John Stuart Mill said in his lovely little book "On Liberty" that we will truly know that we live in a free society when there are plenty of eccentrics living in it.
88
During the past 15 years or so, perhaps we have got rid of some of our eccentrics—but some of them remain, living on, caring for and loving their boats. It is important that each of them has the right to complain and to be protected. British Waterways will find that it can deal with some of the awkward customers more easily if it has first consulted the majority of boat users and implemented standards with their support.
Many of our initial concerns have been met. I have outlined the remaining ones, which I hope will be satisfied by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West and in Committee.
8.6 pm
Sir Anthony Durant: I claim to be one of the eccentrics who takes an active interest in boats, who owns a boat and who spends a lot of time with them.
I speak for the Inland Waterways Association in this debate, and I am chairman of the parliamentary waterways group, which position I took over from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones). The IWA has negotiated with the BWB for many months; there has been a great deal of toing and froing between the two bodies. The IWA has also fully consulted its members.
The IWA supports in principle three items in the Bill: the emergency powers of entry, the standards of construction and insurance, and houseboat regulation. It agrees with these items for safety reasons.
Some people who live along the edge of canals are still worried, however, about the emergency powers of entry. I hope that the BWB will use them only in extremis, when banks have burst and so on. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) has asked me particularly to mention this matter, as some of his constituents who live right on the canals are worried about the powers being used too arbitrarily. I hope that the board will bear that in mind.
The IWA has received a number of commitments from the board, and they are on record, but the association is worried that they might not necessarily be incorporated in the Bill. So I am here to make sure that they are put on record in the debate.
Five points are material: first, the powers to prevent mooring and to refuse to license boats on the grounds that a mooring is unsuitable—this refers to clauses 17, 18 and 20 in part III. There have been some negotiations on this, and I hope that the promises that have been made will be honoured. The Wooden Canal Craft Trust, another boating organisation, is particularly worried on this score.
I understand that clause 25, which deals with powers to dispose of property and subsidiaries, is to be deleted. I welcome that, but seek reassurance that it is to be deleted. The omission of the Inland Waterways Association from the boat standards appeal panel is causing concern. That panel will examine boat standards, and it is right that there should be a meeting of minds of those who run the waterways, those who use them and boat owners so that some principles are established for boat standards.
Those who enforce standards can be stroppy and difficult, and that is a deterrent to some boat owners whose vessels, although beautiful, are old. They were built at a time when the rules were not as stringent as they are now,

89
and it is as well to bear that in mind when examining boat standards. The IWA would like to be on the panel and explain those anxieties.
Clauses 28, 29 and 30 deal with the power to reduce the rights of commercial shipping in docks. We have been given promises about those clauses and want to see them amended. There are to be powers to limit the opening hours of locks on the Severn. It is odd that British Waterways is moving in that direction, when the authority for the Thames is trying to find ways to keep the locks open longer. It is considering electronic equipment, so that a licensed boat owner can insert a card in a slot to switch on the electricity and work the lock. Shorter opening hours will deter boating, and I am concerned about that.
Clause 32 will delete from the Severn Navigation Act 1842 the rights on the opening of locks. The clause that seems to be causing most concern is clause 27. Much time was spent on that in the House of Lords, especially debating the rights of those who have ownership rights along a canal. In the Act that created the grand junction canal 200 years ago this year, great consideration was given to the rights of people who lived anywhere near it. It stated:
"Canal may be made through Mrs. Seare's Pleasure Grounds under certain Restrictions. No Lock to be erected within a Mile of Mrs. Seare's Land at Bulbourne without her Consent. No Injury to be done to the Mills of the Hon. Mrs. Leigh."
That Act of 1793 in the reign of George III took great care over people's rights, and I am concerned that clause 27 will work against such rights. The Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union have now agreed with British Waterways about examining clause 27 but the IWA is still concerned about rights.
One of the purposes of the clause is to raise more revenue for the BWB. That has been mentioned in the debate, and it is in line with the plan produced by the Department of the Environment in 1989. Perhaps the clause should not be in a Private Member's Bill; if people's rights are to be rescinded, that should be done in a public Bill.
As I have said, the IWA is concerned about some parts of the Bill. Many concerns have been allayed because the Bill's promoter and the BWB have been helpful in every respect. I know that their intentions are honourable and that they are trying to improve the system and to assist those who use the waterways and those who live alongside them. I hope that the concerns I have mentioned will be considered by the BWB before it makes its final decision.
8.13 pm
Sir Russell Johnston: In this debate, I speak as a constituency Member and not as a party representative. My involvement in the issue arises from being the Member of Parliament for the Caledonian canal, which connects the lochs forming the basic part of the Great Glen which gashes across Scotland. The major loch, Loch Ness, contains my well-known constituent, the monster. I hope that there are no suggestions that the monster should be in any way licensed because that would be resisted, not least by the gentleman himself.
Ms Short: Is the hon. Gentleman sure that it is not a she?
Sir Russell Johnston: Although the monster has been seen, it has never been heard, and therefore it cannot be female. I say that with due deference to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Ms Short: That is uncharacteristically ungracious of the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he might like to reconsider his remarks. I invite him to do so.
Sir Russell Johnston: I am sorry if I offended the hon. Lady. I had no intention of offending anybody.
The most remarkable thing about the exercise that has brought the Bill to the House is the amount of mistrust among many waterway users of the good will of the board. That has been most noticeable. It is significant that not one of the hundreds of letters that I receive every week has argued that I should vote for the Bill—apart from letters from the BWB. I am speaking not just about last week but about the time since the exercise started. That was not always so and I am not clear about how the change came about.
The hon. Members for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) said that things have got a bit better than they were 10 years ago. When I entered the House nearly 30 years ago, things were quite good. The last time that I had substantial dealings with the board was in the early 1970s when the Laggan locks on the Caledonian canal gave way, leading to the canal becoming blocked. We had much help from the then Minister, now Lord Howell, and there was general good will.
Some hon. Members may recollect Sir Frank Price, who was a chippie sort of chap. He was the chairman of the board and engaged in many consultations. I am not sure how much account he took of those consultations, but he was often to be seen. Over the next decade, there was silence, which I mistakenly assumed to be benign. No one wrote to me to say that the BWB was behaving badly, so I presumed that it was not and followed the generally sound political principle of letting sleeping dogs lie.
However, perhaps it was also germane that the BWB, which until then had maintained regular contact by way of meetings at least annually, also reduced its level of contact. Whatever the reasons and in the case of the Caledonian canal—I cannot speak for the rest of the system—part of the reduction must have arisen from managerial centralisation, which removed decisive, responsible people. One such person was Brian Davenport, a rather fiery chap who was in charge of the Caledonian canal when I entered Parliament. One could contact him quickly and easily. However, control passed to Glasgow; although Glasgow was not far away in one sense, in another it was quite a distance, and I do not mean simply in terms of miles.
Whatever the reason, the relationship declined and quietly and insidiously soured. I am sure that the present chairman, David Engman, whom I have met three times, is seeking to repair the situation that he has inherited, but I fear that that which is desired has yet entirely to be achieved. Mistrust certainly runs deep, and although much progress has been made in alleviating concerns, many remain.
To put it in a nutshell, British Waterways portrays the Bill as being about safety and environmental improvement

91
and many of the punters think that it is about more money for the board and more impositions on them. That fear may or may not be justified.
The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West, who made a fair speech when he introduced the Bill, dwelt for some time on the problems of access. I do not deny that there can be problems, but I do not think that there is a significant general cause for concern. An interesting, almost amusing, exchange of letters passed across my desk —at the end of last month, so it is quite up to date. It was about a long dispute that one of my constituents, Mr. David Stevenson, has been having with British Waterways about land ownership in Gairlochy, which is at one end of the Caledonian canal.
It would be inappropriate to go into too much detail, but I shall quote a letter from British Waterways' solicitor who says, inter alia—all lawyers say that, and this chap certainly writes a good lawyer's letter—
"it seems that the dispute has been escalated by his"—
that is Mr. Stevenson's—
"removing and replacing of the padlock on the gate to a roadway which he and the Board use for access purposes and which runs across the land which is the subject of the dispute. Previously, each of the parties had held keys to the padlock, which is a position we wish to revert to pending the outcome of investigation."
In his letter, Mr. Stevenson says:
"Mr. Duffy states the dispute has been escalated by me…This is simply not true. One of their customers smashed the gate and despite being pressed by letter on numerous occasions British Waterways declined or refused to have it repaired. Highland Regional Council…insisted that the gate be kept shut and supervised in the interest of safety. Therefore I had no alternative but to repair the gate and provide a lock. One of the Waterways supervisors has been provided with a key".
There we have two contradictory statements on a relatively minor matter. The hon. Member for Ladywood said that when she first became a Member of Parliament she received quite a number of letters dealing with smallish matters that should not have reached a Member of Parliament. However, that was an interesting exchange.
I know Mr. Stevenson well and he is an honest man. I do not believe that he would write lies. There is a general lack of confidence in what the board does. The Minister has been categorical, in response to points made by the hon. Member for Ladywood, in denying that there was any hidden agenda on privatisation. However, many people think there is a hidden agenda only if it is one of more regulations and more cost being laid upon them. They are not sure of the board.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made the good point that many of the advantages listed by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West were slowly extracted from the board over a long time, and not all in the House of Lords. From my first involvement in this exercise, I found that difficult to understand.
The hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant), who is chairman of the parliamentary group, went through the views of the Inland Waterways Association. Its most recent letter refers to the ombudsman. I am not sure what powers this man—or woman: I beg the pardon of the hon. Member for Ladywood—this person may have, or the terms of reference under which he will operate. It is
92
interesting that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West implied that that would be done, and soon. That is to be welcomed.
There is some division between at least one of the houseboat organisations and the IWA. Many people live in houseboats, of which I think that there are 6,000 or 7,000. Some, as the hon. Member for Reading, West said, are not new vessels. Inevitably, those who live on them fear that they may be subject to regulations that do not bear directly on safety.
Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman raises a point that I raised with the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones). Clause 13(2) gives absolute powers to British Waterways to produce
"further general terms as they think fit"
to apply to houseboat certificates. It is a matter of concern that it can simply wave to one side a whole schedule and substitute its own. That worries houseboat owners.
Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman is quite right and that bears directly on the trust that I mentioned earlier. One may be prepared to give many powers to someone on whom one can rely to exercise them in a reasonable, fair and trustworthy manner. I am not saying that British Waterways is not, but there is no doubt that many people are suspicious.
The original Bill did not recognise the existence of a separate Scottish legal system, which reflected rather badly on British Waterways. I gather that such changes as it is introducing have now been sent off for approval by the Scottish Office. However, I am not clear as to what powers British Waterways is claiming in respect of lochs. The Caledonian canal is a linking, not a continous, canal, which joins the different lochs. I do not know whether the board wants to impose licensing within lochs and has been told that section 43 of the Transport Act 1962, to which the Minister referred, would enable that to happen. I should like to be assured on that matter.
Time is not on our side. I do not wish to detain the House for long. I have expressed my major concerns and I am still not convinced of the urgency of the Bill. I accept that there has been progress and improvements have been made. It was significant that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West praised the improvements more than anything in the original proposition. I remain of the opinion that the Bill can be improved by further discussion. It would also have been better if the Bill could be introduced in a better atmosphere. Many of the things that have been said about what the board is doing concern only what the board has done since last year. They are not embedded in the structure. Therefore, I am still minded to vote against the Bill.
8.27 pm
Mr. Peter Luff: I speak for two principal reasons. The first and foremost is that my constituency lies at the intersection of two major waterways—the River Severn and the Worcester and Birmingham canal. That canal is the only thing that links me with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short). It is right that I pay tribute to what British Waterways has done recently on that canal. There was major expenditure—perhaps overdue—on a project to dredge a section of the canal at Lowesmoor, and some important repair works at Diglis.
The river and the canal are important as resources for tourism, sporting facilities and recreational activities. As a

93
major narrowboat operator uses the canal, I feel that it is right to welcome the support that the board has given to a new promotional campaign to encourage the use of narrowboats for holidays. I also look forward with excitement to the time when the board's important plans to develop the Diglis canal basin come to fruition, providing a major fillip to the regeneration of my constituency.
The second reason why I support the Bill—here I have one eye on the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), although I have no pecuniary interest to declare —is that I have long taken an interest in marine issues, and have worked close with the British Marine Industries Federation. I want to inform the House of the federation's welcome for the general terms of the Bill, but also to express its single reservation.
I can now say that if it comes to the vote I shall support Second Reading. The federation is generally happy with the balance that the Bill now strikes, although there still needs to be careful scrutiny in Committee. Of its four parts, 39 clauses and three schedules, clause 27 still causes real concern. It is important to remember that boating interests have always supported the concept of the Bill, but they have had serious worries about some of the additional issues raised by the inclusion, without consultation, of certain provisions in the Bill.
I agree with many hon. Members who have spoken that, sadly, British Waterways does not always enjoy a reputation for a sympathetic approach to uts users. I suspect that that stems from the fact that it is not just a navigational authority, but a landlord. It has a monopoly position when negotiating with existing clubs and trade operators. It probably needs to make much more effort to foster a relationship of trust with those users, in the interests of our inland waterways system.
The Bill, although good and important in many ways, originally raised a number of concerns, but all those have now been satisfactorily dealt with bar one. We did not always think that that would be the case; it has been achieved by a process of hard negotiation. It has resulted in a happier position and a better Bill. We now have the undertakings and the statement of intent that we have always sought.
The users never set out to be petty or unreasonable in the concessions that they sought. They have always been aware of the costs involved and have been anxious not to cause undue expense to British Waterways, and therefore the taxpayer. We can only wish that there had been consultation before certain objectionable measures were included in the Bill. However, as I have said, there now remains only one outstanding concern, and that is clause 27.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) said, the history of canal construction is complex. Each required a canal Act to enable it to be constructed, which meant different concessions for each landowner. My hon. Friend cited some of those The clause would cancel those historic rights—such as the right to construct wharves, slipways, cuts and moorings for boats. The problem has been exacerbated by the lack of trust felt by many small entrepreneurs on the canal system towards British Waterways. It has to be said—and I understand it—that the British Waterways estates department justifiably has a remit to maximise profit, but that often leads to feelings of intimidation among small operators.
94
It is not surprising that there is still concern about the clause because it will affect not only the majority of freehold canal operators but all future ones. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) that it is profoundly un-Tory to cancel the rights of lords of the manor in such a cavalier way. Those rights permitted canalside landowners to establish their businesses by constructing facilities and using the canal in the course of their business. That ensured that the canal owner could not operate as a monopoly. Again, I look at the hon. Member for Bradford, South and see in clause 27 the shades of railway privatisation debates to come.
In recent times, ignorance of those rights, coupled with British Waterways' erosion of them, has resulted in exactly the unreasonable and coercive behaviour that the rights —some 200 years old—were designed to prevent. It is important to realise that, unlike British Waterways lessees, freehold businesses have no legal protection, such as is provided by the Landlord and Tenant Act or by arbitration.
We have heard tonight that an ombudsman will be established for the British Waterways board and its customers. That is a welcome development. In Committee, we may decide that the establishment of an ombudsman will provide sufficient reassurance about the extinguishment of the rights contained in clause 27. I hope that that proves to be so.
However, at present no ombudsman exists for the canal operator who feels that he is under duress from British Waterways. His rights under the enabling Acts offer the only security upon which he can rely. British Waterways is now seeking to extinguish even those rights. Until some alternative legislation or ombudsman is in place, those rights should not only remain but should be revitalised and given greater recognition through the Bill.
Modern-day businesses do not object to paying their way and contributing to British Waterways, providing that that contribution is fair and reasonable. British Waterways offered evidence to the Select Committee in another place on its reasons for wishing to extinguish those rights. Amendments will probably be tabled in Committee to satisfy those concerns while also giving comfort to the freehold businesses that they will be allowed to operate on the canals. I support most of the Bill's provisions. I hope that my concerns about clause 27 will be dealt with in Committee, perhaps through the establishment of an ombudsman or by some other method. I urge the House to support Second Reading.
8.36 pm
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I speak as an inland Waterways enthusiast and someone who has fallen into the Leeds and Liverpool canal at Foulridge and also in the River Calder, and it is not a particularly pleasant experience.
I declare an interest as a riparian owner. That sounds very posh, but as anyone who has seen my back garden can testify—such as my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney)—that is not the case. I live at the side of the River Calder and I want the river to be fostered, developed and improved—as I believe it can be. There is tremendous potential on our rivers and inland waterways, both in west Yorkshire and elsewhere.
I am a founder member of the West Riding Narrowboat Co-operative, which celebrated 10 years of

95
existence only a few weeks ago. It is a tremendous example of collectivism in action. The co-operative has gone from strength to strength in owning boats and operating them on the inland waterways of both England and Wales. Therefore, I have been both a user and an enthusiastic supporter of inland waterways for many years and can take a user's perspective of the Bill.
I have supported the efforts in West Yorkshire to restore particular canals, such as the Barnsley canal which is partly in my constituency. I commend the efforts made in West Yorkshire and elsewhere. As the Minister said when he quoted from Waterways World, great strides have been made to restore neglected and abandoned waterways.
I am aware that initially there was strong opposition to some of the Bill's provisions. In particular, there was concern about the implications for various users not just of the waterways, but of facilities in the general vicinity such as towpaths. Cyclists, walkers and those who enjoy fishing have been concerned about the probable effects of clause 27. Many of those concerns were expressed in another place and Members from all parties have received numerous letters of concern. In particular, boat owners are concerned about the increased cost implications of insurance, safety and standards of boats that will be required under the Bill.
I would not argue against improving safety or environmental standards—I have seen pollution. I spent a holiday on a hired boat in the constituency of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), and I was appalled to see a hire base pumping raw sewage from hire boats directly into the canal that connects the two locks. I hope that that practice has long since ended. I raised that matter when the water privatisation Bill was passing through the House.
Many boat owners are concerned about the way in which, over the last eight years in particular, the cost of renting land and water has dramatically spiralled. In my constituency, owning a boat is not necessarily the preserve of the better-off. A number of my constituents are pensioners who are not particularly wealthy, but who spent many years' savings purchasing a small narrowboat or motor cruiser. They find that the cost of continuing a hobby to which they look forward in their retirement is excessive.
Many community groups also use the waterways. The West Riding Narrowboat Co-operative was originally formed by purchasing a boat owned by a group that offered intermediate treatment to youngsters on the edge of offending. There are many examples in West Yorkshire and elsewhere of people from deprived backgrounds, the physically handicapped, and others with different problems gaining tremendous personal benefit from holidays, weekends or even day trips on the inland waterways. We should not forget the important role played by such groups when considering legislation such as the Bill.
My constituents advise me that the cost of a cruising licence for the,Aire and Calder can be anything between £300 and £350 per year, per vessel. Mooring costs can be anything between £350 and £600 depending on the length of the craft. It is possible for boat owners and users on the
96
Aire and Calder to pay £1,000 annually before they set foot on the water—I mean, set out on a journey in their boat.
My constituents emphasise that they are receiving fewer and fewer services for that increased cost. They do not see that additional income being reinvested in improving the waterways in that area. The contrary is true. More and more work is being put out to private tender, with the involvement of non-experts in the highly skilled work of maintaining inland waterways.
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend refers to a fear that has been expressed to me by canal users—that the old lengthman is disappearing. He was a skilled man who knew the canal and was able to take remedial action before anything drastic occurred. That occupation is dying out. There is now extensive use of private contractors who often do not have the expertise and background to do the work. They do a pretty poor job, and then more money must be spent later to remedy defects. Many canal users are expressing concern about the deterioration in maintenance standards, yet the Bill gives the British Waterways Board the power to prevent moorings at points that it considers unsuitable, perhaps because of that very lack of maintenance.
Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend is right. There are many examples in West Yorkshire of the deskilling of the waterways. I know a number of people who have worked on the inland waterways for many years. The skills, expertise and experience that they have acquired are such that they can anticipate problems—they do not have to be told what the problems will be. When we lose those people, they will be gone for ever. Private contractors are no substitute if they do not have the background to do a proper job.
I concede that a number of the original objections to the Bill have been met by the board during the Bill's progress through another place. Nevertheless, I emphasise that a number of serious concerns remain, and they have been raised today by hon. Members in all parts of the House. They must be addressed today or when the Bill goes into Committee.
Clause 23 states that the board shall
"have regard to the desirability of preserving for the public any freedom of access to towing paths and open land and especially to places of natural beauty".
The Bill does not clearly state that fees for access to towpaths will not be permitted by the legislation. Although the Minister and the promoter have given reassurances, it is unsatisfactory that they are not written into the Bill at this late stage.
There are real fears that access will be restricted. We saw that happen with the water privatisation legislation, which restricts access to areas of open country, including in Yorkshire, where the public were once free to walk, exercise and enjoy the fresh air of the countryside. We are seeing also the re-emergence of battles over access to open moorland that I thought had been won in the 1930s.
Private owners are increasingly restricting ramblers from free access to areas that walkers have used for generations. The area between my home and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), on the other side of the Pennines, is at the centre of one such argument. The Derbyshire border has been the

97
subject of campaigns over many years. It worries me that, at some future date, the public will have to pay for the basic right to walk along inland waterways towpaths.
As to clause 25, I listened carefully to the Minister's remarks concerning privatisation, but having seen what has happened to the waterways over the past decade or so, I believe that commercial obligations on the BWB will increasingly take precedence over its waterways responsibilities. We have seen already the pressure from the Exchequer to reduce the money that the board receives from central funding, which led to huge increases in the costs to users of the waterways. That has also placed pressure on the BWB to consider new ways of raising money, other than by doing the job that it was established to do.
Despite the Minister's categorical assurance today, I believe that privatisation will be the next step and that the Bill is a thinly disguised paving measure. I hope that I am wrong, but given the Government's record, and the direction of almost every measure that they have introduced, I see no reason to believe that privatisation will not be the end result. I suspect that I shall be proved right.
It is clearly the Government's intention to commercialise the BWB even further, to enable it to pull out even more from state funding of the inland waterways system. That saddens me, but it comes as no surprise. Even more worrying is the fact that the Government have no coherent political strategy for the use of our inland waterways, and the immense potential offered by our rivers and canals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) referred to the transport potential; in my part of West Yorkshire, that potential is immense —or would be, if people would take the trouble to sit down and think it out. Of course, the process is slower, but there is not necessarily any need to rush: different cargoes require different time scales. I am saddened by the increasing movement of goods from rail, canal and river to road, which is merely building up a huge environmental problem for the future.
There is also an economic potential. Tourism, for instance, has hardly been mentioned. My area, like others, was an industrial area until the Government came to office. We used to have coal mines, but we no longer see coal being transported on the canals; thanks to the Government, we now have industrial museums. All the same, waterways tourism has huge potential in such areas as west Yorkshire, if only the Government would recognise it. I am thinking of the restoration of canals such as the Huddersfield narrow, the Rochdale and the Barnsley.
A few years ago, the Inland Waterways Association carried out research into how much people spend when travelling through areas such as mine on boats. It found that they spend money in shops, supermarkets, restaurants and public houses. People help such areas by investing in them. I believe that I shall live to see the real achievement of the Pennine ring in the next 10 or 20 years—the achievement of a ring of waterways that will enable people to spend a fortnight travelling through the south and the north Pennines. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is the finest part of Britain. It is about time more people had the privilege of viewing it from the local waterways.
British waterways have an immense amount to offer. It saddens me that the Bill does not address the real political challenge.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: Many of the actions to which the hon. Gentleman refers happen all the time, without requiring the powers in the Bill. For instance, the money that has gone into the Aire and Calder in Leeds—a splendid development, in my view—was invested as a result of the "corridor studies" that the British Waterways Board has promoted precisely because it recognises the leisure potential involved. I am keen on such investment in my constituency: the Grand Union canal has a good deal of leisure potential, and there has been considerable co-operation between the BWB and local authorities.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said earlier. Although I should like to be able to support the Bill, I am afraid that I cannot do so, for the simple reason that I have grave suspicions. I fear that the hidden agenda will prove profoundly unhealthy from the point of view of those who believe deeply in the potential of the waterways.
8.53 pm
Mr. John Bowis: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). He implied that his constituents occasionally tried to walk on water; he also confessed that, on occasion, he had got rather closer to our inland waterways than he had intended.
I, too, am keen to protect the interests of those who live, work and take their leisure on the waterways. When I served on a London borough council in a riparian area, I sought to protect the interests of houseboat owners on the Thames; I find that the same issues crop up now that I represent a different riparian borough. I was pleased to hear some of the points raised today, including the assurances given by my hon. Friend the Minister. As hon. Members have pointed out, the British Waterways Board has made a number of concessions—both while the Bill was in another place, and while the House of Commons was consulting.
Like others, I especially welcome the steps towards greater safety, environmental improvements and the river-worthiness of vessels. Ultimately, lives are at stake —both those of boat owners and those of the people with whom they may come into contact—and I am thankful for the requirement for third party insurance.
I hope that the Minister can confirm my understanding of the position, which has gone a long way towards resolving the problem that led me to put my name to the blocking motion. I feel that, broadly speaking, the inclusion of that requirement in the Bill should be sufficient. My hon. Friend suggested that 90 per cent. of boat owners now have insurance, and I do not think that any hon. Member would think it unreasonable for the other 10 per cent. to acquire it. After all, if an accident occurs, there must be a cost to others, including the boat owners themselves; if a boat sinks, there will be the cost of clearing it.
Why have such people not already taken out insurance? Perhaps they have not thought about it; perhaps they considered it unnecessary, because they have not been required to insure so far. Perhaps they had difficulty in obtaining insurance. There's the rub; such difficulties can arise for a number of reasons. Perhaps boat owners have had problems in shopping around; that is the suggestion of the British Waterways Board.
Perhaps the boat in question is not deemed a good insurance risk—that is where I start to have my worries

99
—or perhaps the owner is not considered a fit and proper person by the underwriters, who are therefore reluctant to insure the boat under that ownership.
Sir Russell Johnston: There is another, more straightforward, reason: the owners may consider it too expensive in relation to what they perceive as a low risk.
Mr. Bowis: That may well be the reason why they have not taken out insurance in the past, but I suggest that it is right that they should be required to do so in future. What must concern us is the extent to which British Waterways should involve itself in the search for or the provision of that insurance underwriting.
I have raised the subject because I am concerned that British Waterways should not interfere or involve itself with the insurance market, given that there are already enough brokers and underwriters to provide insurance for anybody who should be on the waterways. Of course, someone who should not be on the waterways will not be able to obtain insurance, and the obtainability of insurance will to some extent provide a guide to whether a craft and its owner are right and proper users of the waterways and constitute no risk to others.
In response to my concerns and those of my constituents, British Waterways has done its best to reassure me on the subject. It has clearly said that its concern is only with the older boats, which might be driven off the waterways if they could not obtain insurance. I do not think that that is right. Older boats may cost more to insure, but insurance will be available if the risk is reasonable. Older boats in respect of which insurance is not available should perhaps be kept as museum pieces and taken off the water so as not to place those using them, or other people, at risk.
I do not believe that most older boats will come into that category. I know of houseboats on the Thames dating back to the Dunkirk crossing which are perfectly adequately maintained and insured. It should be possible to obtain insurance for most boats of whatever age.
Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman is placing a great deal of faith in the insurance companies' ability to make an assessment. He is referring largely to narrowboats on canals. I know of a case in an area of activity much more important than that, in which an insurance inspector did not know the difference between steel and cast iron, and overlooked very important risks as a result. The idea that insurance companies are absolute assurers of risk is often not borne out in practice.
Mr. Bowis: From time to time, new risks may arise, and it may be difficult to find an expert who can give the right insurance advice. But that is not an issue under the Bill.
My only question concerns the extent to which British Waterways should be involved in insurance. I am anxious that, wherever possible, it should leave such matters to the experts and should neither set up an insurance scheme of its own nor make recommendations as between different insurers. British Waterways has told me clearly:
"we have no ambitions whatsoever to enter the insurance market".
No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) will be able to confirm that that is the case. As I understand it, British Waterways merely seeks to compile a list of underwriters—and I hope brokers,
100
because brokers often have schemes; I am glad to see my hon. Friend nodding at this point—who offer third party insurance policies, and to make it available on request.
That is much more reasonable than what was originally implied, which was that there might be a scheme—a proposal about which many in the insurance world were concerned. If someone is having difficulty finding insurance, he should first be asked, "Have you looked in the boating and canal publications?", as those publications contain many advertisements for insurance. If people have tried that and still cannot obtain insurance, perhaps a list could be sent to them as a last resort.
I wanted to put on record British Waterways' assurance that it is not interested in entering the insurance market with its own scheme or in pushing one policy as opposed to another—in other words, that it does not have plans to interfere with the insurance market. That assurance having been given—again, my hon. Friend has been nodding as I have listed the requirements—
Mr. Robert B. Jones: I can make it clear that the board's intention is to provide information, which I think is only reasonable. I do not think that anyone has put up a case against compulsory third party insurance, for obvious reasons, but not everyone knows who precisely offers such cover, and to that extent the provision will be advantageous.
Mr. Bowis: That basic information makes for a meeting of minds.
I am very much in favour of the insurance requirement, which is to the benefit of everyone operating on our waterways. On the basis of that and the assurances I have been given, I am prepared to withdraw my objection to the progress of the Bill, and to support its advance into Committee.
9.4 pm
Mr. Andrew Miller: I should like to give a little history lesson to the House about my constituency. Ellesmere Port was named after the town of Ellesmere in Shropshire as a result of the canal links that joined the two towns. The canals, of course, then joined the network in the midlands, going through Wolverhampton—which still has a link with my constituency through the name of one of my wards—to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short). The network is extensive. At the confluence of the narrow canal, where it meets the Mersey ship canal, is the Ellesmere Port boat museum, which I hope that many hon. Members will take the trouble to visit. I believe that the Minister has already visited it, although I am not sure whether he paid his full entry fee. I will collect it from him on the way out if he did not.
The museum is a centre of national excellence, where pieces of Britain's heritage have been put together to form an important collection of vessels, which, had British Waterways had its way at an earlier stage, would have run the risk of being destroyed and lost to our museum. The collection includes vessels that were horse-drawn, steel and wooden, as well as sailing vessels connected with the Mersey, and steam vessels from both the canal and river network. It also includes an important complex of

101
buildings, which have been preserved by the efforts of a large voluntary network of organisations, without whom Britain would have lost a great deal.
Paragraphs 18 and 19 of the special report of the House of Lords mentions the proposed panel, to which reference has been made. Paragraph 19 starts:
"Fifth, petitioners expressed concern about historic craft."
I want to concentrate specifically on historic craft.
It has been put to me by organisations such as the Wooden Canal Craft Trust—to which the hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) referred—that there are probably a further 200-plus vessels of potential historic importance located on the sides of canals, which, if not taken into account by a proper amendment to the Bill, could be lost to our heritage. Often, those vessels appear to the uninitiated like a pile of planks, old wooden hulks, but often such pieces of timber reflect important parts of our heritage.
It always strikes me when I see the crowds of people walking across the flagstones in Westminster Hall, and looking at the places where various people were laid in state, that the wonderful craftsmanship in the hall is often forgotten, particularly that of the ceiling where great carpentry skills are exhibited.
Many of the hulks are lying by the waterside and are submerged. The fact that they are submerged actually preserves them. The idea of somebody getting a crane and hoiking them out of the water, and leaving them on the canalside or towing them away, is sacrilege. They need to be carefully preserved.
In the 1970s, when I lived on the south coast, I watched with great interest the work to raise the Mary Rose from the seabed of the Solent. That task took immense skill, great chemical knowledge and knowledge of preservation techniques, many of which are still in development. It would be wrong to allow such craft to be lost to our heritage by raising them and then leaving them at the canal side.
Reference has been made to boats that may not meet standards laid down by regulation. As an experienced boat user, I would argue strongly for improved standards of maintenance and stricter controls for environmental and safety reasons in the construction and use of vessels, whether on canals, rivers or the open sea. Recently, there have been serious accidents when the maintenance of the vessels involved was not taken into account. We should adopt the principles that were applied when the MOT certificate for cars was first introduced. It is important that vessels built before a predetermined date should not be subject to any of the proposed changes. The final sentence of paragraph 19 of the House of Lords report states:
"One petitioner responded by saying that historic craft should be exempted as of right, and not at the Board's discretion."
I whole-heartedly agree, because the board is riot the proper determining body for matters of national heritage.
It has been said that insurance should be a criterion. A number of Conservative Members who are experts in these matters could perhaps advise us, but I suspect that it would be extremely difficult to obtain a fire risk policy on this building, and the same could be said of many vessels, certainly those built before the turn of the century. I understand the.argument that vessels which are in use need third party liability cover but one can take the issue to ridiculous extremes. The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) said that vessels which did not meet certain
102
standards should be removed from the canals and placed in a museum. That reflects badly on his views on the place of historic vessels.
Mr. Bowis: We are talking about third party insurance, not insurance to preserve or protect ancient craft. We would not allow a veteran or vintage car to travel on the roads without such insurance, so it is reasonable to require vessels of whatever age to have the same cover because there is a risk to other people.
Mr. Miller: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and, of course, such matters must be taken into account. I hope that he will extend his expertise and ensure that every member of the Wooden Canal Craft Trust can receive proper insurance cover through his expert knowledge. I am sure that they would be glad to do so at a proper, not inflated, price. However, I take the hon Gentleman's point.
The central issue is whether British Waterways should decide matters of national heritage. We have heard that vessels that were built without an after-rail would fall foul of the regulations.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: The intention is not that the B'WB decides the definition of a historic boat, but that the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council should do so. It comprises people who represent different interests and it is widely acknowledged to be an extremely skilful and expert body on inland waterways which should draw up the criteria. That may meet with the hon. Gentleman's approval. I remember attending an enjoyable meeting of the IWAAC in his constituency.
Mr. Miller: I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman has visited my constituency—
Mr. Ian McCartney: Was he canvassing?
Mr. Miller: —as long as he was not canvassing. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has beaten me to it.
The hon. Gentleman's point is set out in paragraph 18. The panel does not comprise only the board. However, the paragraph does not spell out precisely the make up of the panel. It says of the board:
"It proposed that the panel should consist of two Board appointees plus representatives of IWAAC, the Royal Yachting Association and the British Marine Industries Federation. Some petitioners argued that the panel should include representatives of houseboat owners and persons with practical experience of wooden craft."
Mr. Robert B. Jones rose—
Mr. Miller: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is about to tell me that such people would be in a majority.
Mr. Jones: There are two different points. One is about the criteria for historic boats and the other is about appeals when boat standards are not up to scratch. I made it clear that the BWB would be in a minority on the panel for the latter. There are two different points.
Mr. Miller: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. However, paragraph 19 says:
"Applications for exemptions will be subject to the appeals procedure described in paragraph 18."
That brings us back to the panel. I accept that the BWB would potentially be a minority on the panel, but I am not

103
satisfied that the Bill contains a requirement for a necessary level of expertise and historical knowledge about old vessels to be incorporated into the panel.
It would be wrong not to ensure that every effort is made to keep such vessels not only in good condition, but in good working order and in use on the canals. The boats could help to preserve parts of the canal network through the nature of their use—a different type of use from the use of modern boats and of the pleasure craft currently in vogue. Old craft are an important part of our heritage. My single reservation is that the board has not gone far enough and that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) has not gone far enough. The panel does not go far enough in ensuring that the need to protect our national heritage of boats is met.
9.18 pm
Mr. Ian McCartney: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for missing the initial debate on sport. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) suggested that I was in a tired and emotional state. I was in a tired and emotional state, but that was not why I missed the debate on sport. I had to deal with a pressing family matter involving someone who was seriously ill. I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the victory yesterday of your home team, Featherstone. I hope that next year, we can welcome you to Central Park, after which you will leave in a tired and emotional state.
In the last Parliament, I was one of those involved in the blocking motion in respect of the initial attempt that British Waterways made to introduce the Bill. Once one becomes involved in a blocking motion, it is rather like a parliamentary squeeze of the goolies. Once one is involved in such a motion, discussions take place and, by a hard press or a tweak of the blocking motion, there can at least be a closing of minds in respect of some of the issues on which there were previously disagreements in relation to the Bill's sponsors or the organisation involved.
From the outset, when I was involved in the blocking motion, I made it clear to anyone who wished to listen that I was a strong supporter of British Waterways, and have been so for historical and political reasons. For most of my childhood, I lived 25 yards from the towpath of the Forth and Clyde canal. Indeed, I spent much of my formative years in that canal and was usually dragged out by my mother. I spent my holidays on the towpath of the Monklands canal, which unfortunately has been filled in and is now the M8 which divides Glasgow north and south, east and west.
I represent Makerfield, through the centre of which runs the Leeds and Liverpool canal. I was a member of the development committee for the Wigan pier development which involved British Waterways, the local authority and other organisations. They brought together resources and talents to deal with a once derelict site which, three years ago, became the European tourist attraction of the year.
I want to have a close working relationship with British Waterways and to understand the reasons for the Bill. Perhaps tonight we should have been debating a Government Bill on how we can best develop—and not simply protect—British Waterways, both the organisation itself and what it stands for.
104
British Waterways is one of the nation's greatest heritages and tributes. The waterways are one of the most wonderful opportunities which the nation gives up at its peril. For decades, we have failed as a nation to invest appropriately in our waterways or to give the resources to the British Waterways Board to enhance the development of our waterways.
Over the past 10 years, the Government have increasingly put pressure on British Waterways to find the meagre resources that it already gets from the Government from other sources. British Waterways is between a stone and hard surface. On the one hand, it must, and quite rightly so, enhance the waterways for the reasons that have been outlined, but on the other, it does not have the financial resources to do that.
I blocked the Bill in the previous Parliament for several major reasons, one of which related to the environment and a need for British Waterways and the legislation to set out clearly a concept for wildlife and heritage and a plan that would protect, enhance and develop the wildlife and heritage associated with the waterways. The 2,000 miles of British waterways should be part of a linear national park.
The inappropriate sale of assets that took place a number of years ago—some of those sales were highly controversial—took place when the original Bill was introduced. For that reason, many hon. Members believed that the Bill then was no more than a fig leaf to cover the introduction of privatisation. The British Waterways Board handled that situation appallingly badly in relation to the timing and political explanations.
The board, in its panic to get rid of some of its priceless assets, undermined its credibility in the House and with the users of the inland waterways. Many of the board's efforts since then, both inside and outside this place, have been directed at repairing that damage. It has gone a long way towards achieving that. However, let us be frank about it: much of the pressure for the changes which have occurred resulted from blocking motions supported by hon. Members working with groups outside the House.
Funding is important. If we accept the concept that British Waterways should develop the wildlife, the heritage, the tourism, the transportation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield referred and the employment opportunities for those who work in BW—there is an opportunity for BW to open derelict and unused buildings and land for alternative uses to develop employment in constituencies such as mind—we must examine funding and resources for that development. It was not clear that the previous Bill was simply at attempt to milk the users of canals for the short-term underfunding by the Department of the Environment, with no resources available for the long-term development of the canal system. Therefore, we look forward to receiving assurances that additional resources will be part and parcel of the development of the canal system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield raised the matter of unemployment. Unemployment is important for two reasons—the need to protect employment opportunities for those who work for British Waterways and the need to ensure that responsibility for the core skilled work force remains part and parcel of its overall duties. When the original Bill was introduced, some of us were deeply worried that many of the skilled work force would continue to be replaced through compulsory competitive tendering.

105
I am not opposed to ensuring that British Waterways gets value for money from its staff—just as the unions are not. However, we want to ensure that the Bill is not used as a trojan horse—a vehicle for removing large parts of the core skilled work force. Perhaps the sponsors of the Bill can tell the House whether the agreements reached some months ago between management and the trade unions on employment rights and the nature of the core skilled work force will remain in force if the Bill goes on the statute book.
I am concerned that British Waterways does not have a true conception of what is required to be done in co-operation with local authorities, other groups in the private sector and the voluntary sector to bring into use derelict land and buildings for a whole series of employment and tourist initiatives, and the need to have added value for its work.
Many vested interests oppose the Bill, such as marina development companies and people with an interest in maintaining a low income from their activities. I do not support those vested interests because I sincerely believe that, if British Waterways is to flourish and develop the sort of strategy that I have outlined, we need to ensure that BW gets part of the added-value income from the development of a canal system. It would be an outrage if we were to force on BW a development strategy involving the use of derelict land and buildings and if the profits from that exercise went to organisations outside BW. To make up the shortfall, British Waterways would attack in financial terms many of the people to which my hon. Friends the Member for Wakefield and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) referred.
We are looking for a partnership on the Bill There must be an arrangement whereby everyone involved, except those vested interests to which I referred, clearly knows that the resources that are taken from the use of the canal system are pumped back into its development, providing employment opportunities, improving the environment and protecting the wildlife and heritage along the 2,000 miles of system as it stands at present.
I am sure that the Bill will be given its Second Reading tonight, but in getting its Second Reading, I hope that its supporters do not underestimate those of us who have objected to it but have some concessions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood said, we want significant improvements to be made when it goes into Committee. We want British Waterways to make genuine attempts to deal with outstanding issues which have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House this evening.
We also want British Waterways to give some commitments about the sale of assets and to say exactly how they understand it. What are its proposals for its portfolio of land, buildings and other assets? Does it intend each of its regions to draw up a transparent business and development plan? Such a plan should be a public document into which organisations in each region can have an input. I do not suggest that British Waterways should have to give away all its business intentions, but it must give a commitment to public accountability in the development of its core business activities and its strategy to deal with under-utilised land and buildings.
The communities in each region must be involved in developing plans in the same way as local people are involved in the development of local authorities' heritage and wildlife proposals and unitary development plans. It is
106
the same concept. It is well understood by the public. If British Waterways integrated such a concept into its development and business plans, many of the doubts that people express about its intentions would disappear because people would be part and parcel of the development of British Waterways as both a business and a protector of the nation's 2,000 linear miles of inland waterway and canal.
Employment opportunities are vital to Members of Parliament who represent constituencies through which canals pass that have large under-utilised hinterlands attached to them. In my constituency, large areas within the confines of the Leeds and Liverpool canal system could be used to create employment, enhance the activities along the canal and renovate derelict land. The activities of British Waterways, local authorities and private sector developers could be married up to ensure that many of the areas that I represent have a development plan for the next few years so that people can see the way ahead to creating new employment opportunities associated with businesses along the canal corridor.
British Waterways should also be involved in activities in the local community. Appropriate derelict sites could be made available for housing developments. Far too often in the past, developments on the waterside have been at the behest of those with the financial resources to use the environment as part of their back garden. I do not include my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield in that—I have been in his back garden.
I utter a word of caution. In the sale of assets that will surely follow enactment of the Bill, I do not want to see in my constituency developments of housing in areas that are outwith the reach of my constituents, whether it is private or voluntary sector housing. British Waterways should link with local authorities and housing associations to ensure that housing developments provide low-cost housing so that the local community has access to it. It should not merely provide added value for yuppies with weekend condominiums in my constituency, who use their postal vote to vote against me in elections and have no concern for the rest of the community outside the holiday period. I want some clear commitments from British Waterways on such issues.
In the discussions that I have had with British Waterways at regional and national level, its representatives have been nothing other than honest and above board in their dealings. I have no reason to believe that they have ever made any commitments that they do not intend to keep. However, I want to ensure that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) gives a commitment that the Bill benefits not just the British Waterways Board, but its employees.
9.36 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I have no complaint about the fact that we are debating inland waterways today, but I believe that it is probably a futile debate. I do not see how the Bill can proceed further through the House. The first requirement of the Standing Committee that will examine the Bill will be to satisfy itself that the Bill's objectives cannot be achieved in any other way. Since the last Parliament passed the legislation on transport and works, the Bill could now proceed in a different way.

107
I know that the understanding was that private Bills before the House before that piece of legislation was introduced should be allowed to continue their passage, but the British Waterways Bill has been lying around for a long time and should not be allowed to proceed. I hope that the Committee's first action will be vigorously to examine the Bill. I hope that it will conclude that the Bill must be thrown out because it falls outwith the Standing Orders of the House, in that it can be promoted through legislation other than a private Bill.
If we are to proceed with it, the House must insist that the concessions given today and in writing by the board are contained in the Bill. I was always told that I should never trust a statement by a Minister when debating a Bill, as Ministers could come and go, and if I wanted to be safe I should ensure that commitments were written into the legislation.
On the subject of private legislation, I was told that an undertaking given by a promoter was as good as an amendment to the Bill. However, I have had a bitter experience, as an undertaking given during the passage of the Bill to set up the Manchester metro—that my constituents would not suffer a fares increase—was not observed. When challenged, those representing Manchester metro argued that they had not given the undertaking, which was given by the original promoter, and that the two were separate organisations. When the Committee studies the Bill, it is important that any concessions should be written into it.
Why is the Bill necessary? We are told that there are two vital safety matters—one involving people at the side of the canal and one involving boats. I find that suggestion amazing. From 1947, when inland waterways were nationalised, until the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report, no one appears to have encountered the problem of not being able to carry out necessary work in the event of possible flooding. We were given the example of the recent flooding of the Lancaster canal, but we were not told of any problems in obtaining access. The landowner sensibly allowed workmen on to the land to carry out the remedial work to protect the property.
As I understand it, there is not one example of people being denied access. It is important to ensure that access is available for people to make the canal safe and to stop further flooding, but that has not posed a practical problem. If it had, why was a narrow Bill not introduced as soon as that problem occurred in order to solve it? That argument is an excuse for the Bill's other provisions.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: I am not sure about access being refused, but I certainly know of examples of people having to pay through the nose because some rather greedy landowners saw an emergency as an opportunity to extract large sums of money. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is not satisfactory.
Mr. Bennett: I accept that people should not extract greedy sums, but not everyone agrees about what "greedy" means. Changing the law is not necessarily the best way to deal with the problem.
Then there is the question of the safety of boats, and especially of third party insurance. We have heard no real horror stories to suggest why that needed to be dealt with
108
urgently. It has certainly not been established by the leisurely fashion in which negotiations on the relevant part of the Bill have taken place.
I want to concentrate on the problems of towpaths and the rights of way along them. Unfortunately, there is a hotch-potch of provision. When they came to register footpaths and bridleways, some local authorities took the view that there was no need to include towpaths along canals in the definitive maps, because they were part of the national heritage so there was no need to record them. Other local authorities did record them. The results often depended on voluntary bodies. In any event, some towpaths and bridleways, and the public rights of way along them, have been recorded, and others have not.
People outside are worried that they may lose the right to go along towpaths. I know that certain undertakings have been given—that there will be no charging or restriction of access along towpaths, although this may not apply in certain dockland areas. I should like that written into the Bill.
A conflict of interests is involved. Fishermen use canal towpaths near my constituency; other people walk along the towpaths; boating communities, some of whose members use bikes to travel along towpaths, are also involved; others again need to use towpaths to get their boats through locks. The interests of horse riders and mountain bikers must also be taken into consideration. Balancing all these interests is difficult, and I should like to be sure that rationing towpath use as between the various groups will be done without introducing charges. I hope that words to that effect will be included in the legislation before it goes any further.
Several hon. Members have referred to historic boats, and two of my constituents are very worried about this aspect. In negotiations, it took a long time to extract any undertakings, and the Bill's promoters could go further to reassure these people.
I was pleased to hear the Minister's categorical assurance that the Government will not push privatisation, but I remain a little worried that the BWB might sell off bits of its land, particularly on sections of the canal that are closed.
The old Stockport branch of the Ashton canal goes through my constituency. It was handed over to the city of Manchester and to Stockport in the early 1970s, before I represented Stockport, North. Manchester decided to keep it as a right of way, but filled in the canal. Stockport filled in the canal and broke the right of way. A group is trying to reopen the canal and has a good chance of re-establishing the section through Manchester, but it will find when it reaches the Stockport boundary that the canal has been built across, and it will be virtually impossible to reopen it. That is sad, because it would have been an amenity for the area.
At Ashton, on the edge of the constituency, is the Portland basin. It has been nicely restored; the local authority and British Waterways have put in a great deal of work to make it attractive. The Huddersfield canal goes up the valley, but a section of it has been filled in and turned into a car park, and then partly built over.
All this breaks down our route heritage into small sections and destroys the unity of the longer routes. I hope that we will be given undertakings that there will be no such piecemeal selling off of canal sections.
I welcome the appointment of an ombudsman, but I am concerned about the proliferation of ombudsmen. There is

109
a danger of overlapping responsibilities; people are often confused about which ombudsman they should consult about problems. We should consider new legislation, so that all the roles could be incorporated in a national ombudsman. That would be better than setting up new ombudsmen for particular areas.
Sir Anthony Durant: I am a member of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Service Commissioner, which is looking at this matter. We are examining all aspects of the ombudsman's role.
Mr. Bennett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The Committee should not allow ad hoc ombudsmen to be set up. Part of the argument for not setting one up for housing associations is the legislation that is required to do it. There is a strong case for a private Member's Bill to allow the national ombudsmen to extend their powers by agreement to other areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is keen to take part in the debate, so I shall conclude on the issue of crime. I am worried that more is not being done to stop crime along the canals. There have been some rather sad incidents, especially in the north-west, and some rather nasty vandalism. Such happenings cause great distress to boat owners and destroy part of our historic past. We must examine ways to improve security along the canals.
The Bill is unnecessary and many people who are keen to use the canals to best effect would be happy if it progressed no further. Perhaps we should consider simpler legislation or regulations.
9.46 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) for his speed and precision, which enables me to speak about the Bill. He mentioned the Transport and Works Act 1992 as an alternative route to regulate the operation and use of canals. Earlier in the debate, I spoke about the enormous powers that the Bill gives British Waterways. Section 3(1) of the 1992 Act states:
"The Secretary of State may make an order relating to, or to matters ancillary to—

(a) the construction or operation of an inland waterway in England and Wales;".

Scotland is clearly excluded. The Secretary of State can therefore instigate mooring regulations and access to canals. Section 3(1) (b) of the 1992 Act specifically gives power to make orders for the carrying out of works that
"intefere with rights of navigation in waters within or adjacent to England and Wales, up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea".
The comprehensive powers were deliberately incor-porated in the Transport and Works Act to simplify a complicated pattern of primary legislation contained in Acts that were passed over the past couple of hundred years. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish and I were on the Committee that examined the Transport and Works Bill nd we knew that the present Bill was going through the Lords. In Committee, the overlapping of the two Bills was mentioned. The 1992 legislation has only just come into operation. We have not seen how effective it will be and a private Bill in parallel with the operation of that Act is entirely unnecessary.
Clause 13(2) deals with houseboats and is an example of the powers that the Bill will confer on the BWB. At least
110
12,000 people—probably a good many more—live on houseboats, so we are dnot dealing with a tiny section of the population. If things go wrong, and the BWB uses its powers badly, those 12,000 people could be in peril. When the Bill leaves this place, having gone through all its stages, it is out of our control. It has gone.
People may ask what the sponsor said, but the BWB could say that, while he may have given promises in good faith, it has the powers laid down in what will by then be an Act. Although they gave their assurances in good faith, the chairman and the managing director of the board may have retired by then, and different people will be in charge. All that will be left will be the Act of Parliament, so people will turn to it. When houseboat owners complain that their conditions have been changed, the BWB will be entitled to say that it has the power to do that, because, as clause 13(2) says:
"The Board may from time to time following consultations with the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council and such organisations as appear to the Board to represent a substantial number of such owners of houseboats as may be affected by the proposed further general terms prescribe such further general terms as they think fit, in addition to or in substitution for those set out in the said Schedule 1, and any houseboat certificate issued or renewed after that date"
shall be on such terms.
That means that the House of Commons—apparently it has been agreed down the Corridor—is giving the BWB power to alter all of schedule 1, which is a considerable part of the Bill running over two and a half pages of close text. The BWB, a quango, can remove from primary legislation all that text because the House of Commons will have given it that power. I do not accept that proposal.
I do not accept that Ministers, who are at least accountable to some degree in that they come here and answer questions and occasionally drift across to take part in debates—
Mr. Don Dixon: I would not go that far.
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is raising qualifications and reservations. I have plenty of those, but Ministers are, to some extent, accountable to the House.
I can recall when a rumour went round that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was to announce an increase in council rents. Hon. Members exercised a mediaeval right to declare when Parliament should be closed and blocked the Bar of the House. Many said that that was a terrible thing to do, but the left, the right and the centre of the Labour party—the broad church in operation—stood there, preventing Black Rod from getting through. Lo and behold, after a lot of consultation and a lot of raised eyebrows, the right hon. Member for Henley made his statement about council rents. That was accountability. That was democracy in action. It might have been a bit rough and tumble, but it worked.
I would not give Ministers the right to change primary legislation. All too often, the Government introduce what are called Henry VIII clauses because he cut off the heads of his wives and Ministers are given the opportunity to cut off parts of Acts.
I do not think that such powers should be handed to Ministers, so I certainly do not think that an outside body should be given the power to remove sections of legislation that this House has considered and which imposes conditions that we think are reasonable. If we decide to pass legislation on a vote, we should not put in the hands of an outside body the power to remove sections of it.

111
I am in favour of public bodies, but the truth is that canal users mistrust British Waterways. I have a letter that has been passed to me by another hon. Member. It comes from a canal enthusiast and is dated 9 November 1992. It states:
"As I write to you on Monday 9th November 1992, we record the closure of the upper reaches of the Ridgeacre Canal in the West Bromwich part of the Birmingham Canal Navigations to which our local canal belongs. This is a particularly sad day for the waterways enthusiasts and acts as a good example of the neglect of our canals and the lack of foresight shown by British Waterways making a complete mockery of their Waterways Charter."
I have other examples. I was recently told about the problems of a public house which is reached by a footbridge over the Llangollen canal. British Waterways, no doubt under pressure from the Government's failure to provide sufficient money to maintain a centuries-old system of waterways, decided that the annual charge for access to that public house over the canal should be increased from about £150 to £10,000. I now understand that, because of publicity, the charge has been reduced. However, when such a charge is made arbitrarily, it induces confusion and concern.
Sir Donald Thompson: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with some attention. Will he consider the contrary case, which is that the Government have just made available part of the derelect land grant for the reopening of canals? Does not that in some way balance the examples that he is giving?
Mr. Cryer: No. We are not talking about what the Government have done. If they are making available some derelict land clearance grant, that is all well and good. Of course, they are cutting a wide range of grants to local authorities. My point is that the Government are accountable to the House. If we give powers to a body such as British Waterways, which acts entirely as an authority on its own account, that accountability is then out of our reach. We can argue and ask questions about derelict land clearance grant; we cannot ask questions of the chairman of British Waterways—
Mr. Robert B. Jones 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 129, Noes 30.

Division No. 272]

[9.58 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Amess, David

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Arbuthnot, James

Burns, Simon

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Burt, Alistair

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Butler, Peter

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Carrington, Matthew

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Carttiss, Michael

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Chapman, Sydney

Baldry, Tony

Clappison, James

Bates, Michael

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Blackburn, Dr John Q.

Coe, Sebastian

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Booth, Hartley

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Boswell, Tim

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Day, Stephen

Bowis, John

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Brandreth, Gyles

Devlin, Tim

Bright, Graham

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Dover, Den

112

Dykes, Hugh

Monro, Sir Hector

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Neubert, Sir Michael

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Nicholls, Patrick

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Norris, Steve

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Page, Richard

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Patnick, Irvine

Freeman, Roger

Porter, David (Waveney)

Gallie, Phil

Richards, Rod

Gillan, Cheryl

Riddick, Graham

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Grylls, Sir Michael

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Hague, William

Shaw, David (Dover)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Hanley, Jeremy

Spink, Dr Robert

Hannam, Sir John

Spring, Richard

Harris, David

Sproat, Iain

Heald, Oliver

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Stephen, Michael

Hendry, Charles

Streeter, Gary

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Sweeney, Walter

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Thomason, Roy

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Kirkhope, Timothy

Thurnham, Peter

Knapman, Roger

Tredinnick, David

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Trend, Michael

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Legg, Barry

Walden, George

Leigh, Edward

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Lidington, David

Waller, Gary

Lightbown, David

Waterson, Nigel

Luff, Peter

Whittingdale, John

MacKay, Andrew

Widdecombe, Ann

Maclean, David

Willetts, David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Wood, Timothy

Maitland, Lady Olga

Yeo, Tim

Mans, Keith

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Mates, Michael

Sir Anthony Durant and Mr. Alan Duncan.

Merchant, Piers

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

NOES

Ainger, Nick

Lynne, Ms Liz

Bennett, Andrew F.

McCartney, Ian

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Dixon, Don

Meale, Alan

Etherington, Bill

Michael, Alun

Fatchett, Derek

Miller, Andrew

Flynn, Paul

Morgan, Rhodri

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Pike, Peter L.

Hanson, David

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Harvey, Nick

Rowlands, Ted

Hinchliffe, David

Skinner, Dennis

Johnston, Sir Russell

Spearing, Nigel

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Tellers for the Noes:

Kilfoyle, Peter

Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Harry Barnes.

Lewis, Terry

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 126, Noes 27.

Division No. 273]

[10.10 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Amess, David

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Ancram, Michael

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Arbuthnot, James

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Baldry, Tony

113

Bates, Michael

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Hanley, Jeremy

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Harris, David

Booth, Hartley

Heald, Oliver

Boswell, Tim

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Hendry, Charles

Bowis, John

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Brandreth, Gyles

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Brazier, Julian

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Bright, Graham

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

King, Rt Hon Tom

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Knapman, Roger

Burns, Simon

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Burt, Alistair

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Carrington, Matthew

Legg, Barry

Chapman, Sydney

Leigh, Edward

Clappison, James

Lidington, David

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Lightbown, David

Coe, Sebastian

Luff, Peter

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

MacKay, Andrew

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Maclean, David

Davis, David (Boothferry)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Day, Stephen

Maitland, Lady Olga

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Mans, Keith

Devlin, Tim

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Dorrell, Stephen

Mates, Michael

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Merchant, Piers

Dover, Den

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Dykes, Hugh

Neubert, Sir Michael

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Nicholls, Patrick

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Norris, Steve

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Page, Richard

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Patnick, Irvine

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Pike, Peter L.

Freeman, Roger

Porter, David (Waveney)

Gallie, Phil

Richards, Rod

Gillan, Cheryl

Riddick, Graham

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Grylls, Sir Michael

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Hague, William

Shaw, David (Dover)

114

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Trend, Michael

Spink, Dr Robert

Twinn, Dr Ian

Spring, Richard

Walden, George

Sproat, Iain

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Waller, Gary

Stephen, Michael

Waterson, Nigel

Streeter, Gary

Whittingdale, John

Sweeney, Walter

Widdecombe, Ann

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Willefts, David

Thomason, Roy

Wood, Timothy

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Yeo, Tim

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Thurnham, Peter

Tellers for the Ayes:

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Sir Anthony Durant and Mr. Alan Duncan.

Tredinnick, David

NOES

Ainger, Nick

Kilfoyle, Peter

Bennett, Andrew F.

Lewis, Terry

Blunkett, David

Lynne, Ms Liz

Cryer, Bob

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Meale, Alan

Dixon, Don

Michael, Alun

Etherington, Bill

Morgan, Rhodri

Flynn, Paul

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Rowlands, Ted

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Skinner, Dennis

Hanson, David

Spearing, Nigel

Harvey, Nick

Hinchliffe, David

Tellers for the Noes:

Johnston, Sir Russell

Mr. Harry Barnes, and Mr. Andrew Miller.

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time and committed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—(Mr. Arbuthnot.)
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [2 April],
  That the Amendment to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill set out in the Lords Message of 18th March be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
  Question again proposed.
  10.20 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): The motion before the House is a technical one. The question is whether an amendment made to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill in another place should be referred to the Examiner. The opportunity for the House to consider the amendment will be at a later stage.
  This motion simply enables the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills to consider whether the private business Standing Orders of the House have been complied with in respect of an amendment made by the Select Committee of another place. The amendment, contained in clause 22 of the Bill, relates to the land drainage powers of local authorities. It provides the clarification of these powers requested by a Select Committee of this House.
  We agreed the terms with Cardiff city council, the land drainage authority most directly affected, and no one petitioned against the amendment when it was advertised in the press. It found favour with the Select Committee in another place, which amended the Bill accordingly. That is why we have this procedural motion on the Order Paper.
  10.23 pm
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: Has the Minister already sat down? Does that mean that he is not willing to answer an inquiry? I will put it in the form of—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. has the Minister finished?
  Mr. Gwilym Jones indicated assent.
  Mr. Rowlands: We have been treated to a disgraceful performance from the Minister by any standards. He rattled through a few nonsensical remarks and is not willing—[Interruption.] It is a technical matter, but it has certain implications—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the House please settle down? I am trying to listen to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Rowlands: From the beginning, the generic titles of the Bills that have added up to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bills have created various procedural and constitutional problems. This Bill is unprecedented because it began as a private Bill with hybrid concepts and became a public Bill
  116
  after some considerable time. Therefore, we are dealing with an unprecedented case and we deserve rather more from the Minister.
  We are perfectly entitled to probe what the technical motion means for the procedures of the House and the rights of hon. Members and, more important, the rights of the individuals affected by the Bill. From the beginning, bizarre procedural problems have arisen with such Bills, especially this public one. We now face another.
  One of the problems is that, from the start, we have been in uncharted waters. Tragically —I hope that my hon. Friends agree—the passing of the Transport and Works Act 1992 after the introduction of the Bill meant that most such issues would in future rightly be dealt with by a local public inquiry. We have not been allowed to have that right; we have not been allowed to have a local public inquiry under the 1992 Act because the Bill started its progress before the Act came into force. We are left with a series of bizarre procedures, including this motion. The procedure means that we must now refer to the Examiners an amendment which has not yet been agreed by the other place and which has not gone through all the procedures in the other place.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Would my hon. Friend consider the fact that in Committee we considered whether the amendment would re-hybridise the Bill? I am sure that that is a partial explanation for the brevity of the Minister's speech. In Committee, he was asked:
  "Does the Minister accept that the amendment will in effect re-hybridise the Bill?"
  The Minister replied:
  "No sir. I urge the Committee not to pursue the amendment."
  The Minister will have to eat his words tonight, which is why he kept them to a minimum.
  Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend has again demonstrated the Minister's appalling performance. My hon. Friend's research in this respect is always assiduous. I had not spotted that reference, although I was a member of the Committee. However, I remember a number of probing arguments in Committee about the procedural aspects of the Bill. The Minister made bland and minimal speeches, as he has this evening. We are entitled to feel angry about the way in which the Minister introduced the motion.
  We are asked to send to the Examiners an amendment that has been tabled in another place to a Bill that has not yet completed all its proceedings in another place. The other place may decide that it wants to send the amendment to the Examiners. Why should we decide in a Pavlovian reaction that because the other place decides to refer the amendment to the Examiners, we should do the same simultaneously?
  As I understand parliamentary procedures, the amendment could be lost on Report in the other place and it could be amended at any subsequent stage in the other place. Although the Bill has not completed all its stages in the other place, we are being asked to refer the amendment to the Examiners. We can rightly object on principle to the notion that we should act in a Pavlovian fashion.
  What precedents are there for behaving in such a fashion? There is one in my memory—the Channel Tunnel Bill. The only time such a motion was moved was during

  117
  the proceedings on that Bill. It is worth reminding the House what happened on the previous occasion when this procedural device was adopted.
  A Transport Minister came to the Dispatch Box in the 1985–86 Session and rattled through the same nonsense we have just heard. The words were almost identical. We were told that the motion was nothing more than a technical, procedural motion. We were told that it would enable the amendment to be referred to the Examiners who, in due course, would report back. We were told that the amendment would then be referred to the Standing Orders Committee and that everyone should happily accept the process.
  I remind hon. Members, especially those who were not here at the time, what happened when the procedure was used previously. A Minister moved the motion in terms identical to those used by the Minister today. On that occasion, the Minister told the House that the motion was technical and that it did not matter very much. He said that the substance of the issue was irrelevant and that the motion simply allowed the matter to be examined to discover whether it had offended our Standing Orders.
  That kind of explanation is a fiction because we all know that on this occasion the alteration in the other place has already affected and offended our Standing Orders. If the Minister had been willing to allow an intervention, he would have had to admit that it cannot be argued that, as a result of the change in the other place, our Standing Orders will not be complied with. Therefore, the Standing Orders Committee will have to report to us on the matter.
  The last precedent was serious because we were told by a Minister that the procedure was innocuous. However, the Standing Orders Committee reported that the amendment did not comply with our Standing Orders and actually recommended that we should not dispense with our Standing Orders. Five days after the last occasion when such a motion was moved, the House was invited to overrule the recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee and, after a vote, the decision of the Standing Orders Committee was overruled. The Government rode roughshod over a specific recommendation from our own Standing Orders Committee.
  Irrespective of where we stand in relation to the argument about the Cardiff bay barrage, we should be squeamish about that last precedent. I tried to obtain one simple assurance from the Minister. If the Examiners find in respect of this motion—as I suspect that they must—that the change in the other place means that it does not comply with our Standing Orders, and if the matter then goes to the Standing Orders Committee and that Committee finds as it did in relation to the Channel Tunnel Bill—that it did not comply, and also did not recommend that the Standing Orders should be dispensed with—will the Minister assure us that he and the Government will not try to override the recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee?
  As the Minister refused to allow me to obtain that simple assurance, will he give us that assurance now? Way back in 1987, the House was bamboozled by a Minister who said that the issue did not matter, but the Government then came back to the House and refused to accept the Committee's recommendation.
  We object strongly to the cheap and silly way in which the Minister introduced the motion. He refused to allow me to intervene to seek that simple assurance. I invite the Minister to intervene in my speech and assure me that the
  118
  Government will not do what they did in relation to the Channel Tunnel Bill, which is the only precedent that we have, and that the Government will not try to override any recommendations from the Standing Orders Committee?
  The Minister either does not know or he does not wish to comment. Irrespective of the argument, we are not willing to be treated to such silly and petty behaviour from the Minister. Therefore, we must be concerned and squeamish about the exercise of such a procedure in this way, given that we have only one precedent and that not a happy one.
  I was interested to read the debates on the last occasion when this issue arose. There were two debates. In the first debate, a number of hon. Members raised objections to the motion. They decided that the rights of individuals should not be overridden by a procedure of the kind that we have been asked to accept. The only vote that took place on such a motion was in the 1987 session—I apologise for not being there for that vote, but my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) was present and voted against the motion—as did the Labour Deputy Chief Whip because, I assume, he sensed the constitutional or procedural issues involved.
  Subsequently, when the House was faced with a recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee that it should not dispense with the Standing Orders relating to private Members Bills, and the Government sought to override the recommendation, there was a substantive debate about the rights of individuals. Indeed, if one reads that debate one genuinely senses that the House was expressing the view of many affected parties—some would have benefited but some would not.
  In the case of the channel tunnel, the debate centred on the position of Mr. Patterson. Hon. Members from both sides of the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) spoke with great force and passion about the rights of the individual, which could be overridden by procedural devices of the sort that we have been asked to agree to on the nod. For that reason, I object to the motion. The way in which the Minister introduced it was disgraceful.
  One of the tragedies of the debate is that, since Second Reading and Committee stage of the Bill, the House has passed legislation which would have allowed many of the arguments to be raised at the public inquiry and local inquiry levels. There are public expenditure consequences that the House should rightly debate. I should like the Minister to tell us whether a project such as the channel tunnel would have been subject to the Transport and Works Act 1992 if it had been in force.
  We have had to act as a quasi-public inquiry, although such issues should properly have been heard and debated at a local public inquiry. If there were amendments of the sort that we face today, the Minister would have required a public inquiry at which people's rights could be protected cheaply and effectively rather than through the elaborate procedure of a private Bill.
  It is sad that the people involved have not had the benefit of a public inquiry. Some Labour Members argued for an inquiry in a debate on a major amendment to the Bill. We said that such issues should be subject to a form of local public inquiry. If I remember correctly, we argued that case forcefully. As a result of not having that procedure, we are left in the bizarre position of having to examine an amendment which has been carried in another place.

  119
  What is worse, the procedure on the channel tunnel created a precedent in that, if the Standing Orders Committee recommends that we should not dispense with
  120
  Standing Orders Nos. 10 and 11, the Government will come back and try to override that recommendation, as happened in 1987.
  For those reasons, therefore, we have every right, first, to object to the manner in which the Minister introduced the motion, and secondly, justifiably to express the queasiness that we should all feel about the bizarre prodedural devices being used to railroad the Bill through.
  10.39 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: It is evident to all of us that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales is on trial, if I may speak figuratively, in the proceedings tonight. As I said in an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), the Minister claimed in the Standing Committee that the amendment would not rehybridise the Bill. It is perhaps not out of order for me to make it clear where in the proceedings the Minister said that.
  The Minister briefly referred to the Select Committee in his extraordinarily short and deficient introduction of the motion. It was not worthy of a Minister who expected to have anything other than a quick reshuffle this summer. The Select Committee had to defend the case that was made in accordance with its guidelines. The Select Committee made a recommendation on its final day on 20 February 1992. It said that there was a problem with the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill in respect of the powers under the Land Drainage Act 1991.
  The Committee said that there was a problem that would have to be dealt with either in Standing Committee or in the other place. When something comes before the House, it is obviously better for it to be dealt with by the House. The opportunity to do that was in the Standing Committee on 2 July last year. It was not taken, because an undertaking was given by the same Minister who introduced the motion with extraordinary, if understandable, brevity. I suppose that if he was from the far east, he would perhaps have come to the House and fallen on his ceremonial sword.
  The motion says in effect that the Minister accepts that he was completely wrong. I see the Secretary of State trying to nod some words of encouragement to his junior Minister. Perhaps the junior Minister will respond to those encouraging words and defend his indefensible position. Perhaps he will explain how the words, "No Sir, it will not have the effect of rehybridising the Bill," are compatible with the motion before us. Is the Minister saying that he did not believe then that the amendment would rehybridise the Bill, but that he has since had further education and elucidation from Government legal advisers?
  Was the Minister perhaps not using the 22-carat sincerity for which he is famous when he said, "No, Sir" to the Standing Committee last July? There must be some explanation. The Minister seems remarkably reluctant to give it—I put it no higher than that. [Interruption]" We seem to have a Whip who has departed from the Trappist vow by which he usually abides, even if we have a Minister who has taken the Trappist vow tonight, when he is not supposed to. I am not sure what is happening on the Government Front Bench tonight. Perhaps the Minister and the Whip have swapped jobs and we have not been told. Perhaps they have anticipated the summer reshuffle. We do not know.
  Let us explain how the rehybridisation, which is a relatively rare parliamentary life form, comes about. It comes about largely as a result of the way in which the old private Bill meshed with the new Government-backed hybrid Bill. We have had four Bills on the Cardiff bay barrage—two private and two public. I shall not go through the whole history tonight—[HON. MEMBERS:"Go on."] I realise the public pressure on me to do exactly that, but I am sure that you would not find that to be in order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  122
  There is one point at which the second Bill and the fourth Bill—which we are discussing—mesh together. They offer the explanation for the procedure being used by the Government as they attempt to escape from the trap that they have made for themselves.
  The second Bill was initiated in November 1988 as a private Bill and died in early 1991 when the Government failed to win the closure motion. The Bill was then replaced by a hybrid Government Bill. I shall not expand on the third Bill, as it did not last long—it was one of the specialities of Nicholas Bennett, who was then the hon. Member for Pembroke. He believed that Wales needed the smack of firm, if incompetent, government, and the Bill died immediately. But he did not learn his lesson and introduced a second public Bill in November 1991, which we are discussing tonight.
  The problem was that the research on groundwater had not been completed in November 1991. The day after the private Bill died because the closure motion was defeated, the Secretary of State said that the 12 months' worth of research on groundwater which the Select Committee on the private Bill had determined should he undertaken would still be carried out for the hybrid Bill. The research into groundwater was conducted over 12 months—it could not be completed in less time, as the effect on groundwater of the rainfall variations over the four seasons needed to be studied.
  When the four-season study—which the Secretary of State agreed that the Government would continue to commission even though the private Bill was dead—was complete, the Secretary of State said—this is the key issue —that his groundwater consultant, Mr. Roy Stoner, head of the institute of irrigation studies at Southampton university, would advise him on the accuracy of the groundwater engineering studies conducted on the orders of the Cardiff Bay development corporation for the then dead private Bill. Mr. Stoner's report was published in January 1992. I have a copy with me tonight; it makes interesting reading, although I do not agree with everything in it, and the Government have not agreed to fund everything in it.
  The report was the carry-over—I use the word "carry-over" in the normal vernacular sense, not in the technical parliamentary sense-—or bridge between the private Bill and the Bill before us. The Roy Stoner report covered the recommendations of the Select Committee on the private Bill which had died. The Secretary of State had agreed to abide by that Committee's undertakings when he presented the hybrid Bill, the second version of which we are discussing tonight.
  The text of the private Bill was submitted in November 1991, whereas Roy Stoner did not publish his work until 1992—two months later. It is because of that two-month gap that we are here tonight. If the Government had waited until January 1992, we would not have faced a problem, because the results of Roy Stoner's recommendations could have been incorporated into the Bill, which would then have been a clean, not a dirty, Bill.
  That is a fair description of the way in which the Bill has been messed up by the desire of the Minister's predecessor, Nicholas Bennett, to hurry everything through. He wanted everything to be done at 100 mph, but not in order to comply with the procedures of the House. We must all be jealous of those procedures—there are times when we regard them as a bore and times when we know that they are important to the rights of ordinary individuals in this

  123
  country who, for centuries, have had to petition the House if a Bill, whether hybrid or private, affects their property. That is the problem.
  I realise that some people regard this story as complicated, but that is not our fault. It is the fault of Ministers. The Bill might be described as the parliamentary equivalent of "The Mousetrap". The idea was dreamed up by Lord Crickhowell, who I understand is the nephew of Agatha Christie. At any rate, we have been with the Bill in its various forms for five and a half years now; I know of no other Bill that has gone on that long. It has been an indescribable saga of incompetence on the part of the promoters and the Government. Tonight is another superb example of how the Government attempt to rush these measures through.
  These are not only my views. The Chairman of the Select Committee came to the same conclusions, even though he is a Conservative Member. He now chairs the Defence Select Committee—
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): This is a filibuster.
  Mr. Morgan: The Secretary of State is trying to limit the rights of hon. Members, even though he once spoke for more than four hours on the Mersey ferries legislation. If, when he has read Hansard, he still believes that he has evidence of tedious repetition on my part, he may feel that he should take the Chair when he approaches the Prime Minister to learn what job he is to get in the summer reshuffle.
  The Chairman of the Select Committee, dealing with the problem of what happens when the ground is saturated and may or may not qualify for the definition of flooding in such a way as to give Cardiff city council a responsibility for dealing with it, said:
  "This Committee is not entirely satisfied that the Bill in its present form covers that eventuality and we would hope, therefore, that the Bill would not proceed to the Statute Book without the position being much better clarified at a later stage of its progress through both Houses. Whether that is something best done by the Standing Committee of this House or by the Committee proceedings similar to this Committee which will take place in the other House. I leave the Promoters and those involved to judge. But I would put on record that the Committee is not entirely satisfied that the Bill as currently drafted gives adequate protection in those circumstances."
  My points this evening are, thus, the same as those made by the Chairman of the Select Committee. After having failed to get satisfacton from Mr. Sullivan, who was acting for the Government and for the development corporation, the Committee wanted to know how he would deal with the fact that the city council did not believe that it had powers under the Land Drainage Act 1991 to deal with saturation flooding.
  For some reason, Mr. Sullivan did not concede the point there and then. But the Committee did not agree with him, as we read on page 385 of its report. They conferred and concluded that Mr. Sullivan was wrong and the country bumpkin lawyers from Cardiff city council were right, and the city council did not have the powers to deal with saturation flooding. Therefore, it would require an amendment. We can only speculate why the Committee did not accept that, but there was enormous pressure on
  124
  the Committee from Government business managers to try to complete the Bill before the election. They knew that an election was pending.
  The matter should have been dealt with there and then. The promoters should have come clean on 20 February and said, "The game is up. The city council is right and we concede that the saturation issue is not dealt with. The Land Drainage Act 1991 does not confer powers on local authorities to deal with such flooding and the only precedents for the definition of flooding to be used are those that are conventionally applied to over-the-ground flooding. Saturation flooding is an entirely different matter and will require an amendment to the Bill."
  If that had been done and the promoters had acted without the pressure of an impending election, the Bill would have been rehybridised on 20 February 1992, 15 months ago, rather than now. I have already referred to the next opportunity for doing that, which was in the Standing Committee last July. That opportunity was not taken, not because the Standing Committee did not wish to take it but because the Minister gave an undertaking that his legal advice was still to the effect that the Land Drainage Act 1991 conferred such powers on Cardiff city council and, if it did not, it would not have the effect of rehybridising the Bill. We all knew he was wrong, and I think that he knew he was wrong, but he had to bluff his way through the Committee because the Government thought that it would be easier to deal with the matter in the other place. However, it has to be referred back here to our Standing Orders Committee.
  We are debating the Bill tonight because the Minister did not take the opportunity to put the matter right in July in the Standing Committee and because the Select Committee was not hard enough with Government business managers because of pressure in the run-up to the election.
  What are petitioners to make of this farrago of bungling and incompetence and lack of integrity in answering direct questions? We have to try to pick up the pieces by considering why, at this stage in the Bill's passage, we have to refer the matter to the Standing Orders Committee. Prior to debates on the Bill, people in Cardiff ask me, "Is the Bill now back in the House of Commons?" I say that it is not because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney has said, the Bill is in the House of Lords. However, for a nanosecond tonight it has been magically transformed into a Commons measure again, only to be dispatched to the Examiners and probably to the Standing Orders Committee—depending on what the Examiners say.
  It is a Commons motion tonight not because the House of Lords has asked us to debate it. The Lords do not make requests to this House and we do not make requests to them, but the practical effect is that the Lords have said, "Our Standing Committee has ruled that the amendment has the effect of rehybridising the Bill. That means that the Bill has not been advertised in the proper order before November 1991. The Commons may wish to consider that."
  The Lords could have decided to consider it and that would not have caused us any problems, although one would still argue that the issue should have been dealt with much earlier by Government business managers. The Bill is now stuck halfway between the Lords Select Committee, which has completed its consideration, and has passed through the Standing Committee in the Lords which has

  125
  rules that it is now rehybridised. It has not yet gone to the Lords equivalent of a Committee of the whole House. It has not had a Report stage or Third Reading; nor have we considered—nor will we be considering—the merits or demerits of the amendments.
  This is simply a procedural motion. The other place has not made a request, so in effect we are being asked by the Government to take note of the "message" from the other place. We are being asked to condone the way that the Government refused to concede, in the Select Committee last year, that the Bill was being rehybridised. The Select Committee knew on the final day that it sat, as, indeed, the legal advisers to the promoters did before the general election was called on 20 February, that the Bill had to be rehybridised, but they wanted to do that at the latest stage possible so as to cause the least stir possible.
  That brings up the question how jealous we should be of the rights of petitioners and of our rights, but the former most of all. If the Government had done their homework properly, after the Secretary of State's groundwater expert had given his advice, they would have known that the city council would need additional powers to slit trenches underneath—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. There is too much noise.
  Mr. Morgan: If the Government had done their job properly, they would have known that Cardiff city council was right. It knows its business, it knows how the land drainage Acts work, and so it should have the powers to deal with saturation. People who use the parks of Cardiff and have houses near the river might think that the council would need to go into their back gardens and dig slit trenches across and under garden walls, fish ponds, bike sheds, tool sheds, greenhouses or whatever it might be. They might not like it, but the council would have the power to do it compulsorily, and that would be part of the package that would have to be accepted with the Bill.
  Unfortunately, the Government wanted to do it the slippery way, saying, "Okay, we'll tell you the main part of the Bill now, but we will keep this back until la ter." They decided to do that initially because of their incompetence, having rushed drafting of the Bill in November 1991, and later because they did not dare admit, while the Bill was before the House, what a mistake they had made. They wanted to brass-neck it out, and said that such matters would be easier to deal with in the other place.
  That is not a good advertisement for the rights of the House, in both its Select Committees and Standing Committees. Fewer procedures in the other place to deal with such matters mean fewer rights for petitioners. Members of the other place have fewer rights in respect of rehybridisation. That is not an argument for doing something there, unless one is a Government business manager of the old school—we may have a few of those here tonight.
  Putting the order through the other place would not have required an instruction from the Floor of the House. One is required here, which is why we are debating the motion now. Had it been done properly, in this House and in time and in order, the package of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill would have been much fairer to the potential petitioners, who would have known what to expect.
  The Minister made the point—perhaps the only one in that abbreviated introduction—that nobody petitioned
  126
  against the Bill in the other place. The number of petitions against the Bill in the other place was enormous—10 more than in this place. There were 83 before the Commons Select Committee last summer; there were 93 before the other place earlier this year. That is what is known to the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation as "exhausted opposition". I understand that that is what he said on Radio 2 the other day. He also said that tenders were going out shortly. That is an unwise remark for any promoter of a private or hybrid Bill to make.
  People should never presume about this House. The procedures of both Houses are based on the principle, "It ain't over till the fat lady sings", to paraphrase "Erskine May"—[Interruption]. If Damon Runyon had drafted "Erskine May", it would be, "It ain't over till the gracious lady signs." We do not take kindly to the attempt by the chairman of the corporation—a great friend and appointee of the Secretary of State—to presume that everything will proceed in the way he wants, despite the fact that there are still procedures to be followed and the rights of petitioners to be considered.
  Obviously, there are times when we are in favour of a Bill and we think, "Let's get the whole thing over with; why are we fussing?" However, there are other times when our constituents are affected, so obviously we think differently. We must be sure that we do not condone bypass procedures, slack draftsmanship or Bills being drafted while the engineering studies are still under way. Indeed, the Secretary of State gave a commitment to the House about those studies. If, because of that, the Bill then comes to the House in a sloppy form, it must be put right by a backwoods procedure that means that petitioners—with the foreknowledge of the Government—can petition in only one House on certain aspects of the Bill.
  I am sure that we all agree that, in principle, all petitioners should have the right to petition before both Houses of Parliament. If unexpected improvements are made to a Bill, of course we must accept that they will probably come halfway through the Bill's proceedings and can be dealt with only in the other place. However, in this case, the Government knew the details at the drafting stage, but still proceeded with the Bill, thereby ensuring that the petitioners would be heard in only one House rather than two. That was a matter of Government intent or of neglect of petitioners' rights.
  Surely we should be jealous to protect those rights, whatever our views on the Bill. It is important to register the fact that we are not discussing the merits or demerits of the Bill.
  Mr. Alun Michael: I am following my hon. Friend's argument with great care. I can understand his criticism of the procedure that has brought us here tonight. However, I am not clear about the practical effect of what is happening. As I understand it, the motion is to refer to the Examiners an amendment that meets the concerns of the Select Committee, the Lords and the petitioners, including our colleagues on Cardiff city council, and that there is no petition against the amendment. If the procedural motion were to be passed, the amendment would then go to the Examiners.
  Is my hon. Friend saying that that places us in a dilemma because we would either have to block an improvement to the Bill—which presumably we want—or appear to condone bad procedure? Is that the essence of my hon. Friend's argument.
  Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. Any improvement that is proposed late in the passage of a Bill inevitably places us in a dilemma, whatever our views about the barrage. We may say, "Procedurally this is a mess, but on the other hand, are we or are we not against this improvement requested by Cardiff city council?"
  Tonight is not about the merits or demerits of the barrage or of Cardiff city council's amendments, which it should have been granted in the Select Committee a year last February. The Minister should have conceded in Standing Committee last year that it was necessary to incorporate them; he only agreed to incorporate them belatedly. Having denied in Committee that they would rehybridise the Bill, he agreed to incorporate them in another place.
  We are not talking, either, about the merits or demerits of Cardiff city council acquiring powers, by amending the Land Drainage Act 1991, but about the bypass procedure being requested of the House tonight, which, in effect, condones the Government's bungling of the saturation flooding question.
  The last thing that I want is to deny Cardiff city council the powers to deal with saturation flooding, but that should have been done in February 1992. The Government's business managers knew that all along, but acted in the way that they did because of the pressures of the upcoming election in February and because the procedures in another place for rehybridisation are easier than in this House, because they do not require an instruction from the Floor of the House.
  Giving evidence to the Select Committee in January 1992, James Stewart Mackay said that it had all happened in a rush. People may ask, "With a Bill that has been before the House for five and a half years, how can anything be done in a rush?" But that is what occurred in November 1991. Mr. Mackay was asked by the Select Committee, "Are you saying that you actually gave this matter serious consideration in the city council?"—but the council did not have that much time to consider it. Nevertheless, it managed to get to the heart of the matter straight away. I believe that privately the Government's business managers also got to the heart of the matter straight away but did not want to tell this House.
  The Government's business managers have not been straight with this House, and neither were they straight in pressurising the Standing Committee not to recommend that the Bill should incorporate the amendment to the Land Drainage Act 1991. They knew in their heart of hearts that that was required, but instead recommended that a correction should be made at a later stage. That later stage was reached in another place, when it should have been dealt with by the Standing Committee last July. The Minister has been shy about offering his view on those matters tonight, and obviously the Government did not do their homework.
  The effect of not accepting the amendment tonight would, as far as one can tell, be relatively modest. It would not, I believe, kill the improvements. I should be happy to be corrected, if the Minister wants to rise from his torpor. The effect of the matter not going to the Standing Orders Committee now would be that we would allow the message from another place to rest on the table for the time being. Perhaps the Secretary of State will confirm that.
  The other place could then proceed, as it could have done when its Select Committee reported to its Standing Orders Committee that the effect would be to rehybridise
  128
  the Bill. It would then go before a Committee of the whole House in another place, and there could be a Report stage and Third Reading. It would then return to this House and be referred to the Standing Orders Committee by the Examiners, if it was felt that the change had rehybridised the Bill.
  It is just a question whether we are happy for the Bill briefly to have a parallel life in both Houses. That is what we are discussing tonight. It is acceptable if we emphasise the fact that Cardiff city council has been proved right, and requires additional powers, contrary to what the promoters said in the Select Committee. I believe that they conceded the point to the city council within half an hour of the end of its sitting. That is not a very happy set of circumstances.
  It could be said that allowing the motion to be passed would mean condoning this way of doing things. As my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney implied, the Government business managers will get their way anyway, regardless of the rights of petitioners. It is the "crime pays" argument. Legislative crime pays: it is possible to bluff one's way through a Standing Committee, as the Minister does by saying "No, Sir," when he should have said "Yes, Sir." I hope that a suitable opportunity will arise for him to tell us why he said that this development would not have the effect of rehybridising the Bill.
  The silence is deafening. If Ministers who cannot defend themselves choose to remain silent, we can all read into it whatever we wish. Is the Minister willing to accept that he was uttterly, miserably wrong when he said "No, Sir" in July last year?
  Mr. Ron Davies: Answer.
  Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister now wish us to pretend that that did not happen—that he was not there? Did the Eskimos take over for a day?
  Mr. Davies: Answer.
  Mr. Morgan: Did a doppelganger or lookalike turn up in Committee on the day concerned? [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There are too many seated interventions, and there have been one or two private conversations as well.
  Mr. Morgan: However, we may take the view that the emphasis should be on ensuring that ministerial conduct is of the best, and on an unwillingness to condone slack, incompetent, bungling ministerial conduct. If we take that view, we must adopt a strong line. The Minister could, and should, have put matters right well before now: he should have taken the legislative consequences if the Bill had to be delayed by two, six or 12 months. That does not matter, as long as the rights of petitioners are dealt with fairly. People should know who will be affected when a Bill is presented to this House, as this Bill was in November 1991.
  Everyone is supposed to know by a certain date—usually in November—which private and hybrid Bills are being presented, in what form they are being presented and whether they themselves will be affected. Some users of property in the affected area knew in November 1991 that the Bill would affect them; others did not. We are concerned tonight with those who did not.
  The Minister said that no one had petitioned against this aspect of the Bill. I entirely accept that; but the people

  129
  concerned did not petition because they had been placed in an impossible position. If they petition against the Bill in the other place when it has already been given half its consideration, they will be left in the position described by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). Anyone who petitions effectively against that aspect of the Bill in isolation—in isolation, because it has arisen at a late stage in the other place—will be faced with a dilemma: "Do I want an improvement in the Bill which, according to the city council, is necessary to prevent saturation flooding? If I do, I should like to have been told nevertheless. I should have been given the total package of the Bill, with all its consequences, when it was first presented."
  That is the problem that we encounter when Bills are drafted incompetently. The material date for those who knew about the effects on their property to petition against the Bill was November 1991; but those whose property was affected by the clause that we are discussing did not know until earlier this year, when the Bill went to another place and the Government introduced their amendment. Their rights have been adversely affected. They were not told. It was not something that came like a bolt from the blue: it was already implicit in the work that the Government's own engineering adviser, Roy Stoner, was doing. It is not good enough to say, "We will make it up as we go along and put it right when we feel like it."
  The Government have put themselves in a position of extraordinary weakness—as they did in May 1991, when they failed to get a closure; in July 1991, when the first hybrid Bill failed to get through the Standing Orders Committee; and again in November 1991, when the present Bill was drafted, two months before the Government's own engineering adviser, who could have told the Secretary of State what would need to be incorporated in the Bill if it was ever to reach a satisfactory state of engineering competence, finished his work. But engineering competence, as well as political competence, is something that we have learnt the hard way not to expect from the Government.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Amendment to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill set out in the Lords Message of 18th March be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (Standing Committees on European C'ommunity documents),

  CONCENTRATION IN THE MEDIA
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4213/93, relating to concentration in the media; welcomes the Commission's intention to have a full and open consultation on this issue; and requests the
  130
  Government to respond to the document in a way which takes full account of the principle of subsidiarity, having also taken full account of the views expressed in European Standing Committee B on 12th May.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (Standing Committees on European Community documents),

  FISHERIES AGREEMENT: ARGENTINA
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4769/93, relating to a proposed fisheries agreement between the European Economic Community and the Argentine Republic; and supports the Government's determination to secure an agreement which, whilst safeguarding the United Kingdom's position on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, provides for the Community's involvement in the development of Argentina's fishing resources.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
  Question agreed to.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With the leave of the House, I will put together the two motions relating to statutory instruments.

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  That the draft Family Law (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 14th April, be approved.
  That the draft Family Law (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 14th April, be approved.
  Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
  11.20 pm
  Mr. Tim Devlin: I rise to present a petition on behalf of 16,000 signatories throughout the country. The petition has been compiled by the Pro Dogs national charity, north-east branch, and reads:
  "To the honourable Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The humble petitioners of Pro Dogs national charity, north-east branch and undersigned petitioners sheweth that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 requires amendment to provide safeguards for law-abiding dog owners and their dogs. Wherefore, your petitioners pray that your honourable House amend the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to allow discretion when considering the destruction of dogs which may be exercised on the particular facts of each case."
  To lie upon the Table.

  Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
  11.22 pm
  Dr. Joe Hendron: I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate an Adjournment debate on the Royal Victoria hospital, which, by any standards, is the finest hospital in western Europe. It was the first hospital in the world to have a cardiac ambulance. Thousands of people in Northern Ireland, and, indeed, in Britain, owe their lives to the expertise and brilliance of the magnificent staff of that hospital. Those people include members of the security forces.
  The facilities of the hospital include the accident and emergency unit, which is the very heart of the hospital. They include general medical and general surgical beds and the regional specialties of thoracic surgery, neurosurgery and cardiac surgery.
  On Friday 14 May, thousands of people in Belfast marched through the city centre to the headquarters of the Eastern health and social services board. There was a howling wind and it was pouring with rain. Those people came from the Catholic Falls road and the Protestant Shankhill road; Nationalists and Unionists crossed the sectarian divide to bring one message to the Eastern board and the Department—to take their hands off the Royal Victoria hospital, which has served that community so well over the years.
  I should like to acknowledge the help that I have received from the NUPE and COHSE trade unions, the representatives of the West Belfast health monitoring committee, the management of the Royal Victoria hospital trust and the medical and general staff of the hospital in making my case for that hospital.
  When the hospital management team was preparing to respond to the "Statement of Intent" from the Eastern health and social services board for general (acute) hospital services within that board, the discussion was pre-empted and superseded by recent proposals on purchasing strategy for 1993–94. The board offered the hospital a contract that would result in 1,200 fewer general surgical operations, elective operations, plus 1,500 fewer ear, nose and throat procedures. The prospect of a substantial reduction in elective general surgery and ENT procedure is viewed with great alarm by everyone on the hospital staff.
  The medical staff feel that it is most unfortunate that a discussion about the acute hospital services for 1994 and beyond should be rendered so pointless by changes to be introduced in 1993. It is quite bizarre that disciplines with a particular value for undergraduate teaching and research, and hence "star" supplement, should be removed from the hospital. That will lead to a loss of income that will further accelerate the downward spiral on which the hospital now seems set.
  The present process of contracting contravenes the DHSS management executive's guiding principles, as set out in a document published in consultation with the boards. That document deals with stability, and states:
  "Contracting should not lead to the disruption and destabilisation of services, nor should it lead to the disruption of education and training."
  That is exactly what it has done. That document also states:
  132
  "In the first year of contracting, Boards and Units will maintain a steady state"—
  it is important to stress the use of the words "steady state"—
  "except where changes have been planned and mutually agreed. Where changes in current service patterns are proposed, adequate notice must be given to allow the parties involved to make and manage the adjustments."
  That is a farce, when one considers the type of contract that the board tried to force on the Royal Victoria hospital recently.
  At a recent meeting with the officers of the Eastern board, I asked about consultation. I was told that one cannot consult over every major issue that requires a decision. My goodness, this contract arrangement is the most important decision to be put to the Royal Victoria in my 30 years as a general practitioner in west Belfast.
  In its own document, the Eastern board accepts that only three hospitals in its area reach the required standard of clinical effectiveness. It then proceeds to downgrade one of them.
  The removal of 1,200 general surgical operations from the Royal Victoria represents one third of the work of general surgeons. They will also be expected to continue to treat complex, major surgical cases referred to them from elsewhere. I am not talking about regional specialities of the hospital, but the work of the general surgeons. They are so experienced that cases are referred to them from other parts of the north of Ireland. They are expected to undertake that work as well as emergency work. That means that in future, if a local doctor refers his patients to the Royal Victoria, those patients will be turned away and sent elsewhere.
  One senior surgeon told me that, if he carried out an endoscopy on a patient with stomach cancer, that person would then be sent home and his GP would have to arrange for admission to another hospital. That may lead to a possible delay of one month.
  When it comes to trauma, the Royal Victoria is the only hospital with neurology, thoracic surgery, cardiac surgery and burns units. Major trauma also requires a general surgical input. If surgery procedures are run down this year, they will never recover. The Royal Victoria hospital now has fewer than half the beds it had five years ago.
  It is important to realise that, at the initial tender for the contract, the Royal Victoria hospital was the cheapest of all the providers, but the Eastern health board held a Dutch auction in reverse, toing and froing between the Royal Victoria, the Ulster and City hospitals, and finished by proposing to withdraw services from the Royal Victoria.
  It is hard for the Royal Victoria to come to terms with the fact that, within a few weeks of obtaining trust status, it has been plunged into a deeper and more severe financial crisis than it has previously experienced. Indeed, the future of the hospital's clinical profile is in great jeopardy.
  The strategy encouraged by the board in its "Statement of Intent" document relies wholly on four highly suspect assumptions. The first has to do with population changes. It is assumed that the population of central Belfast will continue to move to outlying areas of the board. The second assumption involves new health care identities and the belief that the Eastern health board population can legitimately be forced into three new catchment areas. Phrases such as "east and west of the Lagan" are used

  133
  —anyone who knows Northern Ireland has heard of "east and west of the Bann" but not "east and west of the Lagan".
  The other assumptions talk about a reduction in services purchased by other boards and a reduction in acute care in west Belfast. The implication is that there will be fewer cases from west Belfast.
  The board defines accessibility as giving the best possible access to patients, visitors and staff, geographically and in terms of ready availability and having regard to safety. However, the board fails to define what it means by safety and completely ignores the sectarian geography of Belfast. I do not like using such language, because I am not a sectarian person, but it is a fact of life. To give an example, the people of Poleglass and Twinbrook on the edge of west Belfast will not go to the Lagari Valley hospital, because they look on the Royal Victoria hospital as their hospital.
  A number of reports in recent years, including "The Health Divide", the Black report, which dealt with health inequalities, and independent studies in the British Medical Journal, all link unemployment and poverty to ill health. West Belfast has approximately 40 per cent. of the total number of unemployed people in Belfast and 10·7 per cent. of the long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland. North and west Belfast have the highest percentage of low birth weight babies. Of the 12 wards in Northern Ireland rated to have the worst overall health, six are in west Belfast.
  We must show that we care about our sick, injured, frail, old and deprived people, whoever they may be and wherever they live. Managers at the Royal Victoria hospital have given the lead by refusing to sign the Eastern health board contract. The chairman of the Royal group of hospitals, Dr. George Quigley, has called for an independent inquiry into the board's proposals for health care provision, and I support that call.
  Last Friday, I had a meeting with the Secretary of State about his recent trip to the United States. I accept in good faith the fact that he was genuinely trying to get inward investment into Northern Ireland, although other subjects were also discussed. However, I would say to him and to the Earl of Arran that any attempt to run down the Royal Victorial hospital, which is the major employer in west Belfast and the surrounding area, would make ring hollow any promises made from the United States or projects such as "making Belfast work".
  Apparently, there is to be arbitration between the management executive and the board, but the Secretary of State and his Ministers are now directly involved. I hope that common sense will prevail and that the Royal Victoria hospital will be allowed to continue to provide the outstanding service that it has given for so many years.
  11.33 am
  Mr. John Hume: With the permission of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), I should also like to question the Minister on this very serious and highly emotional issue. The Royal Victoria hospital is important not only to Belfast but to all the people of Northern Ireland.
  At the important level of what could be described as the public health of the people of Northern Ireland in terms of their relationships with each other, the Government are rightly anxious to get both sections of our community working together, especially in their common interests.
  134
  Nowhere in Northern Ireland has shown a greater example of that than the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast and its staff. The staff are drawn almost 50:50 from both sections of our community.
  Throughout the past terrible 20 years, and in spite of its location, there has never been a single sectarian incident in the hospital among the staff. In spite of their differences, they have worked solidly to deal with the health of the people who come to them. They have become internationally expert in dealing not only with heart cases, but with many of the illnesses that arise out of the trauma of our violent situation.
  The hospital has given an example to the world. Despite the weather in the streets of Belfast last week, all those in the hospital, from the highest consultant to the medical staff, the nurses, the porters and the domestic staff, were together, solidly backed by the people of the Shankhill road and the people of the Falls road. When we get such agreement in Northern Ireland, we surely have a duty to maintain it, especially when it deals with something that is fundamental to us all—the health of our people.
  11.36 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) for raising the question of the future of the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast. As a general practitioner in west Belfast, the hon. Gentleman is an authority on the Royal Victoria and he is respected there, just as he is respected here for that knowledge and dedication.
  My colleague Lord Arran, who has responsibility for health and social services matters in Northern Ireland, has asked me to say that he is naturally extremely concerned by the stories that have been circulating about this renowned hospital, which has for a very long time held a pre-eminent position as the premier teaching hospital and centre of medical excellence in Northern Ireland. It is also greatly valued as the general hospital for the people of west Belfast. On his behalf, I welcome this opportunity to make clear the Government's views on the Royal Victoria hospital and on its future role. I hope that they will add to the hon. Gentleman's conversation with the Secretary of State last Friday.
  I begin, therefore, by making it absolutely clear that the hospital will continue in each of the capacities mentioned. There is no question of the Royal Victoria losing either of them, let alone of its closing, or of a conspiracy to bring it to its knees by a series of cuts in its services. On the contrary, we wish to develop the benefit of the enormous capital investment in the past in the hospital and in the associated hospitals in the group which make up the Royal group of hospitals.
  For example, over the past five years, some £13 million has been spent on a variety of schemes on the Royal group of hospitals site. Current major building schemes on the RGH site under construction or about to start amount to some £18 million. The schemes include new laboratories, a new mortuary, an extension to the dental hospital and further redevelopment of the Royal Belfast hospital for sick children. Only recently, my colleague Lord Arran opened a new magnetic resonance imaging unit at the Royal, the very latest in high-tech diagnostic equipment and the only one in Northern Ireland.

  135
  Within the past two years, new cardiac surgery theatres have been built, and a new cardiac catheterisation unit and cardiac intensive care beds have been provided. Over the past five years, Government have spent some £13 million on major schemes alone and are now spending or plan to spend a further £18 million. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) that there is no intention of allowing those enormous investments to go to waste.
  I want to put it firmly on the record that the future of the Royal group is secure. The hon. Member for Belfast, West, of all people, will, with his expert medical knowledge to which I have alluded, recognise that advances in medical and surgical research and practice justify and demand changes in the provision of hospital services if full advantage of them is to be gained. Any examination of the history of the RVH will reveal that it has evolved very successfully over the years to meet the demands made upon it and to embrace the newest medical and technological developments. I have every confidence that it will continue to do that.
  The Government have introduced an internal market into the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland reflecting what has happened here in Great Britain. That means that the health and social services boards and some GPs have become purchasers of services and that hospitals, such as the Royal group of hospitals trust, which I am pleased to have helped establish, have become largely autonomous providers which are expected to respond to the requirements of their purchasers and to compete among themselves to secure contracts.
  The Government expect boards and GP fundholders to use the contracting process and the spur of competition to tackle inefficiencies. That should improve the quality of services and develop new services. The RGH trust, like every other provider, will be expected to participate fully in this process and to adapt as necessary to meet the requirements of its purchasers.
  I should like if I may to say a few words about the position of the Eastern health and social services board, which, as the Royal's principal purchaser, can be expected to have a considerable degree of influence over the future direction of the Royal. I am aware that the chairman of the Eastern board made it clear last week that the board envisages a continuing and important role for the Royal, and we naturally welcome that.
  As the hon. Member for Belfast, West if fully aware, the board has proposed a number of changes to the pattern of hospital services in its area, and those are set out in its "Statement of Purchasing Intent for Acute Hospital Services". The closing date for comments on that was 14 May. I know that the hon. Gentleman, along with many others, has made his views fully known to the board, and indeed in person to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
  My noble Friend Lord Arran has made it clear that he does not intend to comment at this stage on the merits or otherwise of the board's proposals. After all, the board will need to weigh the very many responses which it has received, and to reach its own conclusions about the future direction of acute hospital services in the Eastern area as part of its remit. However, I know that the board is fully aware that its conclusions must come to the Minister
  136
  responsible for health and social services for his endorsement before they can be reflected in the board's future purchasing intentions.
  My noble Friend will want in particular to be satisfied that Queen's university will continue to be able to discharge its clinical teaching and research responsibilities satisfactorily and that the very specialised regional medical services, provided almost entirely in the two Belfast teaching hospitals, will be properly safeguarded.
  I am aware, from what the hon. Gentleman has said, that a matter of more immediate alarm and concern is the board's proposals for the purchase of services from the Royal in 1993–94. I hope what I have said about the security of the Royal's future will go far to dispel that concern.
  The board has a duty, however, to ensure that the money available to it is spent in a way that secures the maximum provision of services of the high quality that is needed and expected. That must be beyond question. Unnecessary expenditure is money wasted that could be spent on more operations, improved facilities for patients, and on scanners, drugs, hospital amenities and anything that could benefit patients in Northern Ireland.
  While mentioning patients, I must stress that the reason for our reforms—remembering that any money saved in our health reforms is ploughed back into patient care—is to benefit patients. As far as we are concerned, patients are the most important people in the provision of a national health service.
  I value greatly, as does Lord Arran, the excellent service provided by doctors, nurses and all those who work in ancillary services in our hospitals. We take pride in the quality of health in Northern Ireland. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is second to none. The patients do and must come first. Therefore, we must ensure that their needs are answered. That is why the board must look carefully at relative costs when considering future contracts. The board has reached agreement with all the other providers, but at present there is disagreement with the Royal group and the City hospital as to the board's proposals.
  The hon. Gentleman set out the nature of those proposals. Their purpose is to secure the delivery of general surgery and ENT treatment as the lowest available cost but with no decline in standards. The proposals derive from the respective costings offered by the Royal and the City hospital and from no hidden agenda of any sort.
  The Management Executive of the Department of Health and Social Services has been asked to resolve the issue. It will aim to do that as quickly as possible, in consultation with both parties. It will, of course, wish to take into account the reliability of the costings offered by both the Royal and the City hospital, but it will wish to consider a number of other factors, including the implications of the proposed transfer of admissions for teaching and specialised regional services.
  Both Lord Arran and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State are well aware of the concerns that many have raised about the impact of any reductions in services at the Royal, both on the accessibility of hospital services for the population of west and north Belfast and the unemployment level there. The unemployment level in west Belfast is already extremely high. Lord Arran has asked me to say that he will ensure that those areas are examined most carefully both in seeking a resolution of the

  137
  contract issue between the eastern board and the Royal in 1993–94 and assessing the board's longer-term proposals for the Royal.
  Hospitals do not exist in total isolation from the communities that they serve. Hospitals are part of the community. Therefore, the provision of services in west Belfast is an important contribution to the economy of that area. That point is admitted, and will be taken into account by my noble Friend when he takes his consideration of these issues later.
  I know that Lord Arran has been concerned that a good deal of the negotiation process between the board and the Royal has been exposed to the media and that that has caused widespread concern in the public at large about the future of the Royal and their access to services. Both he and I regard this as most regrettable. I would ask those who have chosen to go public in that way—while doubtless for the best of motives—to consider carefully whether that is serving the best interests of the public and patients.
  Mr. Hume: When the Minister talks about people going public and dealing with the best interests of the patients, he must realise that he is talking about the senior consultants, the medical staff, the nursing staff and the entire staff of the hospital, who have provided the outstanding service to which he referred. Last week, they went public in a powerful way. If they are deeply concerned about this matter, is it any wonder that the rest of us are concerned?
  Mr. Hanley: What I said still stands. I have no wish on earth to believe that the doctors, the nurses or any of those involved in the ancillary services have anything other than the interests of patients at heart. I said that they had done What they did for understandable reasons.
  But they are in a process of negotiation. I do not believe that making the matter public has created the right atmosphere within which sensible decisions can necessarily be taken. It increases worry and tension.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hanley: No. I am coming to the end now, and I want to complete my speech.
  To go public during the contracting process is undesirable.
  Mr. McNamara: What about the public interest?
  Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman mentions the public interest. I am answering the public interest. I hope that the debate tonight helps to answer the public interest and assure the people not only of Belfast but of Northern Ireland that the future of the Royal Victoria hospital is secure.
  There have been calls from some quarters for the Department of Health and Social Services to set aside the board's strategic planning process for hospital services and carry out a regional overview. My colleague Lord Arran has rejected that, on the grounds that boards are expected to plan their services within regional guidelines issued by the Department. That is what the Eastern board is required to do, and exactly what it is doing. I am sure that we can resolve the issues in the coming weeks.
  The Royal Victoria hospital is, as the hon. Member for Belfast, West said, pre-eminent in its field. I spent many months when I was the Minister with responsibility for health and social services dealing with the Royal and its on-going problems and trying to secure the service for the future. I believe that that future is secure, as I have said several times this evening, but no hospital can stand still and say that, because it exists, it should therefore be funded. It has to justify its existence and improve its service to the public in terms of the medicine that it provides, the new techniques which are available and the added expectations of the public.
  In the national health service, we provide neither a job protection scheme nor furniture warehouses. We provide places where skills will meet the needs of patients. Therefore, the hospital will succeed into the future, and the funding that the Government have provided for Northern Ireland will continue to increase. I believe that the future of the Royal Victoria hospital is secure for patients. I hope that the negotiations in the coming few weeks will prove that that is so. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Belfast, West for the contribution that he has made tonight, which I
  am sure is an important part of that debate.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Twelve midnight.

TRANSPORT

  Buses
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the average age of buses in each of the last seven years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The average age of Hackney buses and coaches with nine or more seats in Great Britain licensed at the end of each of the last seven years is given in the table.

  Average age.

  Year

  Years

  1986

  7·8

  1987

  8·0

  1988

  8·2

  1989

  8·3

  1990

  8·4

  1991

  8·8

  1992

  9·2

  Source: DVLA.

  Aircraft Security
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to ensure that the Civil Aviation Authority enforces, and that British registered airlines comply with, the security regulations in regard to the quantity of baggage permitted to be brought into aircraft cabins.

  Mr. Norris
  The CAA recently issued a notice reminding aircraft and aerodrome operators of the measures available to them for restricting the excessive carriage of cabin baggage and of their duty to comply with them in the interest of passenger safety. The authority will continue to monitor the situation to ensure that the regulations are adhered to.

  Bus Services, London
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many bus routes in London have been put out to tender; what savings have resulted; and how many of these tenders were won by London Buses.

  Mr. Norris
  London Transport operates some 650 bus routes in London. Of these, 268 have been competitively tendered, with London Buses winning 132. LT estimates that tendering has produced average costs savings, net of administration costs, of 15 per cent.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who will be responsible for responding to requests from residents' groups on residential estates in London to discuss the introduction of a bus service.
  2
  Mr. Norris
  London Transport has a general duty under the London Regional Transport Act 1984 to provide or secure the provision of public passenger services for Greater London. It has no statutory obligation to respond to approaches from residents' groups, but such organisations are free to approach LT direct to discuss future bus provision.

  Privilege Rail Tickets
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the number of privilege rail tickets granted under reciprocal arrangements to employees of overseas railway administrations for travel within Great Britain in 1991–92.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail advises that it issued 57,023 coupons for such travel on its services in the calendar year 1991. It is not known how many of these were actually used.

  Bus Operators
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the publicly or municipally-owned bus operators that are excluded from submitting tenders for the provision of services in Great Britain.

  Mr. Freeman
  All publicly or municipally owned bus operators are free to submit tenders to provide bus services.

  Robin Hood Line
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the Government will be making additional funding available for the Robin Hood line between Nottingham and Mansfield.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government will be making available to Nottinghamshire county council additional resources of £6·5 million for stage 2 of the Robin Hood line. These resources are in addition to the £367,000 which the Government have already made available towards the costs of stage 1 of the line. The additional resources should make it possible to extend the Robin Hood line from Nottingham at least as far as Mansfield.

  Taxis
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had with the National Association of Taxi and Private Hire Licensing Enforcement Officers regarding two-tier taxi licensing systems, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  My officials met the National Association of Taxi and Private Hire Licensing Enforcement Officers on 5 May to discuss the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles, principally outside London. NAPTHELO gave the Department copies of its draft proposals for the future of the taxi and private hire vehicle licensing system which we will be studying with interest.

  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he has taken on the recommendations contained in paragraph 23 of the report of the working party on the safety of users of taxis and minica bs in London.
  3
  Mr. Norris
  I am aware of the situation outside London where there is a two-tier system for licensing taxis and private hire vehicles. I will take experience of this into account in making a decision on any changes to the licensing regime for the capital.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in respect of how many parliamentary questions a substantive answer was not provided by his Department wholly or partly on the ground of disproportionate cost in each of the last 18 months(a) in total and (b) as a proportion of questions answered.

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is as follows:

  Month

  Number of Parliamentary questions answered

  Number of disproportionate cost answers

  Percentage

  November 1991

  392

  2

  0·51

  December 1991

  173

  0

  —

  January 1992

  223

  0

  —

  February 1992

  371

  1

  0·26

  March 1992

  172

  0

  —

  April 1992

  General Election

  —

  —

  May 1992

  170

  0

  —

  June 1992

  359

  2

  0·55

  July 1992

  259

  1

  0·38

  August 1992

  Recess

  0

  —

  September 1992

  Recess

  0

  —

  October 1992

  205

  1

  0·48

  November 1992

  334

  1

  0·29

  December 1992

  181

  1

  0·55

  January 1993

  196

  2

  1·02

  February 1993

  418

  0

  —

  March 1993

  392

  0

  —

  April 1993

  213

  1

  0·48

  Total

  4,058

  12

  0·29

  Third Thames Crossing
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what cost-benefit analysis was used in selecting his Department's preferred option of a bridge, rather than a tunnel, for the A102 Blackwall third crossing; what emphasis this cost-benefit analysis gave to the impact of a bridge on the local community, business and the environment; if his Department will publish the cost-benefit analysis in full in time for the consultation phase; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department has a standard cost benefit analysis for assessment of the effects of new road schemes in urban conditions—URECA—which addresses the likely change in traffic conditions and therefore the effect on the local community. The scheme's technical appraisal, which contains a summary of this analysis, is available and I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy if he wishes.

  A formal environmental assessment is not prepared in the early stages of a scheme. Full details of the preferred bridge option for a new crossing at Blackwall, including landscaping proposals, air quality and noise pollution assessments, were included in public exhibitions held recently as part of the current public consultation exercise.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he had with local government,4
  community and business organisations prior to publication of his Department's consultation document on the A102 Blackwall third crossing; and how many of the organisations that he met were in favour of the Department's preferred bridge option.

  Mr. Norris
  Earlier this year the Department consulted on an informal basis the London boroughs of Greenwich and of Tower Hamlets and the London Docklands development corporation. It also had similar informal consultations with British Gas because of its wide-ranging Port Greenwich development proposals on its land at Blackwall peninsula and with industrialists on the north bank. The recent, widely advertised public consultation exercise is the opportunity for all interested parties to comment. Not surprisingly, the bridge option has received a mixed reaction.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a detailed environmental assessment, including analysis of noise pollution, of the planned bridge at Blackwall.

  Mr. Norris
  A formal environmental assessment is not prepared in the early stages of a scheme. Full details of the preferred bridge option for a new crossing at Blackwall, including landscaping proposals, air quality and noise pollution assessments, were included in public exhibitions held recently as part of the current public consultation exercise.

  Oxleas Wood
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has recently received any communication from the European Commission with regard to Oxleas wood in Woolwich; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  I have recently received the European Commission's reasoned opinion on the east London river crossing. We will study it carefully but remain confident that we will be able to persuade the Commission of the merits of our case.

  M6
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was paid for the land at Red Star which was bought for widening the M6 at Fulwood in Preston.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Department does not disclose information about individual compensation claims.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Attorney-General what proportion of cases were discontinued by the crown prosecution service on the grounds of(a) evidential insufficiency or (b) it being not in the public interest to continue for each year since the instigation of the crown prosecution service.

  The Attorney-General
  Reasons for discontinuance are not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  5
  The total numbers of defendant cases discontinued in each year were as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1987–88

  108,900

  1988–89

  120,714

  1989–90

  140,313

  1990–91

  151,236

  1991–92

  174,411

  1992–93

  193,774

  The interim findings of Home Office research into the reasons for the termination of cases included 54 per cent. terminated on evidential grounds and 32 per cent. terminated in the public interest.

  Table 1

  Magistrates' Courts Cases 1987–88

  Received1

  Finalised

  of which:

  Advice only

  Completed in Magistrates' Courts

  Discontinued

  Committed to Crown Court

  Other Disposals

  Inner London

  92,761

  172,251

  1,825

  111,506

  7,208

  16,162

  35,550

  London North

  41,369

  75,557

  1,425

  46,379

  4,895

  8,709

  14,149

  London South

  35,900

  67,720

  1,670

  50,677

  5,749

  6,236

  3,388

  Avon/Somerset

  18,373

  35,649

  1,234

  28,099

  2,138

  3,417

  761

  Herts/Bedfordshire

  16,029

  28,091

  1,465

  21,441

  1,942

  2,239

  1,004

  Cambridge/Lincolnshire

  14,791

  28,914

  916

  23,182

  1,783

  2,396

  637

  Cheshire

  11,849

  24,956

  1,423

  19,248

  1,754

  1,765

  736

  Cleveland/North Yorkshire

  18,808

  37,889

  3,554

  27,296

  2,390

  3,024

  1,625

  Cumbria/Lancashire

  31,247

  64,617

  12,125

  41,663

  4,430

  4,773

  1,626

  Derbyshire

  13,666

  29,377

  730

  24,390

  1,789

  1,977

  491

  Devon/Cornwall

  16,433

  31,040

  2,409

  23,336

  2,837

  2,211

  247

  Dorset/Hampshire

  26,960

  51,736

  1,663

  40,369

  4,113

  4,753

  838

  Durham/Northumbria

  33,070

  62,742

  2,124

  41,703

  4,659

  7,030

  7,226

  North Wales

  16,263

  29,036

  1,069

  23,534

  2,249

  1,425

  759

  Essex

  14,671

  27,554

  223

  21,299

  2,908

  2,311

  813

  Gloster/Wiltshire

  14,090

  27,237

  633

  21,677

  2,299

  1,858

  770

  Greater Manchester

  46,451

  82,736

  689

  64,604

  6,249

  8,565

  2,629

  Gwent/South Wales

  37,610

  70,943

  2,023

  55,724

  7,010

  4,315

  1,871

  Humberside

  11,753

  25,095

  1,049

  18,483

  1,019

  3,421

  1,123

  Kent

  17,872

  37,448

  997

  28,444

  3,798

  3,423

  786

  Leicester/ Northamptonshire

  21,223

  36,919

  607

  28,012

  3,018

  3,471

  1,811

  Merseyside

  25,296

  48,442

  821

  35,456

  4,415

  5,460

  2,290

  Norfolk/Suffolk

  18,656

  36,066

  2,510

  27,698

  2,578

  1,952

  1,328

  Nottinghamshire

  17,560

  37,200

  843

  33,064

  890

  2,955

  2552

  South Yorkshire

  19,933

  36,511

  1,624

  26,610

  2,483

  4,207

  1,587

  Staffordshire/Warwickshire

  19,934

  37,446

  2,196

  28,461

  2,937

  2,788

  1,064

  Sussex

  20,242

  41,593

  1,791

  32,375

  4,622

  2,289

  516

  Thames Valley

  26,708

  45,981

  3,110

  36,271

  2,584

  3,008

  1,008

  West Mercia

  12,877

  27,148

  1,163

  20,352

  2,052

  2,269

  1,312

  West Midlands

  38,060

  70,346

  2,210

  53,333

  2,453

  8,900

  3,450

  West Yorkshire

  35,878

  72,732

  639

  52,799

  9,649

  7,584

  2,061

  Total Field

  786,333

  1,500,972

  56,760

  1,107,485

  108,900

  134,923

  92,904

  1 October 1987 to March 1988 only.

  2 Minus value.

  Other disposals comprise committal hearings in which the defendant was discharged, cases where the defendant was bound over to keep the peace, instances where the defendant cannot be found, and other cases where the prosecution cannot proceed (e.g. through the death of the defendant).

  The minus value for Other Disposals in the Nottinghamshire Area is produced because the sum of advice only, completed, discontinued and committed to the Crown Court cases is greater than the total number of cases recorded as finalised. This result is produced because of limitations in administrative arrangements for obtaining the basic data in the Area at that time. The occurrence of such circumstances is now avoided by validity checks and controls which have since been introduced.
  6
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases were(a) received by the crown prosecution service from police, (b) completed in the magistrates court, (c) discontinued by the crown prosecution service before or at the magistrates court hearing, (d) committed to the Crown court by the magistrates court or (e) otherwise disposed for each year since the instigation of the crown prosecution service in each crown prosecution service region.

  The Attorney-General
  The tables show the numbers of defendant cases in each category dealt with in the 31 areas of the crown prosecution service for each year since April 1987. Cases received for pre-charge advice are also shown. "Other proceedings", such as forfeiture under the Obscene Publications Act, have been recorded separately since 1991.
  7

  Table 2

  Magistrates' Courts Cases 1988–89

  Received

  Finalised

  of which:

  Advice only

  Completed in Magistrates' Courts

  Discontinued

  Committed to Crown Court

  Other Disposals

  Inner London

  176,686

  169,844

  1,263

  107,070

  10,683

  16,073

  34,755

  London North

  83,399

  74,351

  1,363

  47,041

  5,978

  9,321

  10,648

  London South

  73,715

  73,877

  1,712

  52,558

  6,839

  6,036

  6,732

  Avon/Somerset

  38,258

  37,629

  1,065

  29,775

  2,573

  3,076

  1,140

  Herts/Bedfordshire

  32,735

  31,600

  1,946

  24,167

  2,211

  2,612

  664

  Cambridge/Lincolnshire

  28,438

  25,930

  1,132

  19,565

  1,864

  2,419

  950

  Cheshire

  24,291

  23,850

  1,093

  18,400

  2,055

  1,951

  351

  Cleveland/ North Yorkshire

  38,637

  35,958

  2,327

  26,500

  2,435

  3,271

  1,425

  Cumbria/Lancashire

  57,891

  58,937

  7,310

  41,361

  3,648

  5,079

  1,539

  Derbyshire

  24,487

  24,510

  2,418

  18,014

  1,653

  2,147

  278

  Devon/Cornwall

  31,393

  31,521

  2,510

  23,457

  2,419

  1,875

  1,260

  Dorset/Hampshire

  59,983

  57,588

  1,474

  46,198

  3,759

  4,660

  1,497

  Durham/Northumbria

  67,852

  64,376

  2,827

  41,463

  5,778

  6,476

  7,832

  North Wales

  32,068

  30,284

  1,038

  24,273

  2,793

  1,558

  622

  Essex

  30,179

  30,193

  469

  21,549

  3,572

  2,433

  2,170

  Gloster/Wiltshire

  25,960

  26,156

  884

  20,321

  2,492

  1,731

  728

  Greater Manchester

  94,678

  89,938

  2,209

  68,370

  8,207

  8,622

  2,530

  Gwent/South Wales

  72,264

  70,254

  2,361

  53,192

  7,307

  4,325

  3,069

  Humberside

  27,276

  26,591

  1,320

  19,309

  1,715

  3,458

  789

  Kent

  34,392

  34,807

  1,116

  26,216

  3,719

  2,999

  757

  Leicester/Northamptonshire

  38,384

  35,616

  1,022

  28,046

  3,186

  2,487

  875

  Merseyside

  51,872

  50,438

  815

  38,133

  4,419

  5,225

  1,846

  Norfolk/Suffolk

  37,690

  37,247

  3,075

  29,091

  2,660

  2,284

  137

  Nottinghamshire

  38,507

  36,464

  618

  30,304

  956

  3,324

  1,262

  South Yorkshire

  44,934

  41,685

  5,045

  28,502

  2,866

  4,101

  1,171

  Staffordshire/Warwickshire

  40,008

  38,935

  1,897

  29,351

  3,236

  3,012

  1,439

  Sussex

  34,598

  34,527

  2,480

  24,671

  2,385

  2,456

  2,535

  Thames Valley

  48,547

  45,479

  3,189

  34,056

  2,748

  3,051

  2,435

  West Mercia

  26,777

  25,946

  932

  20,567

  2,241

  1,787

  419

  West Midlands

  79,276

  77,450

  2,125

  61,123

  3,029

  8,526

  2,647

  West Yorkshire

  78,941

  66,367

  603

  45,877

  11,288

  7,352

  1,247

  Total Field

  1,574,116

  1,508,348

  59,638

  1,098,520

  120,714

  133,727

  95,749

  Other disposals comprise committal hearings in which the defendant was discharged, cases where the defendant was bound over to keep the peace, instances where the defendant cannot be found, and other cases where the prosecution cannot proceed (e.g. through the death of the defendant).

  Table 3

  Magistrates' Courts Cases 1989–90

  Received

  Finalised

  of which:

  Advice only

  Completed in Magistrates' Courts

  Discontinued

  Committed to Crown Court

  Other Disposals

  Inner London

  166,374

  169,577

  2,522

  105,622

  12,756

  16,497

  32,180

  London North

  82,137

  73,167

  1,920

  46,689

  7,236

  8,484

  8,838

  London South

  67,902

  71,849

  1,816

  48,947

  6,925

  5,757

  8,404

  Avon/Somerset

  37,910

  38,190

  1,225

  29,238

  2,965

  2,918

  1,844

  Herts/Bedfordshire

  32,376

  32,535

  1,851

  23,836

  2,694

  2,565

  1,589

  Cambridge/Lincolnshire

  32,495

  30,527

  1,020

  23,591

  2,410

  2,559

  947

  Cheshire

  25,452

  24,749

  1,143

  18,664

  2,369

  1,978

  595

  Cleveland/ North Yorkshire

  36,699

  36,378

  2,964

  25,802

  2,816

  3,272

  1,524

  Cumbria/Lancashire

  61,369

  58,902

  2,924

  44,422

  4,555

  5,272

  1,729

  Derbyshire

  26,755

  25,840

  4,264

  17,096

  1,798

  2,282

  400

  Devon/Cornwall

  34,051

  33,937

  2,320

  25,240

  2,518

  2,606

  1,253

  Dorset/Hampshire

  63,602

  61,892

  1,853

  48,706

  3,826

  5,098

  2,409

  Durham/Northumbria

  68,322

  65,455

  2,441

  42,777

  7,602

  5,141

  7,494

  North Wales

  34,621

  32,937

  865

  26,121

  3,477

  1,597

  877

  Essex

  34,542

  34,109

  176

  24,359

  4,592

  2,432

  2,550

  Gloster/Wiltshire

  28,221

  27,270

  840

  20,857

  2,989

  1,626

  958

  Greater Manchester

  101,713

  98,186

  3,099

  74,557

  9,143

  7,756

  3,631

  Gwent/South Wales

  76,175

  71,402

  3,721

  52,209

  8,311

  4,787

  2,374

  Humberside

  26,797

  26,430

  1,223

  19,343

  2,047

  3,059

  758

  Kent

  36,291

  36,180

  1,253

  26,921

  4,081

  3,193

  732

  Leicester/ Northamptonshire

  35,756

  33,427

  797

  24,999

  3,186

  2,812

  1,633

  Merseyside

  60,932

  56,517

  841

  43,944

  4,324

  4,896

  2,512

  Norfolk/Suffolk

  39,843

  38,450

  2,885

  29,984

  2,702

  2,595

  284

  Nottinghamshire

  41,323

  39,371

  894

  32,848

  1,674

  2,811

  1,144

  89

  Received

  Finalised

  of which:

  Advice only

  Completed in Magistrates' Courts

  Discontinued

  Committed to Crown Court

  Other Disposals

  South Yorkshire

  48,632

  46,277

  5,669

  31,325

  3,468

  4,188

  1,627

  Staffordshire/Warwickshire

  45,379

  43,401

  1,665

  32,672

  3,878

  3,420

  1,766

  Sussex

  36,267

  35,364

  1,641

  25,567

  2,737

  2,562

  2,857

  Thames Valley

  49,572

  49,830

  2,331

  32,833

  2,726

  2,700

  9,240

  West Mercia

  26,363

  26,149

  932

  20,558

  2,568

  1,825

  266

  West Midlands

  80,785

  77,601

  1,806

  59,803

  4,621

  8,586

  2,785

  West Yorkshire

  82,691

  79,148

  5,223

  50,850

  13,319

  7,473

  2,283

  Total Field

  1,622,347

  1,575,047

  64,124

  1,130,380

  140,313

  132,747

  107,483

  Other disposals comprise committal hearings in which the defendant was discharged, cases where the defendant was bound over to keep the peace, instances where the defendant cannot be found, and other cases where the prosecution cannot proceed (e.g. through the death of the defendant).

  Table 4

  Magistrates' Courts Cases 1990–91

  Received

  Finalised

  of which:

  Advice only

  Completed in Magistrates' Courts

  Discontinued

  Committed to Crown Court

  Other Disposals

  Inner London

  149,066

  154,355

  2,518

  90,613

  12,507

  15,997

  32,720

  London North

  79,181

  80,764

  2,260

  48,806

  8,350

  8,274

  13,074

  London South

  65,872

  65,781

  1,882

  43,195

  6,775

  6,121

  7,808

  Avon/Somerset

  37,379

  37,139

  1,247

  28,560

  3,295

  2,667

  1,370

  Herts/Bedfordshire

  32,858

  34,002

  1,731

  23,002

  3,018

  2,032

  4,219

  Cambridge/Lincolnshire

  31,521

  30,363

  1,090

  22,933

  2,906

  2,689

  745

  Cheshire

  25,526

  24,440

  1,055

  18,491

  2,423

  1,921

  550

  Cleveland/ North Yorkshire

  38,070

  36,286

  2,119

  25,948

  3,117

  3,612

  1,490

  Cumbria/Lancashire

  63,795

  59,425

  1,946

  43,834

  5,118

  6,184

  2,343

  Derbyshire

  24,356

  23,549

  2,517

  16,410

  1,743

  2,190

  689

  Devon/Cornwall

  33,629

  33,169

  1,797

  25,139

  2,730

  2,618

  885

  Dorset/Hampshire

  62,045

  61,971

  1,180

  48,603

  3,784

  5,531

  2,873

  Durham/Northumbria

  73,573

  71,632

  2,725

  46,092

  9,319

  5,425

  8,071

  North Wales

  37,353

  35,587

  708

  28,531

  3,983

  1,752

  613

  Essex

  37,378

  37,346

  561

  22,638

  4,828

  2,642

  6,677

  Gloster/Wiltshire

  29,938

  29,526

  722

  22,400

  3,637

  1,923

  844

  Greater Manchester

  103,485

  98,847

  3,242

  77,492

  9,226

  7,323

  1,564

  Gwent/South Wales

  80,708

  80,575

  4,135

  58,331

  8,910

  5,246

  3,953

  Humberside

  27,952

  27,283

  1,407

  19,269

  1,999

  3,282

  1,326

  Kent

  33,685

  34,183

  1,276

  24,030

  4,844

  3,266

  767

  Leicester/ Northamptonshire

  36,957

  38,676

  922

  28,211

  4,128

  2,870

  2,545

  Merseyside

  61,576

  58,631

  671

  44,591

  5,236

  4,800

  3,333

  Norfolk/Suffolk

  38,674

  37,232

  3,453

  26,968

  3,142

  2,561

  1,108

  Nottinghamshire

  41,615

  42,852

  589

  35,018

  1,632

  2,827

  2,786

  South Yorkshire

  51,699

  53,383

  5,518

  37,773

  3,991

  4,345

  1,756

  Staffordshire/Warwickshire

  44,463

  43,132

  1,674

  31,393

  4,048

  3,410

  2,607

  Sussex

  35,943

  35,466

  1,572

  25,590

  2,627

  2,899

  2,778

  Thames Valley

  48,018

  49,072

  2,346

  33,314

  3,915

  2,990

  6,507

  West Mercia

  27,241

  26,392

  1,175

  20,510

  2,511

  1,959

  237

  West Midlands

  78,970

  80,803

  1,272

  62,133

  5,146

  8,025

  4,227

  West Yorkshire

  92,531

  90,567

  17,441

  50,491

  12,348

  7,306

  2,981

  Total Field

  1,625,057

  1,612,429

  72,751

  1,130,309

  151,236

  134,687

  123,446

  Other disposals comprise committal hearings in which the defendant was discharged, cases where the defendant was bound over to keep the peace, instances where the defendant cannot be found, and other cases where the prosecution cannot proceed (e.g. through the death of the defendant).

  Table 5

  Magistrates' Courts Cases 1991–92

  Received

  Finalised

  of which:

  Advice only

  Completed in Magistrates' Courts

  Discontinued

  Committed to Crown Court

  Other Disposals

  Other Proceedings

  Inner London

  147,693

  145,829

  2,421

  85,120

  19,029

  14,383

  23,867

  1,009

  London North

  79,637

  74,897

  2,233

  47,219

  11,778

  7,480

  5,307

  880

  London South

  60,768

  60,537

  1,932

  39,940

  7,674

  5,609

  4,961

  421

  Avon/Somerset

  36,472

  36,832

  1,074

  25,461

  4,550

  3,042

  2,174

  531

  Herts/Bedfordshire

  31,273

  33,392

  2,272

  20,148

  4,228

  1,597

  4,383

  764

  Cambridge/Lincolnshire

  29,788

  28,562

  1,311

  20,291

  3,142

  2,668

  908

  242

  Cheshire

  24,766

  24,901

  849

  17,792

  2,701

  2,050

  850

  652

  10 11

  Received

  Finalised

  of which:

  Advice only

  Completed in Magistrates' Courts

  Discontinued

  Committed to Crown Court

  Other Disposals

  Other Proceedings

  Cleveland/North Yorkshire

  39,989

  39,471

  1,686

  25,401

  4,371

  3,865

  2,149

  2,000

  Cumbria/Lancashire

  61,855

  61,726

  2,428

  43,100

  5,914

  6,293

  3,625

  366

  Derbyshire

  24,801

  25,054

  4,031

  14,984

  1,595

  1,958

  2,144

  343

  Devon/Cornwall

  33,194

  34,170

  1,297

  25,541

  2,747

  2,271

  1,898

  416

  Dorset/Hampshire

  63,300

  65,363

  1,524

  49,598

  4,862

  5,135

  3,497

  747

  Durham/Northumbria

  67,866

  66,196

  2,235

  44,431

  9,825

  5,575

  3,561

  569

  North Wales

  38,774

  37,161

  810

  28,426

  3,693

  1,670

  2,028

  534

  Essex

  41,888

  38,387

  1,454

  27,537

  3,333

  2,410

  3,319

  414

  Gloucestershire/Wiltshire

  32,823

  32,991

  964

  23,292

  3,826

  1,818

  2,570

  521

  Greater Manchester

  102,983

  102,507

  2,624

  71,969

  9,904

  7,818

  6,410

  3,782

  Gwent/South Wales

  76,878

  76,416

  4,147

  53,035

  8,648

  5,089

  4,262

  1,235

  Humberside

  26,238

  26,158

  1,557

  17,702

  1,792

  3,109

  743

  1,255

  Kent

  29,179

  29,907

  1,072

  19,502

  4,848

  3,025

  1,182

  278

  Leicester/ Northamptonshire

  37,856

  42,023

  1,288

  28,766

  3,807

  3,162

  4,537

  1,046

  Merseyside

  56,711

  61,230

  762

  44,812

  6,428

  5,321

  3,453

  454

  Norfolk/Suffolk

  38,188

  38,695

  3,254

  27,715

  3,434

  2,706

  1,200

  384

  Nottinghamshire

  28,302

  32,536

  577

  22,877

  4,339

  2,482

  1,767

  394

  South Yorkshire

  43,538

  47,227

  5,317

  28,105

  4,652

  4,322

  4,343

  197

  Staffordshire/ Warwickshire

  45,059

  45,261

  2,068

  32,713

  4,643

  3,404

  1,696

  737

  Sussex

  36,194

  36,320

  1,878

  25,557

  3,664

  2,709

  2,145

  366

  Thames Valley

  41,994

  41,889

  2,342

  28,095

  5,717

  2,810

  2,394

  530

  West Mercia

  25,094

  26,379

  1,748

  18,444

  2,829

  1,652

  1,310

  359

  West Midlands

  77,827

  70,992

  709

  50,197

  7,984

  7,028

  4,184

  890

  West Yorkshire

  90,247

  85,844

  15,473

  50,877

  8,454

  7,206

  3,408

  436

  Total Field

  1,571,175

  1,568,853

  73,337

  1,058,747

  174,411

  129,667

  110,275

  22,752

  Other disposals comprise committal hearings in which the defendant was discharged, cases where the defendant was bound over to keep the peace, instances where the defendant cannot be found, and other cases where the prosecution cannot proceed (e.g. through the death of the defendant).

  Table 6

  Magistrates'Courts Cases 1992–93

  Received

  Finalised

  of which:

  Advice only

  Completed in Magistrates' Courts

  Discontinued

  Committed to Crown Court

  Other Disposals

  Other Proceedings

  Inner London

  146,480

  148,352

  2,749

  80,785

  22,538

  11,440

  29,075

  1,765

  London North

  76,838

  73,918

  3,781

  44,749

  12,284

  5,556

  6,498

  1,050

  London South

  58,390

  58,182

  2,322

  37,363

  8,481

  4,720

  4,845

  451

  Avon/Somerset

  34,379

  34,049

  1,283

  22,485

  4,549

  2,650

  2,611

  471

  Herts/Bedfordshire

  30,415

  30,408

  1,814

  19,159

  3,881

  1,787

  2,757

  1,010

  Cambridge/Lincolnshire

  31,326

  28,325

  1,669

  20,255

  3,328

  2,173

  720

  180

  Cheshire

  26,300

  25,749

  1,478

  17,752

  2,653

  1,976

  951

  939

  Cleveland/North Yorkshire

  40,663

  40,418

  2,135

  26,210

  5,480

  3,655

  1,636

  1,302

  Cumbria/Lancashire

  62,616

  61,486

  2,398

  43,497

  6,625

  5,097

  3,281

  588

  Derbyshire

  23,285

  23,613

  3,967

  14,200

  2,062

  1,711

  1,386

  287

  Devon/Cornwall

  30,174.

  30,985

  1,428

  23,106

  2,659

  2,026

  1,394

  372

  Dorset/Hampshire

  58,043

  59,271

  1,750

  43,874

  4,724

  3,913

  4,330

  680

  Durham/Northumbria

  68,353

  69,382

  2,151

  44,856

  12,478

  4,748

  4,656

  493

  North Wales

  36,250

  36,436

  1,218

  27,077

  4,175

  1,665

  1,757

  544

  Essex

  39,869

  41,670

  2,030

  28,385

  3,064

  1,974

  6,065

  152

  Gloucestershire/Wiltshire

  33,417

  33,434

  1,168

  22,858

  3,835

  1,496

  3,014

  1,063

  Greater Manchester

  105,716

  103,350

  2,382

  71,911

  10,541

  7,568

  6,202

  4,746

  Gwent/South Wales

  75,537

  77,529

  5,083

  50,273

  9,395

  4,684

  6,647

  1,447

  Humberside

  24,139

  24,042

  1,382

  16,536

  1,949

  2,320

  379

  1,476

  Kent

  28,463

  27,643

  1,125

  17,907

  4,865

  2,366

  1,156

  224

  Leicester/Northamptonshire

  38,202

  40,406

  2,334

  26,174

  4,773

  3,104

  2,973

  1,048

  Merseyside

  54,586

  56,090

  1,099

  41,584

  5,960

  4,835

  2,238

  374

  Norfolk/Suffolk

  36,760

  37,951

  3,484

  26,610

  3,156

  2,244

  1,651

  806

  Nottinghamshire

  27,794

  28,837

  523

  19,876

  4,083

  2,530

  1,501

  324

  South Yorkshire

  39,155

  39,885

  5,257

  22,839

  6,342

  3,106

  2,049

  292

  Staffordshire/Warwickshire

  46,806

  45,895

  2,741

  33,027

  4,981

  2,872

  1,383

  891

  Sussex

  32,739

  32,186

  1,719

  22,082

  4,011

  2,049

  2,038

  287

  Thames Valley

  45,320

  45,489

  3,108

  28,714

  6,201

  2,449

  4,231

  786

  12 13

  Received

  Finalised

  of which:

  Advice only

  Completed in Magistrates' Courts

  Discontinued

  Committed to Crown Court

  Other Disposals

  Other Proceedings

  West Mercia

  27,614

  26,977

  1,198

  19,200

  3,833

  1,544

  908

  294

  West Midlands

  76,593

  74,305

  1,545

  48,616

  9,986

  6,524

  6,095

  1,539

  West Yorkshire

  74,364

  76,249

  6,228

  48,403

  10,882

  7,300

  3,212

  224

  Total Field

  1,530,586

  1,532,512

  72,549

  1,010,363

  193,774

  112,082

  117,639

  26,105

  Other disposals comprise committal hearings in which the defendant was discharged, cases where the defendant was bound over to keep the peace, instances where the defendant cannot be found, and other cases where the prosecution cannot proceed (e.g. through the death of the defendant).

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Attorney-General what assessment his Department has made of the proportion of victims who are consulted when a case is discontinued by the crown prosecution service.

  The Attorney-General
  The crown prosecution service does not consult victims directly. Where appropriate the victim's views are made known to the CPS through the police, who are consulted before a case is discontinued and to whom the victims charter assigns the role of keeping victims informed about proceedings. The interests of the victim are an important factor in determining the balance of the public interest.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Profit-related Pay
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the estimated cost in 1991–92 and 1992–93 of tax forgone by the Inland Revenue through profit-related pay schemes.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The latest information is as follows:

  Estimated cost of income tax relief

  £ million

  1991–92

  40

  11992–93

  200

  1 Provisional.

  Self-employed People
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many self-employed people in Wales have claimed tax relief on personal pension payments in each of the last three years; and if he will indicate in each instance the number who have claimed the maximum amount of tax relief available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91, the most recent three years available, the estimated numbers of self-employed people in Wales claiming relief on pension payments are 50,000, 60,000 and 70,000 respectively. Reliable information on numbers claiming the maximum relief is not available.

  Rugby Football
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment the Inland Revenue has made of the implications of the Rugby Football Union report entitled "Inducements to Move, Incentives to Stay and Other Illegal Payments", a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.
  14
  Mr. Dorrell
  The Inland Revenue is aware of the Rugby Football Union report. It is making inquiries to establish whether any players have received taxable income or benefits which they have not declared. It will take appropriate action when its inquiries are completed.

  Water Expenditure
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underlie the differential categorisation of borrowing for water supply purposes by Scottish, English and Welsh local authorities as respect Government expenditure; and what plans he has to bring the positions into line.

  Mr. Portillo
  In Scotland expenditure by local authorities on water and sewerage is subject to the same controls as other capital expenditure. No distinction is made between borrowing for water supply and for other local authority capital projects.

  English and Welsh local authorities have no statutory responsibility for developing and maintaining water supplies, except in the Isles of Scilly and do not therefore need to borrow to finance capital investment. Supplementary credit approvals are issued by the Department of the Environment for capital expenditure in connection with the provision of supplies in the Isles of Scilly.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of how many parliamentary questions a substantive answer was not provided by his Department wholly or partly on the ground of disproportionate cost in each of the last 18 months(a) in total and (b) as a proportion of questions answered.

  Mr. Nelson
  Relatively few parliamentary questions are not answered substantively by Treasury Ministers on ground of disproportionate cost.

  Overseas Contracts
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy towards British subjects working on contracts in the middle east for United Kingdom companies whose salary is administered in Britain for income tax and national insurance contributions.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The tax treatment of United Kingdom citizens working abroad for United Kingdom companies, whether in the middle east or elsewhere, depends on a number of factors, including their residence status for United Kingdom tax purposes; and the terms of any relevant double taxation agreements and the length of time they spend outside the United Kingdom.
  15
  I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security that, where individuals remain ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom while working abroad, they and the United Kingdom companies to which they are contracted are liable to pay class 1 national insurance contributions for the first 52 weeks of employment in most middle eastern countries. Contributions may be paid voluntarily by the individual after that time.

  Israel is the only middle eastern country with which the United Kingdom has a social security convention. Under the terms of that convention, class 1 contributions may be due for the first five years of employment there. Liability would arise under Israeli national insurance law if the employment lasted for longer than five years.

  Inland Revenue Solicitor
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the future structure of the offices of the Solicitor of Inland Revenue and the Solicitor of Inland Revenue (Scotland).

  Mr. Dorrell
  The offices of the Solicitor of Inland Revenue and of the Solicitor of Inland Revenue (Scotland) were two of the executive offices of the Inland Revenue established in April 1992 as part of the Inland Revenue's response to the next steps programme,Official Report, 6 March 1992, columns 319–21. These offices have been merged for management purposes to form a single executive office under the overall management of the Solicitor of Inland Revenue. However, the post of Solicitor (Scotland) continues to exist within the new office and the holder of the post continues to act as solicitor to the Board of Inland Revenue in Scotland. A framework document for the new office will be placed in the House Library shortly.

  Petrol Tax
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what is the estimated amount of revenue that will be raised by(a) petroleum revenue tax and (b) petroleum excise duty in 1993–94.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 14 May 1993]: Forecast revenues in 1993–94 from petroleum revenue tax are £0·6 billion and from excise duties applied to leaded and unleaded petrol are £9·6 billion.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Drama Funding
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will publish a geographical breakdown of funding for drama provided by the Scottish Arts Council; and if such funding decisions rest with members of the drama committee or the paid officers of the Scottish Arts Council.

  Mr. Brooke
  The geographical breakdown of funding for drama by the Scottish Arts Council is set out in the table. Decisions on revenue funding for drama clients are taken by the council in the light of recommendations by the drama committee. Decisions on funding projects and schemes are taken by the drama committee.
  16

  Drama1

  £

  Borders

  Jane Houston Green

  200

  Central

  Federation of Scottish Theatre Ltd.

  18,000

  MacRobert Arts Centre

  1,900

  19,900

  Edinburgh

  Benchtours

  3,500

  Communicado Theatre Company

  156,873

  Celtech Events

  1,000

  Edinburgh Puppet and Animation Festival

  3,000

  Edinburgh Puppet Company

  9,000

  Edinburgh Touring Circuit

  3,000

  Fifth Estate

  34,000

  Grassmarket Project

  1,500

  Hullaballoo Childrens Theatre

  30,000

  Pat Keysell

  1,255

  Duncan Low

  300

  Jo McNamara

  3,000

  Muirhouse Festival Activities Centre

  900

  Boilerhouse Theatre Company

  13,997

  Royal Lyceum Theatre Co. Ltd.

  530,271

  Streets Ahead Theatre Company

  1,500

  Scottish International Children's Festival

  20,000

  The Traverse Theatre (Scotland) Ltd.

  323,793

  Theatre Scotland

  3,000

  Theatre Workshop Edinburgh Ltd.

  11,500

  1,151,389

  Fife

  Byre Theatre of St Andrews Ltd.

  129,920

  Glasgow

  Annexe Theatre Company

  3,000

  Birds of Paradise Theatre Company

  4,000

  Citizens Theatre Ltd.

  514,786

  Clanjamfrie

  7,500

  Clyde Unity Theatre

  41,000

  Fablevision

  20,000

  Govan Initiative

  2,100

  Jane Jewel

  1,000

  Flloyd Kennedy

  200

  Music Theatre Lab.

  5,000

  Media Theatre Company

  3,000

  Pen-name Theatre

  40,000

  Scottish Mask and Puppet Centre

  3,000

  Jo Smith

  300

  7:84 Theatre Company Ltd.

  175,702

  Scottish Youth Theatre Ltd.

  21,000

  Scottish Drama

  2,000

  Scottish National Association of Youth Theatre

  5,000

  Phyllis Steel

  200

  Ian Turbitt's Puppet Theatre

  300

  Tron Theatre Ltd.

  211,839

  Tag Theatre Company

  151,334

  Visible Fictions

  15,000

  Woodside Area Arts Project

  1,000

  Winged Horse Touring Productions

  18,000

  1,246,261

  Grampian

  Aberdeen Art Gallery/City of Aberdeen

  11,000

  Banff & Buchan District Council

  1,500

  Crathes 1992

  1,500

  The Invisible Bouncers

  6,000

  North East of Scotland Touring Arts

  Co-Ordinating Association

  5,000

  25,000

  Highland

  Eden Court Theatre

  1,000

  Grey Coast Theatre Company

  22,000

  17

  Drama1

  £

  National Gaelic Arts Project

  18,000

  Clown Jewels

  22,000

  Ross & Cromarty District Council

  1,000

  64,000

  Lothian

  East Lothian District Council

  57,541

  Strathclyde

  Black Box Puppet Theatre Trust

  14,628

  Borderline Theatre Company Ltd.

  160,476

  MacMyth Project

  3,000

  Cumbernauld Theatre Trust Ltd.

  36,500

  Edward Jackson

  500

  Wildcat Stage Productions Ltd.

  190,021

  405,125

  Tayside

  Dundee Repertory Theatre Ltd.

  266,486

  Tayside Regional Council

  650

  Pitlochry Festival Soc. Ltd.

  227,193

  Perth Repertory Theatre Ltd.

  266,987

  761,316

  Island Authorities

  Alan Watters

  3,000

  Others

  Assitej G. B.

  500

  Half Moon Young Peoples Theatre

  3,000

  International Workshop Festival

  2,500

  Medieval Players Company Ltd.

  4,000

  Northern Stage Company

  1,000

  Oily Carte Theatre Company

  2,000

  Ra Ra Zoo

  2,000

  15,000

  Total

  3,878,652

  1 All companies are listed within their home region. Many spend a large proportion of their time touring outside that area.

  Marble Hill Park
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what legal obligations and other responsibilities passed on the transfer of ownership of Marble Hill park and house from the Greater London council to English Heritage in respect of the maintenance of Marble Hill park as a public open space and public amenity park including the provision of sports and children's facilities and public access to Marble Hill house.

  Mr. Brooke
  No specific legal obligations were transferred upon the abolition of the Greater London council under the terms of the Local Government Act 1985, although English Heritage accepted a responsibility as a public body to manage and maintain Marble Hill house and park. Paragraph 13 of the Local Government Reorganisation (Property, etc.) Order 1986 conferred additional powers on English Heritage to enable it to manage the park as a public open space and provide recreational facilities.

  Arts Subsidies
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much subsidy from public funds has been provided to the arts in each year since 1987.
  18
  Mr. Brooke
  Government funding for the arts is channelled mainly through the Arts Council of Great Britain. The Arts Council's grant-in-aid for each year since 1987 is set out in the table.

  Year

  £ thousand

  1987–88

  139,300

  1988–89

  152,411

  1989–90

  155,500

  1990–91

  175,792

  1991–92

  1194,200

  1992–93

  221,200

  1993–94

  225,630

  1 This excludes a special payment of £10–8 million to enable the English National Opera to buy the freehold of the Coliseum.

  The Government also fund the business sponsorship incentive scheme, the theatres restoration fund and various research projects. For 1993–94, total central Government expenditure additional to the Arts Council's grant-in-aid will be approximately £5·6 million.

  Local authorities also fund activities, but no definitive figures on their overall expenditure are available.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  UN Conference on Environment and Development
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals the United Kingdom plans to put to the EC Development Council on 25 May, regarding progress made in following up the commitments made at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Development Council will consider progress by the Community since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, including what the Community is doing to help developing countries implement agenda 21. As part of this, the Council will consider the findings of a series of expert groups, in which Britain has played an active part. These groups considered priorities in the implementation of agenda 21 in developing countries. Britain chaired the group which considered energy efficiency issues.

  Africa (Aid)
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of the overseas aid budget goes to countries in Africa; and which five countries in Africa receive the highest proportion of that aid.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In 1991–92 45 per cent. of bilateral aid which could be allocated by region went to Africa. The five top recipients were:

  £ million

  Zimbabwe

  37

  Ghana

  32

  Kenya

  29

  Zambia

  28

  Uganda

  26

  19

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Overseas Development Administration's most recent assessment of the economic situation in sub-Saharan Africa; what are the economic prospects for Africa over the next 10 years on the basis of current international plans of action; and whether Her Majesty's Government will support the drawing up of a new international plan of action for economic recovery.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The situation of many countries in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly the poorest, is likely to continue to be difficult and challenging. Where African Governments are implementing economic and political reforms, these are producing positive results which the United Kingdom and the rest of the international community will continue to encourage and support. This support takes the form of substantial concessional aid, debt relief measures and trading arrangements which provide good access for exports from African countries into important markets including the EC; foreign private investment can be increasingly important where African Governments create the right conditions.

  A framework for guiding international support is already in place at a regional level, through the global coalition for Africa and the special programme of assistance to sub-Saharan Africa and at country level. These arrangements allow African governments, OECD country Governments and key international agencies to collaborate and to co-ordinate support.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what parts of Mozambique he regards, for the purpose of providing aid and development assistance, as Government controlled and what parts as RENAMO administered.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No such distinction is made for aid purposes. Aid is provided to meet identified needs wherever it is practicable to do so, taking account of the resources available and access to appraise and monitor use of the aid.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide details of the channels through which United Kingdom development assistance and food and emergency aid is distributed in Mozambique.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  British food and emergency aid is provided primarily through non-governmental organisations, which are best placed to distribute to those most in need. In addition we have contributed to appeals from the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations Childrens Fund.

  Longer-term development aid is provided in the form of balance of payments aid to support Mozambique's economic reform programme channelled through the Government of Mozambique's system for foreign exchange allocation; capital aid for projects mostly channelled through British companies, and technical co-operation which funds British consultants and experts for a range of projects and training programmes.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much(a) food and
  20
  emergency aid and (b) health care and medical project assistance the United Kingdom has given to (i) Government-controlled areas in Mozambique and (ii) areas administered by RENAMO, in accordance with the October 1992 general peace accord.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As required by protocol VII of the October 1992 peace accord a donor conference was held in Rome in December. At this conference we pledged £3 million of humanitarian assistance. About £1·7 million of this has already been spent mainly for seeds and tools programmes managed by British non-governmental organisations. None of this commitment has so far been spent on medicines. Since the peace accord we and other donors have succeeded in distributing humanitarian aid much more widely throughout the whole of Mozambique, although some areas remain inaccessible.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the estimated levels of diversion and/or theft of United Kingdom aid in Mozambique; and what representations he has made to, or received from, the Mozambique authorities following Mozambican Government commissions of inquiry into aid diversion and theft in Mozambique.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The only reported losses of British bilateral aid have been pilferage of food aid. We estimate the losses to be less than 1 per cent. of bilateral food aid provided in 1992. All our bilateral food aid last year was provided through British non-governmental organisations, which employ contractors, paid on performance, to store and transport the food to specific destinations. Distribution to beneficiaries is supervised by NGOs.

  Distribution of food and other emergency aid is monitored at regular meetings in Maputo, to some of which RENAMO are invited. Our ambassador has taken up cases of pilferage with Ministers in the Government of Mozambique and provincial governors and has received assurances that action is being taken to prevent further instances.

  South Africa
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the new South Africa development division will be operational in Pretoria; and if he will publish details of its first year's budget showing the split between higher education projects and other sectors.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The new British development division in southern Africa will open on 7 June and manage our aid programmes in Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland. We expect the new office to run programmes totalling about £35 million per year. Nearly 40 per cent of this is currently spent on higher education, including postgraduate training awards in a variety of sectors.

  China
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 7 May,Official Report, column 260, if he will list the types of information provided by (a) International Planned

  21
  Parenthood Federation and (b) United Nations Fund for Population Activities to his Department concerning China's population control programme.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  IPPF and UNFPA provide ODA with information about(a) China's population policy and programme (b) their current programmes of technical and financial assistance to China and (c) their planned future activities.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 19 April,Official Report, column 40, on payments to the IPPF and UNFPA, what sums are planned to be given to these organisations in 1993, or the financial year 1993–94.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on 10 May at columns 311–12.

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much has been spent on all aspects of overseas aid in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The figures for gross public expenditure on aid to developing countries are as follows:

  Year

  Amount £ million

  1987–88

  1,410

  1988–89

  1,607

  1989–90

  1,733

  1990–91

  1,883

  1991–92

  2,021

  We have also provided assistance to eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union states as follows:

  1987–88

  —

  1988–89

  —

  1989–90

  64

  1990–91

  14

  1991–92

  119

  Full details on these figures are given in tables B1 and C1 of "British Aid Statistics 1987/88–1991/92", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Belize
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what help the United Kingdom gives to the Belize Government for rain forest work.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 13 May 1993]: A five-year forest planning and management project began in May 1992. The total cost to ODA is £3·73 million. In addition, we have been funding since January 1991 a three-year appointment of a tropical forestry action plan co-ordinator; and have supported a number of land use planning activities which have a direct bearing on the management of the Belize rain forest.

EDUCATION

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education to what investigations his Department has been subject by the Data Protection Registrar in relation to a suspected 22
  breach of a data protection principle; if he will summarise the nature of each complaint and state when the complaint was made; and what remedial action was taken by his Department to ensure future compliance with the principle subject to the investigation.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department's data protection co-ordinator has no record on any investigation by the Data Protection Registrar of any suspected breach of a Data Protection Act principle.

  Select Committee Recommendations
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many Select Committee recommendations have been made about his Department since April 1989; and how many of them have been accepted.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. I refer the hon. Member to the "Sessional Information Digest", copies of which are available in the Library. This lists Select Committee reports and provides reference numbers to Department responses where appropriate.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children with special educational needs attended(a) mainstream state schools, (b) special schools, (c) mainstream state nursery schools and (d) special nursery schools at the latest available date.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is given in the following table.

  Pupils with statements of special educational needs attending maintained schools in England—January 1992

  Number of pupils with statements

  Nursery schools

  298

  Primary, middle and secondary schools

  71,246

  Special schools1

  79,198

  1 Includes 60 pupils attending special nursery schools.

  Youth Service
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals the Government have to provide local authorities with appropriate guidelines to ensure the provision of a wide range of quality youth work; and what priority he considers youth service provision should be for local authorities.

  Mr. Boswell
  The series of ministerial conferences with the youth service established that the youth service is strongly committed to the principle of local determination. It is primarily for individual local authorities to determine their priorities and the type and mix of youth work provision to meet local needs and circumstances in accordance with sections 41 and 53 of the Education Act 1944.

  Pre-school Play Groups
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the estimated financial value of the contribution provided by his Department in England to pre-school play groups in respect of each pupil per session for a year.
  23
  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for playgroup matters in England rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Department for Education makes an annual grant to the Pre-school Playgroups Association for its staff training activities, amounting to £887,000 in 1993–94.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what analysis has been carried out by his Department on the impact of class sizes on educational attainment, distinguishing between impact on(a) primary and (b) secondary school pupils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department continues to monitor and assess research in this area.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many student loans were applied for by students in Wales in each year since its inception; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  This is a matter for the Student Loans Company. I will ask the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Testing
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 10 May, c.323, on spending on testing, if he will break down the figure given between (a) advertising and (b) production of leaflets; how many leaflets were produced; how many parents have to date asked for a copy of the leaflet; how many extra copies of the leaflet have been ordered to date; and at what cost.

  Mr. Forth
  The cost of advertising the leaflet "How is Your Child Doing at School?" is estimated at £415,000. Three million copies are being produced at an estimated cost of £148,000. A total of 981,000 copies of the leaflet were initially distributed to schools, libraries and LEAs at an estimated cost of £84,000. The number of requests for additional copies is still being compiled. A handout giving details about requesting copies of the leaflet will be available to people claiming child benefit at main post offices during the week beginning 31 May.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education in respect of how many parliamentary questions a substantive answer was not provided by his Department wholly or partly on the ground of disproportionate cost in each of the last 18 months(a) in total and (b) as a proportion of questions answered.

  Mr. Boswell
  According to the records available this Department has answered nine parliamentary questions to which substantive answers could not be given on the ground of disproportionate cost since November 1991. This figure represents 0·3 per cent. of the total number of parliamentary questions answered since that date.
  24

  Epileptic Students
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what provisions there are for providing teachers with practical advice in dealing with epileptic students; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department does not itself produce advice for dealing with epileptic pupils and students; useful advice is, however, offered in information booklets produced by organisations such as the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, the British Epilepsy Association and the National Society for Epilepsy.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Garage (Car Removal)
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he will arrange to have the car J767 CUU removed from the House of Commons garage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  This is a matter for the Serjeant at Arms.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce compulsory food labelling for foods containing products of gene technology; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to ensure that all foodstuffs produced involving the use of genetically modified organisms are clearly marked both individually and on their packaging to indicate this fact; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The Government's independent Food Advisory Committee issued a consultation paper on 2 April seeking comments from interested parties on the labelling of foods produced from, or using, genetically modified organisms. Copies of the paper have been placed in the Library of the House.

  I look forward to receiving the Committee's considered advice which we shall consider with great care.

  Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many live animals have been exported from the United Kingdom to each other EC member state since January.

  Mr. Soames
  Information on trade with other EC member states is not currently available. I shall write to the hon. Member when it is.

  IACS Forms
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of eligible agricultural holdings he estimates had not submitted a completed and admissable integrated administration and control system form by 15 May.
  25
  Mr. Curry
  We have been encouraged by the very high proportion of IACS applications received by 15 May which we were able to accept as having been lodged with the Department within the deadline. We now have to carry out detailed checks to determine eligibility for payment.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in respect of how many parliamentary questions a substantive answer was not provided by his Department wholly or partly on the ground of disproportionate cost in each of the last 18 months(a) in total and (b) as a proportion of questions answered.

  Mr. Curry
  The information is as follows:

  Month

  Wholly disproportionate

  Partly disproportionate

  November 1991

  3

  4

  December 1991

  0

  2

  January 1992

  0

  0

  February 1992

  2

  1

  March 1992

  1

  0

  April 1992

  0

  0

  May 1992

  0

  0

  June 1992

  1

  3

  July 1992

  1

  1

  August 1992

  0

  0

  September 1992

  0

  0

  October 1992

  1

  0

  November 1992

  2

  0

  December 1992

  0

  2

  January 1993

  0

  0

  February 1993

  0

  6

  March 1993

  0

  4

  April 1993

  0

  2

  Total

  11

  25

  These combined totals represent 122 per cent. of the written questions answered between November 1991 and April 1993

  Milk Marketing Board
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the various milk marketing board liabilities which are to be transferred to residuary bodies under the terms of the Agriculture Bill[Lords]; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Under the Agriculture Bill it would be for each milk marketing board in Great Britain to apply to Ministers after enactment for approval of formal proposals for the transfer and distribution of its property, rights and liabilities. I cannot prejudge what each board might propose or what Ministers would decide.

  Granite Imports
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 10 May,Official Report, column 329, how many of the 50,000 tonnes of granite brought in from Sweden and France as part of the sea defence scheme have not been used and have
  26
  consequently been removed by lorry, out of Devon, and at what cost; and if he will make a statement as to why British granite was not used.

  Mr. Curry
  All the granite brought in from Sweden and France was used in the sea defences at Beesands. I understand that, in addition, the contractor brought in by road some 11,000 tonnes of British rock to make up an anticipated shortfall in requirements, but in the event this was not needed for the sea defences and was removed, the immediate cost being borne by the contractor. The National Rivers Authority did not specify the source of rock when inviting tenders, only that most of it should be delivered by sea, so that the choice of British or imported rock was a commercial decision by the contractor.

HEALTH

  Health Authority Budgets
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total grant-maintained status budget for each year from 1990–91 to 1994–95 for each family health services authority and regional health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  Regional health authorities and family health services authorities do not have grant-maintained status budgets.

  Maternity Services
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by national health service region the hospitals in England which had consultant obstetric and/or general practitioner maternity beds in 1991–92 and 1992–93, with the numbers of beds of each type in each hospital and each region in each year.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested for 1991–92 will be placed in the Library. Figures for 1992–93 are not yet available. Numbers of beds are now collated in terms of directly managed units and national health service trusts. Beds within one unit may be on more than one site or in more than one hospital. The information is set out in three categories: consultant, general practitioner and mixed. The category "mixed" is where bed use can be either for cases referred by consultants or by GPs.

  Junior Doctors
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of whole-time equivalent junior hospital doctors and the total wage bill in each of the last five years; and what are the projected figures for the next two years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 20 April at columns 76–78, for the available information on the junior doctors wage bill.

  The available information on the number of whole-time equivalent junior doctors is shown in the table. The Department does not make detailed forward projections for the number of whole-time equivalent junior doctors.
  27

  Hospital medical junior doctors 1987–1991

  England—30 September each year whole-time equivalents

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Senior registrar

  2,865·5

  2,865·4

  2,980·3

  3,270·8

  3,399·4

  Registrar

  5,664·5

  5,888·3

  5,822·7

  5,871·7

  5,944·5

  Senior house officer

  9,371·7

  9,883·5

  10,563·3

  10,800·9

  11,210·7

  House officer

  2,782·1

  2,861·3

  2,938·9

  3,013·7

  3,052·5

  HIV
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will consider the preparation and publication of guidelines for a healthy life style for those who are HIV antibody positive but asymptomatic; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Advice on healthy lifestyles for those who are HIV antibody positive but asymptomatic is primarily a matter for individual clinicians to advise on in consultation with their patients. General advice to people who are diagnosed HIV positive, including suggestions on maintaining their health and well-being, is available in various publications, including the Health Education Authority's leaflet "Being Positive—Living with HIV". Copies of this leaflet have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of funds allocated by her Department for HIV and AIDS work in each year since 1987 has been devoted to HIV prevention;

  (2) what proportion of funds allocated by her Department for HIV and AIDS work in each year since 1987 has been devoted to support for the voluntary sector.

  Mr. Sackville
  The table gives details of the proportion of funding from the Department of Health which has been allocated to:National public education programmes and telephone helpline services through the Department of Health and the Health Education Authority;
  Health authorities, since 1989–90, as a contribution towards the additional costs incurred by them in developing community-based local HIV prevention initiatives; and
  The voluntary sector.

  Percentage

  Year

  Public education (DH/HEA/helplines)

  Health authorities Local prevention

  Voluntary sector

  1987–88

  29·8

  —

  3·5

  1988–89

  13·7

  —

  1·5

  1989–90

  8·4

  9·8

  1·1

  1990–91

  6·7

  13·4

  1·2

  1991–92

  6·9

  12·5

  1·2

  1992–93

  5·3

  10·0

  0·9

  1993–94

  4·8

  9·0

  0·8

  These proportions have been calculated in relation to the total HIV/AIDS funding made available by the Department of Health to health and local authorities and non-statutory organisations.

  Funding for other aspects of HIV prevention, such as infection control procedures, is not separately identifiable within total allocations.

  The figures for the voluntary sector do not include any additional funding from health and local authorities. This information is not available centrally.

  28

  Maternal Mortality
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what contribution the United Kingdom Government have made towards achieving the World Health Organisation target of halving the maternal mortality rates in the world by 2000; and if she will list the actions taken by her Department in furtherance of the Government's commitment to safe motherhood given in September 1989.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government support the World Health Organisation's "Health for All" targets, including those for maternal and child health.

  Efforts to reduce maternal mortality in England and Wales have met with considerable success during the past 37 years, over which period the rate has fallen from 100 to 5·6 per 100,000 total births. This success is a tribute to the long-standing co-operation between the professionals involved in maternity care.

  The Government are determined to build on the established excellence of national health service maternity care. An expert maternity group is currently reviewing policy on NHS maternity care, particularly during childbirth. The group's report, to be published in the summer, will be an important aid in clarifying how and where further improvements can be made. For the past four years, maternity services have featured in the NHS chief executive's annual priorities and planning guidance to health authorities. Authorities have been asked to undertake general reviews of their maternity services and to pay particular attention to specific issues such as improving access to maternity services for certain groups of women, for example, those from black and ethnic minority communities, and to arrangements for consultant cover of labour wards.

  Hay Fever
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research she has conducted on the effect of air pollution on the incidence of hay fever; and what action she proposes to take.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council which receives its grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  The Government's Advisory Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution has invited two leading research workers, who are currently undertaking studies of the relationship between levels of air pollutants in London and symptoms among hay fever sufferers, to present information to them on this topic. The Department would ask the MRC to consider any research recommendations made by the Committee.

  Also, the chairman of COMEAP has been instrumental in establishing a working group on the possible effects of air pollutants upon allergic diseases under the auspices of

  29
  the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology. Staff from the Department are participating in the work of this group and will contribute to its report.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent in each health service region on(a) printing and publication costs,, (b) publicity and public relations costs, (c) consultation and public meetings and (d) other costs connected with the proposed establishment of NHS trusts in (i) 1991–92 and (ii) 1992–93; and how much is expected to be spent in 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  Tables 1 and 2 show allocations to regional health authorities for 1991–92 and 1992–93 to cover consultation costs and trust start-up costs, including conveyancing. Detailed breakdowns of this expenditure are not available centrally. The Government are making available £2,042,000 for consultation costs and £36,271,000 for start-up and conveyancing costs for 1993–94.

  Table 1

  Regional allocations for public consultation on trust applications

  Region

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  Northern

  84,000

  132,000

  Yorkshire

  72,000

  192,000

  Trent

  120,000

  204,000

  East Anglian

  36,000

  120,000

  North West Thames

  168,000

  120,000

  North East Thames

  108,000

  156,000

  South East Thames

  120,000

  132,000

  South West Thames

  48,000

  84,000

  Oxford

  96,000

  108,000

  South Western

  108,000

  84,000

  West Midlands

  72,000

  192,000

  Mersey

  96,000

  84,000

  North Western

  72,000

  84,000

  Wessex

  84,000

  120,000

  Total

  1,284,000

  1,812,000

  Table 2

  NHS trusts—Start-up and conveyancing costs

  Region

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  Northern

  1,506,000

  2,310,000

  Yorkshire

  1,506,000

  3,234,000

  Trent

  2,510,000

  3,696,000

  East Anglian

  753,000

  2,310,000

  North West Thames

  3,537,000

  2,361,000

  North East Thames

  2,031,000

  2,353,000

  South East Thames

  2,054,000

  2,870,000

  South West Thames

  753,000

  1,629,000

  Oxford

  1,255,000

  2,079,000

  South Western

  2,259,000

  1,180,000

  West Midlands

  1,506,000

  3,370,000

  Mersey

  2,078,000

  1,617,000

  North Western

  1,506,000

  1,155,000

  Wessex

  1,757,000

  2,310,000

  Total

  25,011,000

  32,474,000

  Diptheria
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has about the source of the diphtheria infection at Whitefield school, Nelson.
  30
  Mr. Sackville
  Health matters in Nelson are the responsibility of Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale district health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. W. Ashworth, chairman of the health authority, for details.

  Blood Donors
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she proposes to take regarding the banning of the use of blood and blood products from paid donors.

  Mr. Sackville
  This country is self-sufficient in blood obtained from our voluntary, unpaid donors and we do not obtain supplies from other sources. It is our long-standing policy to pursue self-sufficiency in blood products made from voluntary, unpaid donations and seek to maximise the use of those products. We also recognise the clinical freedom of doctors to prescribe other products if considered more appropriate for individual patients.

  Research
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been allocated by her Department for research into(a) epidemiology, (b) aetiology and (c) the prevention of cerebral palsy in each of the last five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A research project into the epidemiology of cerebral palsy was carried out at the departmentally funded health care research centre between 1989 and 1991. Exact expenditure on the project is unavailable, but the total allocation made by the Department to the centre was £48,090 in 1989–90 and £35,011 in 1990–91.

  Departmental allocation for other research into the epidemiology of cerebral palsy in later years were:

  Year

  £

  1990–91

  15,200

  1991–92

  23,917

  1992–93

  17,083

  The Department has allocated no money for research into the aetiology and prevention of cerebral palsy. The main agency through which the Government support research is the Medical Research Council which receives its grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Department has recently commissioned a research project into the treatment of cerebral palsy at a total cost of £71,335. This project began in December 1992 and will continue until November 1994.

  Mental Health Act
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the new Mental Health Act 1983 code of practice will be laid before Parliament.

  Mr. Yeo
  Very shortly.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in respect of how many parliamentary questions a substantive answer was not provided by her Department
  31
  wholly or partly on the ground of disproportionate cost in each of the last 18 months (a) in total and (b) as a proportion of questions answered.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Year and Month

  Number of disproportionate cost answers

  Total number of answers

  Percentage of Questions receiving disproportionate cost answers

  1991

  November

  111

  453

  2·43

  December

  0

  211

  ·00

  1992

  January

  0

  357

  ·00

  February

  2

  335

  ·60

  March

  3

  190

  1·58

  April

  —

  —

  —

  May

  0

  195

  ·00

  June

  3

  498

  ·60

  July

  4

  403

  ·99

  August

  —

  —

  —

  September

  —

  —

  —

  October

  3

  270

  1·11

  November

  3

  571

  ·53

  December

  1

  361

  ·28

  1993

  January

  3

  420

  ·71

  February

  5

  571

  ·88

  March

  5

  624

  ·80

  April

  2

  338

  ·59

  TOTAL

  45

  5,797

  ·78

  1These questions asked for detailed information on issues relating to back and other injuries to National Health Service staff and were answered together.

  Pharmacists
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations she has received on the proposals to amend the pay of pharmacists.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have received a number of representations about our proposals for restructuring pharmacists' remuneration. We shall take these into account in the further discussions we shall be having with the pharmacists' representatives.

  Tuberculosis Vaccination
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information she has about the provision of BCG vaccination to school children on a routine basis;

  (2) if she will list those health authorities which (a) provide the BCG vaccination to school children on a routine basis and (b) no longer provide that vaccination;

  (3) what advice she gives to health authorities which (a) no longer routinely offer BCG vaccination to school children and (b) continue to routinely offer BCG vaccination to school children.

  Mr. Sackville
  The advice from the Department of Health is that the schools' BCG programme should continue at least until the academic year 1995–96, pending the results of a survey of the incidence of tuberculosis in this country, which is being conducted by the public health laboratory service. Authorities which have discontinued a32
  school's programme must have in place arrangements for vaccinating clearly defined at-risk groups and for offering the vaccine to any child whose parents request it.

  Information on the level of BCG vaccination in schools is not available on a routine basis, but it is estimated that 75 per cent. of the children in this group are vaccinated each year, with a further 5 to 7 per cent. already tuberculin positive who therefore do not require vaccination.

  It is understood that a small number of health authorities—less than 10 per cent.—have discontinued the school's BCG programme, but their names are not available centrally.

  Overseas Contracts
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy towards British subjects who work on contract in countries outside the EC which have no reciprocal arrangements with the United Kingdom on health care in cases where their salary is administered in Britain by United Kingdom employers and accordingly subject to United Kingdom taxes and national insurance.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  National health service services are available only within the United Kingdom to people ordinarily resident here. United Kingdom nationals working in non-reciprocal health agreement countries are personally responsible for the costs of health care obtained abroad, but, subject to certain criteria remain eligible for NHS treatment in the United Kingdom. It is the Government's policy to negotiate reciprocal health agreements where it is practicable to do so.

  Jeremiah Kearney
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make a statement on the circumstances leading to the death of Jeremiah Kearney;

  (2) whether she intends to review the community care policy and procedures in the light of the death of Jeremiah Kearney.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have asked the social services inspectorate to examine, with the local authorities, the circumstances of this case, and will write to the hon. Member when the inquiries are complete.

  Manic Depression
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is currently being undertaken to identify the cause of, and cures for, manic depression; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Department of Health is not currently undertaking research into the cause of, and cures for, manic depression.

  The main agency through which the Government support research is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I understand that it is currently funding several projects looking at manic depression.

  Comfrey
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (I) what detailed studies have been undertaken into the toxicity of the alkaloids found in comfrey of which she
  33
  is aware; and which were taken into account by the committee on toxicity when compiling its recent report on the toxicity of comfrey;

  (2) if she will list those pyrrolizidine alkaloids which were found by the committee on toxicity to be present in comfrey and which gave rise to its recent recommendation that comfrey tablets and capsules should be banned; and if she will indicate, in the case of each of those pyrrolizidine alkaloids, which are known to be toxic at the levels found in these products and which are not.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on 19 April at columns 5–6.

  Copies of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's analysis of comfrey products, and of the advice of the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, which includes the key studies it considered, are available in the Library.

  Pharmacies
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to amend the essential small pharmacy scheme; and what estimate has been made of the impact of different options on the numbers of pharmacies which dispense less than 2,000 prescriptions a month.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department is discussing changes to improve the essential small pharmacy scheme with the pharmaceutical services negotiating committee. Our proposals will ensure that patients continue to enjoy reasonable access to a local pharmaceutical service.

  Public Telephones
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received from deaf people about the unsuitability of the new public telephone booths; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have been asked to reply.

  This Department has no record of recent representations along these lines. Condition 33 of BT's licence requires BT take all reasonable steps to install in all public call boxes apparatus enabling people using hearing aids designed for use in conjunction with telephones to do so.

PRIME MINISTER

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister to what investigations his Office has been subject by the Data Protection Registrar in relation to a suspected breach of a data protection principle; if he will summarise the nature of each complaint and state when the complaint was made; and what remedial action was taken by his office to ensure future compliance with the principle subject to the investigation.

  The Prime Minister
  My office has not been subject to any such investigations by the Data Protection Registrar.

  Defence Work
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Prime Minister what initiatives he is co-ordinating to encourage the allocation of defence work and related employment to the north of England and Scotland.
  34
  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement on Friday 14 May at column 603.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister in respect of how many parliamentary questions a substantive answer was not provided by his Department wholly or partly on the ground of disproportionate cost in each of the last 18 months(a) in total and (b) as a proportion of questions answered.

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested is available in the Library of the House. However, I have answered approximately 1,300 written questions since October 1991, just over 1 per cent. of which were not answered either wholly or partly on the ground of disproportionate cost.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Dedicated Electricity Generation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he published his departmental discussion document on dedicated generation; to whom it has been circulated; and when responses should be returned to his Department.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department of Trade and Industry's consultation paper on dedicated and own generation was issued on Tuesday 4 May to holders of electricity licences, the Director General of Electricity Supply, representatives of consumers, the electricity pool and others known to the Department to have an interest in the proposals.

  Copies of the paper are available from the Department of Trade and Industry, room 2.3.17a, 1 Palace street, London, SW1E 5HE, on request. Responses have been requested by Friday 28 May.

  Trade Mark Reform
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to introduce legislation on trade mark reform as proposed in the White Paper, Cm. 1203.

  Mr. Leigh
  A Bill to implement the proposals in the White Paper has been fully drafted. Unfortunately, pressure on the legislative programme has been particularly severe. We will introduce legislation as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.

  Leather Goods
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to press the European Commission for an improved system of origin marking for leather goods manufactured in the EC from leather produced outside the EC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 6 May 1993]: No. A previous attempt to interest other member states in anC-wide policy on origin marking attracted little support.

  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Ms Harman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the overall amount guaranteed under the loan guarantee scheme in each of the last seven years, the
  35
  average amount guaranteed, the number of businesses that have taken up the scheme, the number of businesses that have applied for loans under the scheme, the number of businesses that have been refused loans under the scheme and the amount paid out under defaulted loans.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 10 May 1993]: Information on the scheme is held by financial year. The number of businesses which have taken up a loan is not available; some businesses have had two or more loans. The number of businesses which have applied for, and the number that have been refused loans is not available. The number of loans guaranteed, the overall amount guaranteed, the average amount guaranteed and the amount paid out under the defaulted loans for each of the last seven financial years has been:

  Loans guaranteed

  Value £ million

  Average loan £

  Default cost £ million

  1986–87

  1,042

  39·94

  38,300

  18·5

  1987–88

  1,222

  45·52

  37,200

  9·5

  1988–89

  2,266

  63·61

  28,100

  8·9

  1989–90

  3,204

  99·40

  31,000

  10·1

  1990–91

  3,387

  84·56

  25,000

  21·7

  1991–92

  2,933

  69·48

  23,700

  31·6

  1992–93

  2,342

  52·35

  22,350

  22·4

  Unleaded Petrol
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of petrol sold in the years 1990, 1991 and 1992 was unleaded.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 14 May 1993]: The proportion of petrol sold in the years 1990, 1991 and 1992 that was unleaded was 34 per cent., 41 per cent. and 47 per cent. respectively. In the first quarter of 1993 the proportion of unleaded sales reached 51 per cent.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to publish his review of the assisted areas map; and if he will make a statement.

  NHS district nurses and health visitors in training: by health board, as at 30 September

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  District nurses

  Health visitors

  District nurses

  Health visitors

  District nurses

  Health visitors

  District nurses

  Health visitors

  District nurses

  Health visitors

  Argyll and Clyde

  1·0

  —

  6·0

  9·0

  2·0

  18·0

  6·0

  11·0

  —

  —

  Ayrshire and Arran

  10·0

  9·0

  6·8

  7·0

  5·0

  5·3

  1·0

  —

  2·0

  3·0

  Borders

  —

  1·0

  4·0

  1·

  5·0

  —

  4·0

  —

  1·0

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2·0

  3·

  1·0

  2·0

  2·0

  1·0

  2·0

  1·0

  1·0

  2·0

  Fife

  3·0

  5·0

  1·0

  5·0

  5·0

  4·0

  3·0

  4·0

  —

  1·0

  Forth Valley

  3·8

  3·0

  2·0

  3·0

  1·0

  2·0

  —

  2·0

  —

  —

  Grampian

  19·0

  23·0

  20·0

  18·0

  22·0

  15·0

  7·0

  8·0

  3·5

  1·0

  Greater Glasgow

  31·7

  26·0

  25·0

  21·0

  13·0

  12·0

  1·0

  3·

  —

  —

  Highland

  5·0

  4·0

  4·0

  3·0

  5·0

  2·0

  6·0

  —

  5·0

  —

  Lanarkshire

  10·0

  11·0

  5·0

  12·0

  2·0

  2·0

  1·0

  1·0

  3·0

  3·0

  Lothian

  23·5

  20·0

  19·0

  14·3

  12·0

  15·0

  14·0

  13·0

  7·

  3·0

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  1·0

  —

  1·0

  1·0

  2·0

  2·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  8·0

  10·0

  5·0

  6·0

  11·0

  8·0

  4·0

  6·0

  7·0

  6·0

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scotland

  118·0

  115·0

  99·8

  102·3

  87·0

  86·3

  49·0

  49·0

  29·5

  19·0

  36
  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 13 May 1993]: I refer to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) on 6 May, Official Report, column 206.

SCOTLAND

  Hospital Beds
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of acute beds each year since 1988–89, in each specialty in each major general hospital.

  Mr. Stewart
  I shall write to the hon. Member direct with this information and place a copy in the House of Commons Library.

  Free Prescriptions and Dental Treatment
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of people between the ages of 16 and retirement age, receive(a) free prescriptions and (b) free dental treatment.

  Mr. Stewart
  An estimated 22 per cent. of the population between the age of 16 and state pension age are eligible for free prescriptions and 23 per cent. are eligible for free dental treatment. An estimated further 2 per cent. are entitled to some help with their dental charges.

  All young people under 18 receive free dental treatment.

  Health Service Staff
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of(a) community psychiatric nurses, (b) district nurses and (c) health visitors in training each year since 1988–89, in each health board.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information relating to community psychiatric nurses in training cannot be identified from data held centrally. The information requested regarding health visitors and district nurses is shown in the table.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of nurses in training each year from 1988–89 to 1992–93.
  37
  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Nurses in training as at 30 September

  Year

  1 Number

  2P2000

  1988

  10,801

  —

  1989

  10,912

  —

  1990

  10,524

  —

  1991

  9,989

  —

  1992

  7,979

  1,403

  1Includes basic students and pupils, plus nurses on post-basic training courses.

  2 Project 2000.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of health care assistants employed by each health board in each year since 1988–89.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  NHS Trusts
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the salaries of the unit managers who were appointed to the position of chief executive of NHS trusts, for the year 1992–93; what are their current salaries in their new capacity of chief executive; and if he will outline any changes in their conditions of service resulting from their new posts.

  Mr. Stewart
  This information is not held centrally.

  Sub-post Offices
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment has been made of the effect on sub-post offices in Scotland of the proposal to remove social security payments from their remit.

  Mr. Stewart
  No proposals to remove social security payments from the remit of sub-post offices have been made.

  Playgroups
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial assistance is available from his Department for voluntary playgroups to meet the requirements of the Children Act 1989 and other legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Financial assistance has not been made available to local groups for this purpose. Many groups in eligible areas, however, receive assistance for their general activities under the urban programme. The Scottish Pre-School Play Association also receives grants under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 to provide member groups with support, advice and training.

  The provisions of the Children Act 1989 which govern day care, including playgroups, came into force on 14 October 1991. They were widely welcomed as a means of raising standards and improving the quality of the care provided for young children.

  Paintball
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to bring the law in Scotland into line with the law in England and Wales in so far as it relates to paintball markers and the sport of paintball.
  38
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 May 1993]: My right hon. Friend is currently considering what action might be appropriate in the light of the recent Appeal Court judgment that certain types of paintball guns are specially dangerous weapons as defined by the Firearms Act 1968, as amended. Responsibility for amending firearms legislation is primarily a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  Elderly Patients, Haddington
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the provision of additional hospital accommodation for the continuing care of elderly patients in Haddington to replace the receiving ward at East Fortune hospital.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 13 May 1993]: It will be for the East and Midlothian Unit NHS trust, if its application for trust status is approved, to take forward plans for the replacement of East Fortune hospital, in discussion with purchasing health boards.

  Assessment of the need for national health service accommodation for the continuing care of the elderly in East Lothian is a matter for Lothian health board. The provision of such accommodation is a matter for the board as purchaser and, if its application for trust status is approved, the East and Midlothian NHS trust.

  Hospital Consultants
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many consultants are engaged in obstetrics and gynaecology in Scotland; and how many of these are women.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 14 May 1993]: There were 128 consultants in obstetrics and gynaecology in post in Scotland, of whom 14 were women, at 30 September 1992, the latest date for which information is available centrally.

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the length of the delays which have occurred in respect of the completion of the caissons for the Skye bridge; if he will explain the reasons for the delays and the degree of slippage in the original timetable as a result, with specific reference to weather and geological considerations; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 May 1993]: There has been a delay of approximately five months in placing both caissons on to the seabed from the original programme. This very difficult operation involves marine works in deep water and is highly dependent on the occurrence of suitable weather and tidal conditions. Delays due to inappropriate weather and tidal condition have also been exacerbated by the longer time being taken to prepare the seabed excavations in very hard rock. Both the design and geotechnical teams involved are ensuring that all due appropriate care is taken in this important phase of the work. By reacting appropriately to these difficult circumstances the contractor is confident that the completion date of mid-1995 will be unaffected.
  39

  House Building, Dundee
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive and adjudicate upon the public inquiry report on the proposal to build houses in Kellas village in the city of Dundee district.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 13 May 1993]: The public inquiry to which the hon. Member refers was convened on 23 March 1993 to take evidence from objectors in relation to the City of Dundee district council's rural area local plan. Objections to the proposals for housing development within Kellas village were heard in relation to the local plan. The reporter appointed to conduct the inquiry will report direct to the council. The Secretary of State is therefore not called upon to intervene in this process which is essentially a matter for the local planning authority.

EMPLOYMENT

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications have so far been received by the Health and Safety Executive for permission genetically to modify organisms; and how many centres are currently known to be conducting such work.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Three notifications for consent to undertake work involving genetic modification have been received by the Health and Safety Executive and 473 centres are currently known to be conducting such work.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement providing details of those projects for which permission has so far been granted genetically to modify organisms indicating, in each case, whether that work has commenced; and at which centre.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No consents have so far been issued.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consultations are made by the Health and Safety Executive before granting permission for projects involving the genetic modification of organisms.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Before issuing a consent, consultation is undertaken with the Health and Safety Commission advisory committee on genetic modification, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of the Environment and, in relation to their territories, the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office. Members of the public have access to information about notifications received and the opportunity to make representations while the application is being considered.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make it her policy routinely to report to Parliament details of those projects for which perMission is given genetically to modify organisms.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) expect to receive some hundreds of applications for consent under the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 1992 and the detailed information provided with them is copious and technically very complex. However, information about such consents 40
  is available from HSE—although the regulations allow some sensitive items to be withheld to protect intellectual property rights. The main elements of that information are held on a public register.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what new EC regulations there are concerning health and safety for the workplace; when they will be implemented; what measures she intends to take to ensure that they are fully implemented by all employers; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  On 1 January this year, the United Kingdom introduced the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations, the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations, the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations, the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations, the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations, the Manual Handling Operations Regulations, and the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (Amendment) Regulations to implement the EC framework directive on health and safety at the workplace and a series of associated directives which required implementation action by this date.

  There are a further seven adopted EC directives concerning health and safety at the workplace which are awaiting implementation covering biological agents at work, to be implemented by 26 November 1993; provision of safety and/or health signs at work, 24 June 1994; temporary or mobile construction sites, 31 December 1993; indicative limit values, 31 December 1993; improving the safety and health of workers in the extractive industries—boreholes, 3 November 1994, mines and quarries, 3 December 1994; and pregnant workers, 9 October 1994.

  In addition, there are five sets of regulations under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 in preparation which will be brought forward to implement EC legislation covering the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances; vocational training for drivers of vehicles carrying dangerous goods by road; and the protection of workers exposed to the risks of ionising radiation.

  Employers have a statutory duty to comply with regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. The regulations which came into force on 1 January 1993 are being enforced by the appropriate authorities in the same way as other health and safety legislation. The Government appreciate that employers need time to assimilate and implement new regulations and that timescales for implementation of EC directives are short. HSE inspectors are concentrating on promoting awareness and providing guidance, particularly where requirements are new or more prescriptive than earlier legislation. They will continue to take enforcement action where significant risks exist.

  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced a scrutiny into the way EC regulations impact upon business. The scrutiny is due to report on 27 May. We shall study its recommendations with interest.
  41
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has to amend the current health and safety regulations for the workplace; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department has no immediate plans to amend the current health and safety regulations which apply to the workplace.

  The Health and Safety Commission has a remit under section 1(2) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 to seek to rationalise and modernise health and safety legislation, by means including consolidation, and has made substantial progress. In the context of the Government's deregulation initiative, the commission is now conducting a review of all existing health and safety legislation. The review, which should take about 12 months to complete, will consider whether further repeals or simplification are possible without endangering acceptable health and safety standards.

  Construction Workers
  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what policies she has to address problems encountered by British workers obtaining short-term employment on German construction sites.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to this issue. There are agencies, usually based in the Netherlands, which advertise vacancies in the British press for construction workers to take up jobs in Germany. Very often, these jobs turn out to be illegal, breaking German labour leasing and self-employment laws and involving evasion of tax and social security payments. British workers who take up this employment have no protection under German health and safety regulations. They face on-the-spot fines of several hundred pounds and are typically paid less than they have been promised. These conditions often leave people seriously out of pocket, forcing them to seek repatriation through the consulates general.

  Officials are entering discussions with the Dutch and German authorities to seek ways of curbing these abuses. Meanwhile, steps are being taken to alert British workers to the dangers involved. There will be warnings in information the jobcentres provide about working in Germany and accompanying the form E101, issued by the Department of Social Security to people seeking to work in Europe but paying tax and insurance at home.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Diplomatic Relations
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the basis on which Government Ministers can visit countries with which the United Kingdom does not maintain diplomatic relations.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The existence of diplomatic relations with other countries is not a precondition for ministerial visits to them.

  Mrs. Sikandari Jan
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision is to be taken on an application from Mrs. Sikandari Jan and her 42
  daughter Azra Bibi Khan made to the United Kingdom post in Islamabad, Ref. IMM/B4075, in October 1992 to enter the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The high commission is awaiting confirmation of an offer of employment for Mr. Khan, the sponsor of Mrs. Sikandari Jan. They wrote to his potential employers to request this on 16 November 1992, and have since reminded Mr. Khan of the importance of this information, but have to date received no reply.

  United Nations Peacekeeping Operations
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much is scheduled to be contributed by his Department to United Nations peacekeeping operations for the current year; and if he will indicate the level of contribution paid out to date.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom contributes 6.373 per cent. on the scale of assessment to the United Nations peacekeeping budgets.

  We have paid our 1993 contributions 1 January to 31 March 1993 as follows:

  ․

  UNEF/UNDOF (Golan Heights)

  1,068,752·00

  UNIFIL (Lebanon)

  4,659,637·00

  UNAVEM (Angola)

  1,514,184·00

  UNIKOM (Iraq/Kuwait)

  1,207,777·00

  ONUSAL (El Salvador)

  720,386·00

  UNTAC (Cambodia)

  19,499,962·00

  UNPROFOR (Ex Yugoslavia)

  20,311,627·00

  ONUMOZ (Mozambique)

  8,822,136·00

  Total

  57,804,461·00

  The total United Kingdom assessed contributions for financial year 1993–94 were estimated at 1 April to be 145 million. Total figures are, however, difficult to predict accurately, as much depends on how operations develop, and exchange rate fluctuations.

  Recently approved further appropriations mean additional United Kingdom assessed contributions of ․9 million for UNPROFOR, ․15 million for UNTAC and ․1·3 million for UNIKOM for calendar year 1993. Formal requests for payment are received from the United Nations throughout the calendar year and paid promptly.

  We also contribute forces to UNTAC, MINURSO— western Sahara—UNPROFOR, UNIKOM and UNFICYP, Cyprus. Ministry of Defence costs for financial year 1993–94 for these forces were estimated at 1 April at £105 million. These estimates are also subject to revision as operations develop.

  Croatia
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to invite the Croat President, General Franjo Tudjiman, to pay a state visit to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are no such plans.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the United Kingdom's relations with Croatia.
  43
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We deplore the recent resurgence of fighting between Bosnian Croats and Muslims in central Bosnia, particularly around Mostar. We also take very seriously the reports of ethnic cleansing of Muslims by Bosnian Croats. The Croatians should have no doubt that these incidents will have a bearing upon the development of relations between Croatia and both the United Kingdom and the European Community.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether evidence is being collected by the EC war crimes investigators detailing alleged Croat attrocities against civilians in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The investigation of war crimes is not part of the mandate of the EC monitoring mission in former Yugoslavia. But ECMM members have witnessed the aftermath of atrocities. A United Nations commission of experts was set up to collate, investigate and analyse evidence of violations of international humanitarian law in former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Croatia about Croatian aggression against Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The president of the United Nations Security Council issued a statement on 10 May condemning the fighting between the Bosnian Croats and Muslims. The EC presidency, on behalf of the EC and member states, sent a firm message to President Tudjman on 12 May protesting at the renewed fighting between Bosnian Croats and Muslims in Mostar and at reports of ethnic cleansing carried out by Bosnian Croats. It warned that stronger measures may be considered if the Croatians do not bring these actions to an end.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has reviewed the status of the United Kingdom's diplomatic relations with Croatia following the recent attacks by Croatian forces on civilians in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No such review has taken place. But we are watching events closely in central Bosnia and expect President Tudjman to use all his influence to end the latest Bosnian Croat offensive and to prevent further atrocities. Unless this happens, the international community will consider taking stronger measures against Croatia.

  China
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to seek an EC boycott of goods manufactured by slave labour in China's prison camps; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have no plans to seek such a boycott. In the United Kingdom the Foreign Prison-Made Goods Act of 1897 prohibits the direct import of goods made, or wholly produced in any foreign prison, or like establishment. We have repeatedly made clear to the Chinese authorities our concern about the widespread abuses of human rights in China and urged them, and other countries who have not yet done so, to ratify the relevant international instruments covering slavery, forced labour and similar practices.
  44
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received about(a) the use of intra-uterine devices in China compared with other contraceptives and (b) the fining of women refusing or removing IUDs.

  Mr. Goodlad
  According to official Chinese reports, IUD use represented 41 per cent. of total contraceptive use in 1989.

  We are concerned that family planning regulations in some provinces stipulate the imposition of fines if IUDs are removed without prior approval.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the practice of infanticide in China of babies born without state permission.

  Mr. Goodlad
  None. We are looking into this allegation urgently.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of(a) the draft model laws on population control issued by the Chinese central Government and (b) the laws made by individual provincial Governments; and what representations he has made.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We are concerned that some provinces appear to have coercive family planning regulations. We are opposed to the use of any coercion in population programmes and the Chinese Government are fully aware of our views.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received about measures taken against parents by Chinese Government officials where women refuse sterilisation or abortion.

  Mr. Goodlad
  None. We are looking into this allegation urgently.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the policy of sanctions ais an effective instrument against aggressors in the former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Sanctions have proved an effective instrument of pressure on Serbia. They have contributed to the change of heart by the Serbian leadership which has now indicated its support for the Vance-Owen peace plan.

  United Nations Security Council Resolution 820 adopted on 17 April 1993 will further increase pressure on Serbia and Montenegro. We shall continue our active efforts to ensure that the recently introduced measures are enforced rigorously on a world wide basis. In addition we are examining ways of further isolating the Bosnian Serbs from the outside world. These efforts will continue for as long as the Bosnian Serbs reject the path to peace.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Croatian Government in respect of the rounding up and detention of civilians in and around the town of Mostar; and if he will make a statement.
  45
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The presidency, on behalf of the EC and member states, sent a firm protest to Croatian President Tudjman on 12 May condemning the actions of the Bosnian Croats, particularly in Ahinici and Mostar. It also warns that should Croatia fail to play its part in ending the fighting, this will have a bearing on Croatia's relationship with the EC.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to UNPROFOR and the International Red Cross to investigate the results of the alleged atrocity at Bosanski Brod in Bosnia-Herzegovina where the mass grave was seen by hon. Members on 2 May.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  To protect their impartial status, neither UNPROFOR nor the International Commit tee for the Red Cross is mandated to investigate alleged atrocities in Bosnia. The investigation of evidence of war crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia is being conducted by the United Nations commission of experts established under United Nations Security Council resolution 780.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the operation of sanctions in the former Yugoslavia; and if the policy will be extended to Croatia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  United Nations Security Council resolution 820 represents a significant toughening of sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro. Efforts continue further to tighten enforcement.

  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs told the House on 12 May, the EC General Affairs Council discussed the question of sanctions against Croatia on 12 May, but concluded that such action was not justified at this stage.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the United States Administration in respect of the possible role of United States ground forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United States is already playing a considerable role in Bosnia: United States aircraft are helping to enforce the no-fly zone and airdrop relief supplies into eastern Bosnia and United States vessels are taking part in the NATO sanctions flotilla in the Adriatic.

  We remain in close touch with the United States Administration over possible policy options and the question of ground forces in Bosnia.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to prevent human rights violations in Cambodia.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia is mandated to oversee the human rights situation in the country.

  We have encouraged UNTAC in the various steps it has taken to pursue human rights abuses, including the appointment of a special prosecutor. As well as our assessed contributions to UNTAC's costs, we have made a voluntary contribution of £70,000 to its human rights
  46
  component. In addition, we actively support human rights groups in Cambodia and have organised programmes in the United Kingdom for their representatives to meet British human rights groups and Government officials. We have also paid for the translation and distribution within Cambodia of the two international human rights covenants signed by the supreme national council in April 1992.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to ensure that human rights are protected in Cambodia once UNTAC withdraws.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We co-sponsored the resolution at the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva in February requesting the UN Secretary-General to appoint a special representative to co-ordinate the UN's human rights presence in Cambodia after the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia's withdrawal. The former President of the Philippines, Corazon Aquino, has since been nominated for this role.

  The resolution also mandated the centre for human rights to run a human rights programme in Cambodia after UNTAC has withdrawn.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what pressure is being brought to bear on the state of Cambodia to ensure co-operation with UNTAC and with the implementation of UNTAC's proposals.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Secretary-General's representative to Cambodia and the signatories to the Paris agreements are in regular contact with the authorities of the state of Cambodia to secure maximum compliance with their obligations under the Paris agreements including those in respect of the electoral process, human rights and the ceasefire.

  Northern Cyprus
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now introduce restrictions on trade with northern Cyprus.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We are considering various options to secure the return of Asil Nadir to face trial. The question of imports to the United Kingdom from northern Cyprus is the subject of a case pending before the European Court of Justice.

  United Nations
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will currently list all military conflicts between countries and all civil wars in which the United Nations has been involved; and what is the nature of United Nations involvement in each case.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations is actively involved in peacekeeping operations in the following geographical areas:

  UNOMOZ (United Nations Mission in Mozambique)

  Mandate: Verification of the ceasefire, the separation and concentration of forces, their demobilisation and the collection, storage and destruction of weapons; to provide security for vital infrastructure and to provide security for United Nations and other international activities in support of the peace process.
  47
  UNAVEM II (United Nations Angola Verification Mission)

  Mandate: Originally to monitor the withdrawal of Cuban forces, the maintenance of the ceasefire and the elections. However, the crisis that developed after the election thrust UNAVEM into a central mediating role. The deteriorating security situation has now further limited UNAVEM's ability to facilitate negotiations between the Government and UNITA. UNAVEM's mandate expires at the end of May, and a report by the Secretary General is then due to discuss which direction UNAVEM should take.

  UNIKOM (United Nations Kuwait Observer Mission)

  Mandate: To monitor the Khor Abdullah (waterway) and a demilitarised zone (extending 10 kms into Iraq and 5 kms into Kuwait), to deter violations of the boundary through its presence in and surveillance of the DMZ, to observe any hostile or potentially hostile action mounted from the territory of one state or the other. Since 5 February 1993, UNIKOM has also had the powers to prevent physically, and if necessary redress, violations of the border or DMZ.

  UNTAC (United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia)

  Mandate: To ensure the ceasefire is maintained, organising the demobilisation of the factions' armed forces, arranging free and fair elections, creating a neutral political environment for those elections, overseeing human rights observances, repatriating refugees and relocating those displaced by war within Cambodia.

  ONUSAL (United Nations Mission in El Salvador)

  Mandate: Human rights verification. Monitoring the ceasefire and implementing the peace accords (including supervision of the demobilisation of Government and FMLN forces).

  UNFICYP (UN peacekeeping force in Cyprus)

  Mandate: Originally to prevent a recurrence of fighting, to contribute to the restoration and maintenance of law and order and a return to normal conditions. Since the hostilities in 1974 UNFICYP has taken on additional functions relating to the maintenance of the ceasefire and control of the buffer zone. It also carries out humanitarian functions.

  UNOSOM (UN operation in Somalia)

  Mandate: To provide a secure environment for relief operations, to undertake disarmament and to maximise protection of aid workers.

  MINURSO (UN Mission for a Referendum in Western Sahara)

  Mandate: To monitor the ceasefire and confinement of each party's troops to designated locations, to facilitate exchanges of POWS (under the auspices of the ICRC) and to organise and monitor a referendum for the self determination of the people of Western Sahara.

  UNIFIL (UN Interim Force in Lebanon)

  Mandate: To confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restore international peace and security, and assist the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in Southern Lebanon. To prevent the recurrence of fighting and to ensure that its area of operation would not be used for hostile activities of any kind.

  UNPROFOR (UN Protection Force in the former Republic of Yugoslavia)

  Mandate: Wide ranging, but focusing in particular on

  (a) Bosnia—protective support for the delivery of humanitarian aid and

  (b) in Croatia—implementation of the Vance plan.

  In addition to the above, the UN is also involved in several other countries eg Haiti, South Africa, Syria/Israel, India/Pakistan. In these instances its role is principally as an observer.
  48

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in respect of how many parliamentary questions a substantive answer was not provided by his Department wholly or partly on the ground of disproportionate cost in each of the last 18 months(a) in total and (b) as a proportion of questions answered.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information requested is a matter of public record available through the facility of the House Library. During the period 9 November 1991 to 7 May 1993 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, including the Overseas Development Administration, replied to 4,374 questions. A substantive answer was not provided to 23 of these questions wholly or partly on the ground of disproportionate cost.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Mozambique Government since October 1992, regarding the Government's abuse of human rights prior to the signing of the peace accord.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since October 1992, we have made no representations either to the Government of Mozambique or to RENAMO about human rights abuses. We have encouraged both the Government and RENAMO to proceed with full implementation of the general peace agreement which they signed in October 1992. The agreement includes detailed provisions for the protection of human rights and freedom of political expression.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what official contacts and meetings he or his officials have had with RENAMO party officials since the signing of the peace accord in October 1992.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The RENAMO leader met my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey during his visit to London on 22 February 1993 and had talks with officials. Our Ambassador in Maputo has travelled to the RENAMO leader's base in Northern Mozambique several times to impress upon him the need to proceed with the implementation of the general peace agreement of October 1992. We have maintained regular contacts with RENAMO officials when they have been in Maputo.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what United Kingdom development assistance in Mozambique since October 1992 has taken the form of political and democratic training for(a) Government organisations and (b) RENAMO;

  (2) what is his policy with regard to providing assistance for opposition parties prior to elections in Mozambique to establish democratic party structures.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have made no direct financial contribution for democratic training for personnel of government organisations, or of FRELIMO, the ruling party. We have, however, assisted opposition parties
  49
  preparing for elections by the provision, from diplomatic wing funds, of £18,000 worth of office equipment for RENAMO's office in Mapuo, and small amounts for three other parties—PCN, PPPM and UNAMO.

WALES

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the planned expenditure by his Department on trunk roads in(a) Dyfed and (b) Wales in each of the next five years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Central Government provision for trunk roads in Wales In 1993–94 is £194 million. An analysis by county is not available as the programme is subject to changing engineering, statutory and financial considerations.

  Provision for future years will be announced in the usual way.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many schools in Wales have become grant-maintained schools.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Seven, and well over 100 schools have contacted my Department for information about becoming grant-maintained. I am pleased to announce that my right hon. Friend has today decided that Ysgol Derwen in Clwyd shall become the eighth grant-maintained school in Wales from 1 September this year.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of the number of(a) men in employment, full time and part time and (b) women in employment, full time arid part time in Mid Glamorgan.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The 1991 census of employment shows that there were 70,100 and 4,800 men in full and part-time employment respectively in Mid Glamorgan. The corresponding figures for females were 41,400 and 35,800 respectively.

  Development Policy
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to meet Mr. Milian, the EC Commissioner for Regional Development, to discuss recent development policy in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I met Commissioner Milian on 15 March. I have invited the Commissioner to visit South Wales later this year.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans the Cardiff Bay development corporation has to employ extra staff in relation to the Cardiff bay barrage project during and after construction.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Cardiff Bay development corporation has no plans to employ extra staff in relation to the Cardiff bay barrage during its construction stage. It is, however,50
  appointing project management consultants to oversee the construction contract. After construction it is estimated that the operation of the barrage and management of the inland bay will require an additional 18 public sector staff, as set out in the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill.

  Local Government Boundaries (Delyn)
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to meet representatives of Delyn borough council to discuss proposed local government boundaries.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  As soon as a meeting can be arranged.

  Regional Policy
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the review of EC regional policy and its impact in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have sought and received many representations from our structural funds partners. My officials are consulting fully the local authorities, other bodies and the voluntary sector through the review working groups set up for the purpose.

  British Columbia
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to further both economic and cultural links with the province of British Columbia.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is to lead a trade mission to North America from 14 to 28 September. One destination of this mission will be Vancouver, British Columbia. Twenty-five Welsh firms have so far expressed an interest in participating.

  Road Building (North-east Wales)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning his plans for further road building in north-east Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Our plans are set out in the 1993 supplement to "Roads in Wales: Progress and Plans for the 1990s".

  Local Government Boundaries
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what further representations he has received on his proposal to remove the communities of Coychurch Lower, Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick from the proposed Bridgend unitary authority to the Vale of Glamorgan; how many were in favour; and how many against.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Since my hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Gentleman on 29 March, I have received a further 63 written representations regarding my decision to incorporate the communities of Coychurch Lower, Ewenny, St. Brides Major and Wick into a Vale of Glamorgan unitary authority. Two have been in favour and 61 against.

  Rural Economy
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assistance the Government are giving to the development of the rural economy in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
  51
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Government's policies for developing the rural economy in Wales have gained a new momentum since the launch of the rural initiative in February 1991. A wide range of measures is now in place to help create a self-sustaining market economy and to thereby secure for rual communities the long-term prosperity which is this Government's aim.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the Government's Expenditure Plans 1993–94 to 1995–96, Departmental Report by Welsh Office (Command Paper 2215) for more detailed information.

  Local Health Authorities (Capital Projects)
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of local health authorities in Wales to discuss capital projects.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I last met the chairmen of DHAs and FHSAs on 15 April 1993 and discussed a wide range of issues.

  RECHAR
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the European Commissioner for regional affairs to discuss the progress made on the distribution of RECHAR money within Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I met Commissioner Millan on 15 March to discuss matters relating to structural funds programmes in Wales. The RECHAR programme monitoring committee has identified projects to take up the whole of the resources made available to the South Wales programme area: these will be fully committed by the end of the year to good projects aimed at the economic and social regeneration of the programme area.

  Sustainable Development Plan
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the preparation of a sustainable development plan for Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have received a number of representations from Welsh interests concerning the preparation of the United Kingdom's sustainable development plan.

  Social Work Courses
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the social work diploma courses available in further and higher education colleges in Wales; how many people qualified from such courses in the last two years; and what information he has on how many of those obtaining qualifications were Welsh speakers.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Outside the University of Wales, information collected from further education student records shows that the following colleges of higher and further education introduced a two-year diploma of social work course in 1992–93:
  52

  Students enrolled on first year in 1992–93 (provisional)

  Institution

  Numbers

  North East Wales Institute with Gwynedd Technical College

  39

  Cardiff Institute of Higher Education with Bridgend College

  123

  The FESR does not record the numbers qualifying or the numbers of Welsh speakers.

  The diploma in social work, validated by the Central Council for the Education and Training of Social Work, replaces the programmes leading to the certificate in social service and the certification of qualification in social work.

  Tourism
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the 10 most popular(a) day trip and (b) overnight tourist destinations in Wales; and how many people visited each of them in 1991–92.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on tourist destinations is not centrally available in the form requested. Visitors to tourist attractions are published in the "Digest of Welsh Statistics" each year and the 10 most popular attractions recorded in 1991, the latest available, were:

  Attraction

  Visitors in 1991 (000's)

  Ocean Beach Amusement Park, Rhyl

  600·0

  Padarn County Park, Llanberis

  450·0

  Barry Island Log Flume

  430·2

  Pembrey Country Park

  386·0

  James Pringle Weavers, Llanfair PG

  385·9

  Oakwood Leisure Park, near Narberth

  370·0

  Penscynor Wildlife Park, Neath

  289·0

  Welsh Folk Museum, St. Fagans

  287·8

  Portmeirion, Penrhyndeudraeth

  285·5

  Rhyl Suncentre

  262·2

  Answered 17 May 1993

  NHS Suspensions
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many NHS hospital doctors and consultants are currently under suspension pending inquiries and disciplinary action.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not available centrally.

  Pharmacists
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many registered pharmacists in Wales currently dispense fewer than 2,000 prescriptions a month.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the number of pharmacists working in community pharmacies in Wales is not held centrally. However, in each month on average, for the last 12 months ending 28 February 1993, there were 124 pharmacies in Wales which dispensed fewer than 2,000 prescriptions.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the proposals to amend the pay of pharmacists.
  53
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Up to 13 May, a dozen representations had been received from local pharmaceutical committees, community health councils and individual pharmacists, and 22 from Members of Parliament writing on behalf of local pharmaceutical committees and individual pharmacists.

  Epileptic Students
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provisions there are in Wales for providing teachers with advice and training on dealing with epileptic students; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Welsh Office has issued no specific advice to teachers on dealing with epileptic students. However, organisations such as the National Society for Epilepsy, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation and the British Epilepsy Association have produced booklets and a resource pack of educational material. The Welsh Epilepsy Association is giving consideration to providing information through the medium of Welsh.

  A Welsh Office commissioned report by the Wales Council for the Disabled on epilepsy generally was produced in October 1991, which includes reference to the position in schools. The Welsh Office has been involved in seminars run by the Wales Council to consider the findings and implications of that report.

  Agri-environment Schemes
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to introduce a multi-annual zonal agri-environment scheme for the whole of Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My proposals for the implementation of the agri-environment regulation in Wales have been distributed to over 140 interested bodies or individuals. The responses received to the consultation exercise are now being examined and I shall make an announcement in July.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 11 May,Official Report, column 443, when he expects the information on receipt of disability living allowance to be available separately for Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman when the information becomes available which is likely to be towards the end of 1993.

  Local Plans
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of those district councils in Wales that have local plans which have been adopted.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is as follows:
  54

  Adopted local plans

  Authority

  Local Plan

  Aberconwy BC

  Llandudno/Conwy

  Arfon BC

  Rural Arfon

  Menai Strait (part)

  Blaenau Gwent BC

  Tredegar

  Abertillery

  Ebbw Vale

  Brynmawr, Nantyglo and Blaina

  Brecknock BC

  Hay/Talgarth District (part)1

  Central Powys (part)1

  Cardiff CC

  East Moors

  South Butetown

  West Ely/St. Fagans

  North Butetown

  Lisvane

  Radyr/Morganstown

  Canton/Riverside

  Adamsdown/Splott

  Tongwynlais and the Wenallt

  Grangetown

  Colwyn BC

  Coastal Colwyn

  Cynon valley BC

  Hirwaun and District

  Abernant/Plasdraw

  Aberaman/Abercwmboi and Cwmbach

  Cwmdare/Trecynon and Llwydcoed

  Central Aberdare1

  Aman valley

  Ynysybwl

  Abercynon

  Delyn BC

  Mold

  Dinefwr BC

  Black Mountain1

  Dwyfor DC

  Porthmadog/Ffestiniog (part)1

  Pwllheli Rural Dwyfor

  Islwyn BC

  Trinant and Pentwyn

  Llanelli BC

  Wern Action Area

  Lliw valley BC

  Southern Lliw valley

  Meirionydd DC

  Ardudwy1

  Llanelltyd1

  Porthmadog/Ffestiniog (part)1

  Merthyr Tydfil BC

  Nelson and Treharris (part)1

  Monmouth BC

  Abergavenny

  Newport BC

  South East Newport

  Ogwr BC

  Ogmore and Garw

  Greater Bridgend

  Port Talbot BC

  Upper Afan valley

  Cwmafan, Bryn, Goytre valley and Rural Margam

  Radnor DC

  Hay/Talgarth (part)1

  Central Powys (part)1

  Rhondda BC

  Rhondda

  Tonypandy and Clydach Vale

  55

  Authority

  Local Plan

  Rhymney valley DC

  Caerphilly Basin

  Mid Rhymney valley

  Upper Rhymney valley

  Nelson and Treharris (part)1

  Swansea CC

  Swansea

  Torfaen BC

  South East Pontypool

  Vale of Glamorgan BC

  Barry

  Barry-Penarth Coastal

  Cowbridge

  East Vale

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  Wrexham Maelor

  Ynys Mon BC

  Menai Strait (part)

  There is complete coverage by adopted local plans in Rhondda, Swansea and Wrexham Maelor.

  In addition there are two subject local plans, for the Special Landscape Area in Clwyd and for Touring Caravans and Tents in Gwynedd1

  1 Prepared by, or in cooperation with the relevant County Council.

  Economically Inactive People
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the latest percentage and actual figures for economically inactive adult males.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The 1991 census recorded 348,356 aged 16 or over as economically inactive which includes all those retired, permanently sick, students with a job in the week before the census and other inactive. This represents 32.4 per cent. of all males aged 16 or over.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 11 May,Official Report, column 444, if he will express the figures for residents aged 16 years or over classified as economically inactive in each (a) district and (b) county in Wales as a percentage of their respective populations.

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

  Percentage residents aged 16 and over economically inactive

  Percentage

  Alyn and Deeside

  37·0

  Colwyn

  49·5

  Delyn

  39·8

  Glyndwr

  42·8

  Rhuddlan

  49·4

  Wrexham Maelor

  41·7

  CLWYD

  42·8

  Carmarthen

  44·5

  Ceredigion

  46·2

  Dinefwr

  48·4

  Llanelli

  49·9

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  43·9

  South Pembrokeshire

  46·3

  DYFED

  46·5

  Blaenau Gwent

  47·9

  Islwyn

  44·1

  Monmouth

  40·3

  Newport

  42·0

  Torfaen

  43·0

  GWENT

  43·3

  Aberconwy

  46·7

  56

  Percentage

  Arfon

  44·0

  Dwyfor

  48·2

  Meirionnydd

  45·7

  Ynys Mon-Isle of Anglesey

  45·6

  GWYNEDD

  45·8

  Cynon Valley

  48·4

  Merthyr Tydfil

  48·5

  Ogwr

  44·2

  Rhondda

  51·0

  Rhymney Valley

  45·2

  Taff-Ely

  40·2

  MID GLAMORGAN

  45·7

  Brecknock

  43·8

  Montgomeryshire

  39·9

  Radnor

  42·5

  POWYS

  41·8

  Cardiff

  41·6

  Vale of Glamorgan

  41·1

  SOUTH GLAMORGAN

  41·4

  Lliw Valley

  45·3

  Neath

  47·3

  Port Talbot

  49·7

  Swansea

  46·1

  WEST GLAMORGAN

  46·7

  Source OPCS Census County Report Series Part 1.

  Industrial Injuries Benefit
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) men and (b) women in Wales currently receive industrial injuries benefit; how many of them are between 50 and 65 years; and what percentage of the total Welsh population receives industrial injury benefit.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 11 May 1993]: The latest available information on those in receipt of industrial injuries disablement benefit in Wales is given in the following table:

  Industrial injuries disablement benefit assessments in Wales1 at 4 April 1992

  All ages

  Aged 50 to 65 years

  Males

  Number

  16,910

  5,550

  Percentage of population within the age group

  1·2

  2·3

  Females

  Number

  1,720

  670

  Percentage of population within the age group

  0·1

  0·3

  Sources: 10 per cent. sample of Department of Social Security cases, OPCS 1991 mid-year estimates of population (provisional).

  1 A small number of people may have more than one assessment.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) men and (b) women receive invalidity benefit in Wales; what percentage of those are aged between 50 and 65 years; and what are each of those figures as percentages of the Welsh population.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 11 May 1993]: The latest available information on those in receipt of invalidity benefit in Wales is given in the following table:
  57

  Invalidity benefit beneficiaries in Wales at 30 March 1991

  All ages

  Aged 50 to 65 years

  50 to 65 years as a percentage of all ages

  Males

  Number

  108,400

  66,400

  61

  Percentage of population within the age group

  7·7

  27·2

  1

  Females

  Number

  38,200

  18,300

  48

  Percentage of population within the age group

  2·6

  7·2

  1

  Source: 1 per cent. sample of claimants, Department of Social Security, OPCS provisional 1991 mid-year estimates of population.

  1 Not applicable.

ENVIRONMENT

  Hostels (Planning Permission)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to amend the change of use regulations to enable planning permission to be required to convert hotels and guest houses to hostels for social security claimants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  There are no immediate plans to amend the Use Classes Order 1987, although its operation is kept under periodic review. Our general approach towards change of use of land and buildings is to conserve a balance between the need to protect neighbourhoods from loss of amenity and the need for property owners to have reasonable freedom to adapt to changing market conditions.

  Residential Letting
  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage the letting for residential purposes of vacant premises above high street shops; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Under the Department's flats over shops initiative, £25 million is being made available between 1992–93 and 1994–95 to bring empty space over commercial premises into housing use. The scheme aims to encourage, by demonstration, other private property owners to consider similar action for their own wasted space. The Housing Corporation also makes funds available for such schemes under its approved development programme. The Department has issued some 2,900 flats over shop information packs and has helped to host a joint DOE/Property Managers Association seminar for retrial and commercial institutions. In addition, the Department is part funding the living over the shop project which works with a number of local authorities on renovating and letting vacant flats over shops, as well as the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors' "Spare Space?" project.

  Land Purchases
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 4 May,Official Report, column 39, what proposals he has to ensure that housing associations purchase land at a price fixed by valuation; and if he will make a statement.
  58
  Mr. Baldry
  The Housing Corporation has procedural requirements, laid down in its procedure guide, which housing associations have to follow when acquiring land.

  Associations whose schemes are approved individually must acquire land at or less than the valuation set by an independent, qualified valuer within the procedures established by the Housing Corporation.

  Associations whose development programme is approved on the basis of a cash programme must demonstrate that an independent qualified valuer has verified the basis for the negotiation on which the land purchase has been made. If these associations pay more than that valuation, they have to meet the extra cost from their own resources. The valuations must not be more than six months old at the date of exchange of contracts.

  Revocation Orders
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) on 6 May,Official Report, column 174, he will state the nature of the planning revocation order in 1991 to which he refers.

  Mr. Baldry
  The order issued in 1991 revoked the planning permission granted by Wealden district council for the erection of a dwelling at Ninfield, East Sussex.

  Multiple Occupation Houses
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration is being given to the abolition of licence controls over houses in multiple occupation.

  Mr. Baldry
  Common lodging houses are the only houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) which are subject to mandatory licensing, under provisions contained in part XII of the Housing Act 1985.

  The Department has issued a consultation paper on the repeal of part XII. The comments of those who responded are being considered. No decision has yet been taken as to whether to proceed with the repeal.

  Other HMOs may be subject to registration under schemes set up by some local authorities under section 346 of the Housing Act 1985. We are considering whether we should review the need for such registration schemes.

  Urban Deprivation
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which contractors were asked to tender for the work devising the indicators of urban deprivation now being prepared by the Centre for Urban Policy Studies; for what reasons CUPS were chosen to carry out the work; whether other academic bodies will be asked to comment on the proposed indicators and the methodology for devising them; whether the final recommendations will be incorporated into standard spending assessment formulae; and whether similar work will be undertaken into rural deprivation.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This contract was let by competitive tender. To disclose the names of tenderers would breach commercial confidence. The CUPS tender offered the best value for money in terms of meeting the study's objectives and price. We have invited the local authority associations and voluntary organisations to comment on the indicators
  59
  and methodology proposed by CUPS, and copies of the proposals have been sent to others on request. The current review of SSAs will include consideration of a range of social factors relevant to the costs of providing local services. We do not intend formally to incorporate the outcome of the CUPS research in SSA formulae. The Rural Development Commission, funded through the Department of the Environment, has ongoing research into rural disadvantage. It has recently consulted on census and unemployment data for use in assessing economic and social need in rural areas.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in respect of how many parliamentary questions a substantive answer was not provided by his Department wholly or partly on the ground of disproportionate cost in each of the last 18 months(a) in total and (b) as a proportion of questions answered.

  Mr. Howard
  Information for the past 18 months is not readily available in the form requested. However, since the beginning of this Session my Department has answered over 4,600 parliamentary questions, 16, or 0.003 per cent., of which have not been given a substantive answer wholly or partly on the ground of disproportionate cost. The monthly breakdown is as follows:

  Number

  November 1992

  2

  December 1992

  2

  January 1993

  8

  February 1993

  0

  March 1993

  2

  April 1993

  1

  May 1993

  0

  June 1993

  1

  Liverpool Projects
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total funding from Her Majesty's Government towards the rehabilitation of St. George's hall, Liverpool; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Her Majesty's Government resources in the form of urban programme funding, from my Department, totals some £4,875,531 since mid-1990.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total cost of funding from Her Majesty's Government towards the cost of the rehabilitation of London road, Liverpool; what is the approximate date of completion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A figure for the total contribution by Her Majesty's Government to this area will not be available until the conclusion of the five year Liverpool city challenge programme of which London road is an integral part. To date, grants totalling £3,882,000 have been offered to projects in the area, in addition to which city challenge has allocated £750,000 over five years to the London road development agency. My officials and the city challenge team are involved in ongoing discussions with developers regarding numerous other projects which may attract grant in the future.
  60

  Storm Damage, Norfolk
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make payments of grant to local authorities in Norfolk to compensate them for emergency work undertaken as a result of damage caused by the storms on 20 and 21 February.

  Mr. Redwood
  Yes. In the light of information provided by North Norfolk district council in April 1993, my right hon. and learned Friend is satisfied that special financial assistance would be justified in this case. Accordingly, the Secretary of State has decided, with the consent of the Treasury, to establish a scheme of assistance under section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 in respect of expenditure relating to damage caused by the severe storms in Norfolk in February 1993. Grant will be paid to reimburse local authorities in Norfolk for 85 per cent. of eligible costs incurred above a threshold.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Witness Protection
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce a witness protection scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to introduce a national centrally funded witness protection scheme. Both the Metropolitan police and the Greater Manchester police already run witness protection programmes and will offer guidance and advice to other police forces. Decisions about the provisions of protection for witnesses are operational matters for the police.

  Book Acquisition
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will acquire for his Library a book, the title of which has been supplied to him by the hon. Member for Linlithgow.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have no plans to do so.

  Probation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to encourage the development of similar schemes to the Mid Glamorgan straight thinking on probation programme in other areas of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jack
  All probation services are encouraged to provide, and to ensure that the courts which they serve are aware of, a range of effective supervision programmes for offenders sentenced to probation which are directed towards reduction of subsequent offending. The effectiveness of the STOP programme is currently being evaluated. The findings will be taken into account in further guidance that we give and by HM inspectorate of probation in the context of their work in promoting good practice.

  Vice Squads
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police authorities maintain vice squads; and, of these, how many have sections specialising in pornography.
  61
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Fourteen police forces have police officers who are exclusively deployed to vice-related duties. The remaining forces undertake this work as part of general operational duties. Information on how many forces have sections specialising in pornography is not centrally held.

  Sheehy Inquiry
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans there are for public consultation and debate, following the publication of the Sheehy inquiry into policing in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend is arranging for the report of the inquiry into police responsibilities and rewards to be circulated to all interested bodies as soon as it is published. He will welcome comments from all those concerned on the report and the recommendations which are made by the inquiry team.

  Rugeley Magistrates Court
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of prosecutions made before the Rugeley bench result in conviction.

  Mr. Jack
  At the Rugeley petty sessional division in 1991, 76 per cent of defendants prosecuted for all offences were found guilty by magistrates.

  Compensation
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people have applied for compensation for miscarriages of justice, under the provisions of the ex-gratia scheme of compensation referred to by a previous Home Secretary in an answer on 29 November 1985,Official Report, column 691, since the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to the present time; how many have received compensation; and what is the aggregate amount of such payments to date;

  (2) how many people have applied for compensation under the provisions of section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 since its implementation; how many have so far been compensated; and what is the total amount of compensation so far paid;

  (3) how many people have applied for compensation for miscarriages of justice under the ex-gratia scheme as outlined in an answer on 29 November 1985, Official Report, column 691, and under the provisions of section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, since the implementation of the Act to the present time; how many have been compensated under (a) the ex-gratia scheme only, (b) under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 only and (c) both; and what amounts of money have been paid to those persons in each of those categories.

  Mr. Jack
  Persons who applied for compensation for a miscarriage of justice do not normally say whether they are seeking to be compensated under statutory or under ex-gratia arrangements. All applications are, therefore, considered first to see whether they fall within the terms of section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and, if not, whether an ex-gratia payment would be appropriate in the 62
  light of the criteria outlined in the answer given on 29 November 1985, column 691 by the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd).

  Since the introduction of section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 in October 1988, 253 people have applied for the payment of compensation. Of those, 54 have received, or are receiving, compensation under section 133 of the 1988 Act; 16 have received, or are receiving, compensation under the ex-gratia arrangements; and the applications of 39 are still under consideration. No person has received compensation under both section 133 of the 1988 Act and the ex-gratia arrangements.

  The total amount of compensation paid between October 1988 and March 1993, was £3,428,000, of which £3,137,000 was paid in respect of awards made under section 133 of the 1988 Act. These figures include interim payments in some cases where the payment of compensation has been agreed, but the full amount of the award has yet to be determined.

  Obscene Publications Act
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the paper which has recently been prepared by C4 division within his Department which deals with questions arising out of the Obscene Publications Act and its enforcement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I do not know to what document the hon. Member may be referring. My Department is currently examining ways in which the enforcement of laws dealing with obscenity may be improved. It is not the practice to publish advice to Ministers.

  Emergency Fire Service
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department where the vehicles of the emergency fire service are based; how many vehicles are based there; when they were last used operationally; what level of maintenance they are receiving; and what is the average age of such vehicles.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The emergency fire service stockpile is located at Marchington, near Uttoxeter, Staffordshire. It consists of 1,078 Bedford self-propelled pumps—Green Goddesses—103 Austin Gypsies and 38 Land Rovers together with other ancillary equipment. The last major operational use of the stockpile was during the national fire service industrial dispute of 1977–78 although small numbers have been deployed more recently to augment local resources during adverse weather conditions. The vehicles, which are between 30 and 40 years of age, are regularly serviced to ensure that they remain in a fully operational condition.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in respect of how many parliamentary questions a substantive answer was not provided by his Department wholly or partly on the ground of disproportionate cost in each of the last 18 months(a) in total and (b) as a proportion of questions answered.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We do not keep a central record of the number of questions answered either wholly or partly on the ground of disproportionate cost.
  63
  If we tried to answer the hon. Member's question it would, therefore, involve an exercise of checking through some 6,000 parliamentary questions. This would in itself entail costs to the taxpayer out of all proportion to the significance of the question.

  Children
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list his Department's specific areas of responsibility on children's matters.

  Mr. Jack
  The Home Office is responsible for: General policy on young offenders;:

  The provision and administration of attendance centres for children and young persons;

  The law on child prostitution, child abduction, child pornography and children's evidence in court;

  Disclosure policy in relation to people working with children;

  Placement, regimes and sentence planning for 15 to 17-year-olds ordered to be detained in young offender institutions or under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act.

  In addition, my Department has general responsibilities for the police, immigration and prison services all of which may have a youth dimension.

  Emergency Planning Grant
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the sufficiency of the existing emergency planning grant aid from his Department for 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 to enable the recipient authorities to discharge fully the duties imposed on them by proposals currently being considered by his Department;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the sufficiency of the proposed distribution of his Department's emergency planning grant aid for 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 to enable the shortcomings in emergency arrangements outlined in his predecessor's statement of 10 July 1991, Official Report, columns 393–96, to be remedied.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend is satisfied that the proposed allocations of grant aid will be sufficient once many of the new obsolete civil defence duties are removed from local authorities by draft Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations to be laid before Parliament.

  The Home Office proposals involve a small shift in the balance of resources to metropolitan areas and for grant to be paid to metropolitan districts and boroughs for the first time. These measures are intended to assist metropolitan authorities in overcoming the problems in some areas referred to by the then Home Secretary in his statement of 10 July 1991.

  Metropolitan areas

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  FCDA1

  Districts

  FCDA1

  Districts

  FCDA1

  Districts

  Greater Manchester

  441

  350

  224

  350

  224

  350

  London

  1,503

  1,155

  546

  1,155

  546

  1,155

  Merseyside

  532

  175

  154

  175

  154

  175

  South Yorkshire

  442

  140

  140

  140

  140

  140

  Tyne and Wear

  402

  175

  154

  175

  154

  175

  West Midlands

  403

  245

  182

  245

  182

  245

  West Yorkshire

  373

  175

  154

  175

  154

  175

  1 Fire and Civil Defence Authorities

  64
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by county council and civil defence authority area the proposed distribution of his Department's civil defence and emergency planning grant aid for each of the three years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The proposed distribution of grant to each authority in the three years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 is as follows.

  County councils

  £'000s

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Avon

  300

  224

  224

  Bedfordshire

  220

  196

  196

  Berkshire

  419

  224

  224

  Buckinghamshire

  367

  210

  210

  Cambridgeshire

  358

  224

  224

  Cheshire

  419

  252

  252

  Cleveland

  211

  196

  196

  Cornwall

  300

  224

  224

  Cumbria

  350

  224

  224

  Derbyshire

  241

  266

  266

  Devon

  577

  280

  280

  Dorset

  338

  252

  252

  Durham

  221

  252

  252

  East Sussex

  329

  238

  238

  Essex

  446

  336

  336

  Gloucestershire

  250

  224

  224

  Hampshire

  347

  322

  322

  Hereford and Worcester

  255

  266

  266

  Hertfordshire

  461

  280

  280

  Humberside

  297

  266

  266

  Isle of Wight

  262

  168

  168

  Kent

  522

  336

  336

  Lancashire

  278

  336

  336

  Leicestershire

  186

  266

  266

  Lincolnshire

  296

  238

  238

  Norfolk

  428

  238

  238

  Northamptonshire

  243

  238

  238

  Northumbria

  239

  224

  224

  North Yorkshire

  312

  252

  252

  Nottinghamshire

  275

  252

  252

  Oxfordshire

  367

  210

  210

  Shropshire

  229

  224

  224

  Somerset

  306

  210

  210

  Staffordshire

  273

  266

  266

  Suffolk

  314

  238

  238

  Surrey

  369

  294

  294

  Warwickshire

  312

  210

  210

  West Sussex

  296

  238

  238

  Wiltshire

  307

  210

  210

  Clwyd

  308

  224

  224

  Dyfed

  250

  224

  224

  Gwent

  294

  210

  210

  Gwynedd

  242

  210

  210

  Mid Glamorgan

  257

  224

  224

  Powys

  155

  182

  182

  South Glamorgan

  175

  168

  168

  West Glamorgan

  186

  196

  196

  65
  The date on which the regulations come into force may have an effect on these figures.

  An alternative proposal put forward by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities for the allocation of available grant between fire and civil defence authorities is being considered.

  Factory Fires
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of major fires in factories there have been in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The following table gives the available information on fires in factory buildings attended by local authority fire brigades in the United Kingdom.

  Fires1 in factory buildings2 attended by local authority fire brigades in the United Kingdom. 1987–91

  Year

  Number

  1987

  6,177

  1988

  6,471

  1989

  6,540

  1990

  6,155

  1991

  5,480

  1 Source: Home Office Fire Statistics, based on reports from local authority fire brigades.

  2 Factories defined according to the Standard Industrial Classification, Divisions 2–4 of the 1980 classification published by HMSO (1979).

  Unit Fines
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has given clerks of courts in using discretion on unit fines; what steps he is taking to see that guidance is being followed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Guidance on the assessment of disposable weekly income, which is a judicial function, describing the powers available under the unit fine scheme, was issued to the chairmen of each magistrates court bench and to all clerks to the justices under cover of a Home Office letter dated 31 July 1992. Following a meeting with my right hon. and learned Friend on 4 May, the Magistrates Association issued a bulletin to its members dated the same day encouraging maximum use of existing discretion. It is not for my right hon. and learned Friend to advise magistrates on how they should exercise discretion within the law: that is entirely and properly a matter For the courts.

  Car Theft
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cars were reported stolen in England in 1978 and in 1992.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 14 May 1993]: The information available relates to offences of theft or unauthorised taking of motor vehicles recorded by the police. There were 301,793 such offences in England in 1978 and 556,315 in 1992.
  66

  Rape
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many rapes were reported for the years 1991 and 1992 by males aged(a) 14 years, (b) 15 years, (c) 16 years, (d) 17 years and (e) 18 years.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 14 May 1993]: Information held centrally relates to the number of "known offenders" —those found guilty of, or cautioned. Information for 1990 and 1991 is given in the table. 1992 data will not be available until the autumn.

  Number of males found guilty at all courts or cautioned for offences of rape by age England and Wales 1990–91

  Year

  Age 14

  Age 15

  Age 16

  Age 17

  Age 18

  1990

  Found guilty

  1

  17

  17

  15

  25

  Cautioned

  3

  3

  2

  —

  —

  Total found guilty or cautioned

  4

  20

  19

  15

  25

  1991

  Found guilty

  3

  4

  10

  15

  18

  Cautioned

  2

  2

  4

  2

  1

  Total found guilty or cautioned

  5

  6

  14

  17

  19

  Television Licences
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been convicted in each year since 1987 for not possessing a television licence.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 14 May 1993]: Information supplied by the National Television Licence Records Office is given in the table.

  Offenders found guilty of television licence fee evasion England and Wales

  Financial year

  Found guilty

  1986–87

  164,708

  1987–88

  150,381

  1988–89

  162,710

  1989–90

  160,055

  1990–91

  168,066

  1991–92

  192,951

  1992–93

  210,002

  Prison Staff
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) Indian, (b) Pakistani, (c) Bangladeshi and (d) Afro-Caribbean people respectively were prison custody officers and governor grade in March; and what proportion in each case were (i) men and (ii) women.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service. I have asked him to send a reply as quickly as possible.
  67
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 7 May 1993:
  I am writing to supply the further information promised in Mr. Lloyd's reply of 14 April to your Question about the ethnic background of Prison Service staff.
  As our statement of Purpose, Vision, Goals and Values makes clear, equality of opportunity is central to the work of the Prison Service. We are committed to ethnic monitoring as a means of measuring whether our policies are achieving greater equality of opportunity for all staff are having any effect. We need to be able to measure whether all staff have equal access to opportunities for promotion, training and career development and, to do this, we first need to create a comprehensive database of staff ethnic backgrounds. The first stage of this process was a voluntary survey of all staff in the non-industrial grades in directly managed prisons. Initially, our database held records of the ethnic origins of only 43‥ of staff and now, after the voluntary survey, that figure has risen to 74‥. Over the next few months we shall be taking further steps to fill the gaps in our database.
  The table below is drawn from the results of that voluntary survey. It sets out the numbers of staff in the unified (prison officer, senior officer and principal officer) and governor grades in directly managed prisons and have recorded their ethnic origin as other than white. The categories shown are those used in the survey.

  Unified grades

  Governor grades

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Caribbean

  67

  30

  0

  0

  African

  39

  9

  0

  0

  Black of other origin

  32

  2

  1

  0

  Indian

  40

  2

  1

  0

  Pakistani

  12

  1

  1

  0

  Bangladeshi

  18

  0

  0

  0

  East African

  9

  0

  0

  0

  Chinese

  10

  2

  1

  0

  Asian of other origin

  15

  2

  0

  0

  Other ethnic groups

  92

  5

  1

  0

  Total staff recording their ethnic origin as other than white

  334

  53

  5

  0

  Total staff in grade

  20,568

  1,979

  903

  90

  You will see that there are five members of the governor grades who have recorded their ethnic origins as other than white. I am aware that, in response to an earlier Parliamentary Question, you were informed that there were no staff in the governor grades who had recorded their ethnic origins as other than white. This was due to an error on our computer records, which has now been corrected.

  In the contracted sector, I understand that at Wolds Prison, there are two prison custody officers from the ethnic minorities; one female prison custody officer who is, according to the categories used in our survey, Asian of other origin and one male prison custody officer who is of another ethnic group.

  Lowdham Grange
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the current plans for the former young prisoners' establishment at Lowdham Grange; what planning applications have been made; and what timetable he has in mind for disposal of this property.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Paddy Tipping, dated 17 May 1993:
  68
  HMYOI Lowdham Grange
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the Prison Service's plans for the site of the former young offender institution at Lowdham Grange.
  As you no doubt know, the establishment is no longer used for prison purposes and we have no plans to again use it as such. The Closure Order giving effect to this decision was laid before the House on 24 November 1992 and came into force on 1 January 1993.
  We have, however, appointed an agent to manage the sale of the site and have submitted an application to the local planning authority for several possible uses of it once sold. These include further residential development; a golf course; a gardening centre; provision for caravans; a public house; a rest home; rural crafts; an equestrian centre; shopping; a leisure complex or private school/offices; a village green; public open spaces; a health centre and a sports hall. Highways and environmental impact studies are now to be carried out at the request of the Newark and Sherwood District Council.
  There have been several meetings with the District and Parish councils to consider the application and once the outcome of this is known the property will be put on the market. I am afraid it is too soon to say when this will be.

  Prison Escort Service
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions prisoners escorted by Group 4 have been late for court; on how many occasions prisoners have been more than one, two or three hours late; and what representations have been received about this matter(a) from solicitors and barristers representing the prisoners concerned and (b) from others.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Paddy Tipping, dated 14 May 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply directly to your Parliamentary Question about prisoners escorted by Group 4 being late for court.
  In excess of 90 per cent. of prisoners handled by Group 4 in the first four weeks of operation arrived at court on time. This is despite the well-publicised difficulties of the first few days of their operation. In some cases, late delivery was due to difficulties beyond Group 4's control. The prisoner escort monitor will be discussing these cases in greater depth with the contractor over the coming weeks. Detail of how late prisoners arrived is not routinely collected.
  Some representations have been received by the prisoner escort monitor from prisoners' legal advisers and others. At some courts the contracted time of delivery is earlier than the usual practice before the contractor began his operation, and thus those who need to see prisoners before their court appearance now have greater opportunity.

  Blakenhurst Prison
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the budgeted annual cost per prisoner place at Her Majesty's prison Blakenhurst.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms. Joan Ruddock, dated 14 May 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the budgeted annual cost per prisoner place at

  69
  Her Majesty's Prison Blakenhurst. The annual budgeted cost per prisoner per place in the 1993–94 financial year is £16,000. This gives a weekly budgeted cost per place of £310 (excluding VAT).

  Magistrates, London
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women of an ethnic minority background served as magistrates at courts in the Greater London area as of 1 May; and if he will give a breakdown of the representations at each of the magistrates courts in the Greater London area.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on the ethnic origin of all serving magistrates is not currently available. In 1992, 31 appointments—12·5 per cent. of total—were made of members of the ethnic minority community in the inner and outer London commission areas. Of these appointments nine were women and 22 men. In 1991, 28 such appointments were made—14·3 per cent. of the total—of whom 10 were women and 18 men; in 1990, 37 such appointments were made—17·2 per cent. of the total—of whom 12 were women and 25 men.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Department's Annual Report (Sales)
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many copies of his Department's most recent annual report have been purchased.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  All sales of the report are through HMSO bookshops. To date, 391 copies have been sold. A further 222 copies have been sold as part of complete sets of departmental reports.

  Court Lists (Sale)
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to increase income from the sale of magistrates and other court lists.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None. Charges made by magistrates courts to cover the costs of providing court lists for the news media are a matter for local magistrates' courts committees.

  Immigration Tribunals
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many individuals sought appeals in(a) the immigration tribunals and (b) the immigration appeals tribunals, in the last year for which figures are available; and what were the results of these appeals.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested was as follows during the period 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993:

  Appeals

  (a) Adjudicators

  (b) Immigration1 Appeal Tribunal

  Received2

  25,594

  1,098

  Allowed

  4,302

  267

  Dismissed

  22,272

  525

  Withdrawn

  6,660

  141

  70
  1 Complete figures are not available for appeals allowed, dismissed and withdrawn. The figures given are estimates based on average returns for June 1992 to January 1993.

  2 The number of appeals received does not equal those allowed, dismissed or withdrawn as the latter categories include appeals that were received before 1 April 1992 and determined during 1992–93.

  Court Cases
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases were outstanding at the Crown court at the end of each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The table shows the number of outstanding cases for trial at the end of each year since 1983. The 1992 figure is provisional and liable to revision to take account of any late amendments.

  Crown Court: Committals for Trial Number of Outstanding cases for Trial 1983–1992

  Number

  1983

  21,755

  1984

  22,036

  1985

  23,247

  1986

  21,619

  1987

  24,235

  1988

  25,941

  1989

  23,815

  1990

  26,715

  1991

  29,420

  1992

  29,186

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many Crown court cases were(a) received, (b) finalised, (c) tried, (d) not proceeded with or (e) otherwise disposed of in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The table shows the total number of cases received at the Crown court for trial, the total number dealt with and a breakdown of how they were disposed of, during each year since 1983. Figures for 1992 are provisional and liable to change to take account of any late amendments.

  Crown Court: Committals for Trial Receipts and Disposals: 1983–1992

  Receipts

  Disposals

  Total

  Guilty pleas

  Trials

  Other1

  1983

  73,524

  72,567

  41,234

  25,744

  5,589

  1984

  75,283

  74,777

  44,075

  25,033

  5,669

  1985

  83,898

  82,788

  50,099

  26,004

  6,685

  1986

  84,244

  86,426

  50,465

  28,216

  7,745

  1987

  98,873

  96,197

  59,218

  28,006

  8,973

  1988

  106,524

  104,773

  68,389

  26,820

  9,564

  1989

  98,668

  101,232

  64,570

  26,830

  9,832

  1990

  103,011

  100,005

  63,588

  26,177

  10,240

  1991

  104,754

  101,999

  62,591

  27,608

  11,800

  1992

  100,994

  100,723

  58,268

  26,449

  16,006

  1 ie Bench Warrant issued, No Plea Recorded, Indictment to Lie on File, Found Unfit to Plead, etc.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases heard by(a) the magistrates court and (b) the Crown court resulted in (i) convictions and (ii) dismissals for the last 10 years.
  71
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The only available information for magistrates courts is set out in table 1 showing the total number of defendants proceeded against for all offences and where the case was withdrawn or dismissed or resulted in a conviction, for each year 1983 to 1991. Table 2 shows the total numbers of defendants acquitted and convicted following trials in the Crown court for each year since 1983. The 1992 figures are provisional and liable to revision to take account of late amendments.

  Table 1 Magistrates' Courts: Trials Number of defendants proceeded against for all offences1 where the case was withdrawn2/dismissed3 or resulted in a conviction4

  Year

  Withdrawn/ Dismissed

  Convicted

  1983

  162,395

  2,022,646

  1984

  177,183

  1,888,329

  1985

  193,507

  1,828,870

  1986

  236,921

  1,814,719

  1987

  226,669

  1,468,435

  1988

  240,562

  1,464,287

  1989

  263,372

  1,448,913

  1990

  295,106

  1,431,394

  1991

  347,190

  1,424,226

  1 Includes indictable (including either way) and summary (including motoring) offences.

  2 No evidence offered, not proceeded against or charge withdrawn.

  3 After hearing the evidence, the court found the defendant not guilty.

  4 Includes defendants who pleaded guilty.

  Table 2 Crown Court: Committals for Trial Results of trials following a plea of Not Guilty to all counts

  Defendants

  Total

  Acquitted

  Convicted

  1983

  33,397

  15,938

  17,459

  1984

  32,290

  15,962

  16,328

  1985

  33,096

  16,641

  17,265

  1986

  36,058

  17,667

  18,391

  1987

  31,305

  15,560

  15,475

  1988

  32,049

  17,542

  14,507

  1989

  31,344

  17,517

  13,827

  1990

  29,993

  17,241

  12,752

  1991

  30,533

  17,760

  12,773

  1992

  27,784

  15,534

  12,250

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Incumbents (Church Property)
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, in what circumstances the incumbent of a parish who ceases to be a priest in the Church of England may continue to occupy church property.

  Mr. Alison
  Generally speaking, the freehold of a parsonage and church are vested in the incumbent in right of his office. If he ceased to hold the office, he would cease to have an interest in, or right to occupy, those properties.

  Insurance (Central London)
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what plans the Church Commissioners have to assist dioceses and churches in central London with the costs of insurance.
  72
  Mr. Alison
  The Commissioners' primary responsibility is the financial support of the clergy. With this in mind, they operate concessionary car and home contents insurance schemes jointly with the Ecclesiastical Insurance Office. These schemes provide additional assistance for clergy in inner city parishes. Responsibility for insuring church buildings rests with the parochial church council.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to raise the disregard level of earnings per day, over which an unemployed person would lose entitlement to benefit.

  Mr. Burt
  Unemployment benefit is not normally paid for any day on which a person earns more than £2. We have no plans to increase this daily earnings limit.

  Mortgage Interest
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the most recent figures available for the payment of mortgage interest on behalf of claimants to his Department.

  Mr. Burt
  The latest estimate is in the table.

  1991

  Number

  Number of cases with full mortgage interest included in the assessment

  337,000

  Number of cases with half mortgage interest included in the assessment

  74,000

  Total number of cases with mortgage interest included in the assessment

  411,000

  Source: Income Support Statisticcs Annual Enquiry, May 1991.

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. The estimates for 1992 will be entered in the 1992 Annual Statistical Enquiry which will be published on 24 May 1993, as announced in the CSO news release issued on 30 April 1993. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Agencies (Letters)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 5 May,Official Report, column 162, in how many cases drafts of letters from chief executives of agencies within his responsibility have been amended by the agencies as a result of the drafts being submitted to Ministers before being sent to the Members to whom they are addressed.

  Miss Widdecombe
  None.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what dates drafts of the letters from the chief executive of the Benefits Agency to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), dated 4 May, to the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), dated 5 May 1993, and to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), dated 4 May, published in the Official Report, on 5 May, columns 159–60 and 162–63 were sent to Ministers; and in what respect the letters sent to the right hon. and hon. Members differed from the drafts.
  73
  Miss Widdecombe
  Drafts of the four letters in question were sent to Minister for information on 30 April. I understand that on two of the letters the chief executive of the benefits Agency made some presentational amendments before issue to the right hon. And hon. Members.

  Benefits (Sexual Discrimination)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list the different instances of discrimination between men and women for social security benefit purposes; and to what extent each instance is necessarily linked to the difference in retirement ages;

  Benefit

  Issue

  Women

  Men

  Unemployment Benefit

  Maximum age for receipt

  Age 65

  Age 70

  Age at which benefit rate changes to retirement pension rate

  Age 60

  Age 65

  Sickness Benefit

  Maximum age for receipt

  Age 65

  Age 70

  Age at which benefit rate changes to retirement pension basis

  Age 60

  Age 65

  Invalidity Benefit

  Maximum age of receipt

  Age 65

  Age 70

  Age at which benefit rate changes to retirement pension rate

  Age 60

  Age 65

  Invalidity Allowance and Invalidity Addition to Retirement Pension

  Maximum age for onset of incapacity for acquiring entitlement to lower rate

  Below age 55

  Below age 60

  State Maternity Allowance, Statutory Maternity Pay, Social Fund Payments to meet Maternity Expenses

  Conditions of Entitlement

  Entitlement where statutory conditions satisfied

  No entitlement in respect of paternity

  Widows Payment, Widowed Mothers Allowance, Widows Pension

  Condition of Entitlement

  Entitlement where statutory conditions satisfied

  No equivalent entitlement for widowers

  Category A Retirement Pension

  Minimum age of Entitlement

  Age 60

  Age 65

  Maximum age until which an individual may defer pension to receive increments

  Age 65

  Age 70

  Working life for calculation of pension rate

  44 years

  49 years

  Category B Retirement Pension

  Conditions of Entitlement

  Age 60 and over and (i) Married at 60 to husband who is entitled to Category A Retirement Pension, or

  Aged 65 and over and widowed over 65, late wife was over 60 when she died and satisfied conditions for Category A Retirement

  (ii) Married after age 60 to husband who is entitled to Category A Retirement pension, or

  Pension

  (iii) Widowed after age 60 and late husband satisfied contribution condition for Category A Retirement pension, or

  (iv) Widowed before aged 60 and entitled to Widow's Pensions in consequence of late husband's death

  Graduated Retirement Benefit

  Minimum age of Entitlement

  Age 60

  Age 65

  Amount of Graduated Contributions paid to obtain one Graduated Retirement Benefit Unit

  £9·00

  £7·50

  74
  (2) what plans he has to change the rules relating to men and women's rights to defer entitlement to a retirement pension so that there is no discrimination between sexes; and what account he is taking of the decision of the social security appeal tribunal in Birkenhead on 6 April relating to the link between retirement ages and discrimination.

  Mr. Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him 0n 22 April at cols 239–40. The different instances of discrimination are as follows:
  75

  Benefit

  Issue

  Women

  Men

  Severe Disablement Allowance1

  Upper age for establishing entitlement

  Age 60

  Age 65

  Age at which payment can continue if the normal rules are no longer satisfied

  Age 65

  Age 70

  Invalid Care Allowance1

  Upper age for establishing entitlement

  Age 60

  Age 65

  Age at which payment can continue if the normal entitlement rules are no longer satisfied

  Age 65

  Age 70

  Reduced Earnings Allowance (not payable in respect of industrial injuries on and from 1 October 1990)

  Transfer to Retirement Allowance, if claimant has given up regular employment

  Age 60 (except women 60 and over on 10 April 1989)

  Age 65 (except men 65 and over on 10 April 1989)

  Income of Unemployment and Sickness Benefit for Child Dependant

  Claimant's age for entitlement

  Age 60 to 65

  Age 65 to 70

  Income of Category A Retirement Pension for Adult Dependant

  Entitlement for spouse where pensioner residing with spouse on contributing to maintenance of spouse subject to earnings maximum

  Increase for husband only if pensioner was entitled to an increase of Unemployment, Sickness or Invalidity Benefit immediately before commencement of Retirement Pension Entitlement

  No additional condition for increase for wife

  Child Benefit

  Priority of Title

  Wife or Mother has priority over Husband or Father where it is necessary to decide Priority

  Guardian's Allowance

  Priority of Title

  Wife has priority over Husband where it is necessary to determine Priority

  Income Support, Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit

  Higher Pensioner Premium dependent upon Entitlement to Invalidity Benefit or Severe Disablement Allowance

  Subject to conditions for Entitlement to these Benefits (see above)

  Carer Premium dependent upon Entitlement or underlying Entitlement to Invalid Care Allowance

  Subject to conditions for Entitlement to Invalid Care Allowance (see above)

  Income Support

  Payability between ages 60 and 65 for claimants with no other income

  Paid in advance

  Paid in arrears

  Disentitlement to students on full-time course of study

  Disentitlement ceases at age 60

  Disentitlement ceases at age 65

  1 Following the Court of Appeal's decision in Thomas and others the Secretary of State appealed to the House of Lords. A doubt existed as to the Secretary of State's power to suspend benefit. It was conceded that until a final decision was made on the cases, women claimants should be paid Severe Disablement Allowance and Invalid Care Allowance on the same basis as men. The European Court has now ruled on the substantive issues and has remitted the case back to the House of Lords for final determination.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have lost their entitlement to invalidity benefit since the recent changes in the guidance from the chief adjudication officer to adjudication officers; and what the figures for entitlement for a comparable period were in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is not yet available. Comparisons with earlier are not possible.
  76
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes there have been in recent months in the guidance from the chief adjudication officer to adjudication officers in relation to procedures for the review of invalidity benefit entitlement; who instigated this change; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I understand that the independent chief adjudication officer has issued guidance this year on the effects of the Social Security Commissioner's decision in
  77
  cases CS 27/91 and the effects of the revised incapacity benefit medical control procedures which were introduced by the Department and took full effect from 1 April 1993.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Boyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what procedure he adopts to alter the eligibility criteria used for processing applications for the higher rate mobility component of the disability living allowance; and what system is used to ensure that the criteria are regularly reviewed.

  Mr. Scott
  The eligibility criteria for the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance are set out in legislation. Any changes to these criteria are made through the legislative process.

  We review the criteria regularly in the light of information obtained from the management information system and representations received from disability organisations and members of the public.

  Mr. Boyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on conditions excluded by the definition of severe mental impairment as a state of arrested development or incomplete physical development of the brain, as used in the processing of applications for the higher rate mobility component of the disability living allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  We have received no such representations recently.

  Mr. Boyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will alter the eligibility criteria for the higher rate mobility component of the disability living allowance to include people with a severe mental impairment, other than those who suffer from a state of arrested development or incomplete physical development of the brain from birth.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Boyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Alzheimer's sufferers have applied for the higher rate mobility component of the disability living allowance; and how many have been refused.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in respect of how many parliamentary questions a substantive answer was not provided by his Department wholly or partly on the ground of disproportionate cost in each of the last 18 months(a) in total and (b) as a proportion of questions answered.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is in the table.

  Number of PQs

  Disproportionate cost replies

  Percentage

  November 1991

  312

  14

  4

  December 1991

  255

  4

  2

  January 1992

  219

  14

  6

  February 1992

  272

  12

  4

  March 1992

  211

  5

  2

  April 1992

  —

  —

  —

  May 1992

  167

  1

  0·5

  78

  Number of PQs

  Disproportionate cost replies

  Percentage

  June 1992

  378

  13

  3

  July 1992

  361

  11

  3

  August 1992

  —

  —

  —

  September 1992

  —

  —

  —

  October 1992

  263

  7

  3

  November 1992

  326

  8

  2

  December 1992

  162

  3

  2

  Janaury 1993

  279

  14

  5

  February 1993

  209

  9

  4

  March 1993

  292

  12

  4

  April 1993

  200

  7

  3

  Total

  3,906

  134

  3

  Income Support (Under-25s)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much it would cost to provide the rate of income support paid to those aged over 25 years to all those aged over 21 years; and if he will consider doing so.

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 10 May 1993]: It is estimated that this would cost £140 million. This includes housing benefit and council tax benefit costs. We have no plans to change the existing arrangements.

  (Modelled at 1993–94 prices and benefit levels using data drawn from the 1989–90–91 Family Expenditure Surveys and the Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiry 1991.)

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much it would cost to provide the adult, over 25 years of age, rate of income support to all those aged 18 to 24 years who live in independent accommodation away from their parents; and if he will consider doing so.

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 10 May 1993]: The estimated cost is £110 million in a full year. We have no plans to change the existing arrangements.

  For the purposes of this reply, people living in "independent accommodation" have been defined as those who are classified in the family expenditure survey as (a) heads of households and (b) not related to the head of household.

  Notes:

  1. Modelled at 1993–94 prices and benefit levels using data drawn from the 1989–90–91 Family Expenditure Surveys.

  2. Cost includes similar increases in Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  Local Offices, Manchester
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which local government wards in the city of Manchester are covered by the Department of Social Security offices in(a) Clarence road, (b) Old lane and (c) Wilmslow road, Rusholme.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of social security offices 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. Gerald Kaufman, dated 14 May 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational

  79
  matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security, asking which local government wards in the city of Manchester are covered by the Department of Social Security offices in (a) Clarence Road, (b) Old Lane and (c) Wilmslow Road, Rusholme.
  The information concerning local government wards has been confoirmed by the Chief Executive's Department at Manchester city Council. The information requested is appended.
  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.

  Benefits Agency Office and Ward

  Longsight office:

  Clarence Road

  Levenshulme

  Ardwick

  Burnage (part)

  Longsight (part)

  Gorton South (part)

  Openshaw office:

  Old Lane

  Gorton North

  Beswick/Clayton

  Bradford

  Droylsden East

  Droylsden West

  Gorton South (part)

  Rusholme office:

  Wilmslow Road

  Didsbury

  Hulme (part)

  Moss Side (part)

  Burnage (part)

  Old Moat (part)

  Rusholme (part)

  Longsight (part)

  Fallowfield (part)

  Withington (part)

  Barlow Moor Road (part)

DEFENCE

  WEU and NATO
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to reduce the United Kingdom's current and planned defence expenditure on(a) the United Kingdom armed forces and (b) the United Kingdom's contribution to NATO to allow for United Kingdom expenditure on the WEU; and what account is taken of WEU expenditure in framing the United Kingdom's defence budget.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have no such plans. Funding of WEU defence-related activities is taken into account in our annual expenditure plans.

  Polaris
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average annual running costs of Polaris have been since it first entered service at 1992–93 prices and what items these costs include.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The average annual running cost of Polaris for 1991–92 and 1992–93 is estimated to be £180,000,000 at 1992–93 prices. This includes the costs of manpower; stores and spares; refits; and the in-service support of warheads, submarines and their weapons 80
  systems. The average annual running cost of Polaris since it first entered service could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Aldermaston
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current shortfall in staff at AWE Aldermaston in(a) the supervisory and AEC category, (b) the specialist category, (c) the industrials, craft category and (d) the non-industrials category.

  Mr. Aitken
  Following the contractorisation of the Atomic Weapons Establishment on 1 April 1993 the question of staff numbers and any shortfalls is a matter for the operating contractor, Hunting-BRAE Ltd. However, the latest figures available to us in the categories specified are as follows:

  Numbers

  Supervisory and AEC

  28

  Specialists

  100

  Craft Industrials

  19

  Non-Craft Industrials

  21

  Overall Aldermaston's staffing level is at over 96 per cent. of its nominal complement.

  Royal Ordnance plc, Birtley
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for future orders of ammunition from the Royal Ordnance plc, Birtley; and what scope exists for bringing forward the placement of such orders.

  Mr. Aitken
  Ammunition orders are let after competition wherever possible. Tenders are currently being evaluated for orders for tank ammunition and naval ammunition in which Royal Ordnance, Birtley has an interest. No other major orders which might involve work at Birtley are imminent. There is no scope for bringing forward orders, although as I announced to the House on 20 January,Official Report, col. 476, we intend to place a number of longer-term contracts for ammunition with the aim of helping industry to plan ahead with confidence. The tank ammunition order is an example of this.

  Army Bands
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Army units will in future have pipes and drums or bugles and drums; and what is the establishment of pipers, buglers and drummers in each category.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Western European Union and NATO
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the present and future expenditure implications of duplication of facilities and activities of the WEU and NATO.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The development of WEU as a means to strengthen the European pillar of Atlantic alliance will be based on the principle of complementarity between the facilities and activities of NATO and WEU so duplication should be avoided. In this context, WEU's
  81
  Petersberg declaration of June 1992 made it clear that WEU would have no permanent forces or headquarters of its own.

  Trident
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the average annual running costs of Trident.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The average annual running cost of Trident over its life is expected to be about £190,000,000, at 1992–93 prices. This includes the estimated costs of manpower; stores and spares; refits; and the in-service support of warheads, the submarines and their weapons systems. In addition it includes an allowance for decommissioning and disposal costs, and a share of the Clyde submarine base's operating costs.

  Western European Union
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence out of what departmental budgets current United Kingdom contributions to the WEU come; and out of what departmental budgets they will come in future.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  United Kingdom contributions to the WEU are currently funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, with my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry contributing to the United Kingdom's share of the WEU's current involvement in space-related activities. These arrangements remain subject to review.

  Nuclear Weapon Transport Accidents
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his director of nuclear policy and security received a copy of the recent analysis of Ministry of Defence advice to civil authorities responding to nuclear weapon transport accidents, published by the nuclear free local authorities; and what plans he has to make a response to the report.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The document was received on 10 May 1993. Officials will consider it carefully and respond to it in due course.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether any stocks of genetically modified organisms are currently held by his Department; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether any work by his Department is currently undertaken or is planned for the future which utilises techniques of genetic modification of organisms.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  These are matters for the chief executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, who will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letters from Graham Pearson to Mrs. Ann Winterton, dated 17 May 1993:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him whether any stocks of genetically modified organisms are currently held by his Department: and if he will make a statement (Question 8, Order Paper 12 May 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  82
  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out research to ensure that the United Kingdom Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. As part of the research programme to counter the threat from biological warfare it is necessary to use genetic methods of modifying organisms. This research work generates small quantities of genetically modified organisms using processes that are both time consuming and costly. It is for this reason that small samples of each genetically manipulated organism are stored in secure conditions that meet the requirements of the Health and Safety Executive so that they can be re-evaluated at a later stage should the need arise. Genetically modified organisms that do not exhibit properties of value to the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment research programme are destroyed.
  3. In 1986 the then Chemical Defence Establishment was registered as a centre for genetic engineering with the Health and Safety Executive and all work with genetically manipulated organisms at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is carried out under the strict guidelines published by the Advisory Committee on Genetic Manipulation.
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him whether any work by his Department which is currently undertaken or is planned for the future utilises techniques of genetic manipulation of organisms (Question 13, Order Paper 12 May 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry our research to ensure that the United Kingdom Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to assess the threat to the United Kingdom Armed Forces from genetically modified organisms.
  3. The Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down uses genetic methods of manipulation in its current research programme and has plans to do so in the future. The purpose of the research is to assess the biological warfare threat from genetically manipulated organisms and to produce effective protective measures including medical contermeasures against their use. The results of this work is usually published in the scientific literature.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on preventing the development, both nationally and internationally, of genetically modified viruses or other agents as weapons of war.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Biological Weapons Act 1974 prohibits the development, production, acquisition and possession of any biological agent or toxin of a type and in a quantity which has no justification for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes. This Act implemented the United Kingdom national obligation to enforce the biological and toxin weapons convention. The Export of Goods (Control) Order 1992 introduced controls on the export of specific biological materials and certain human and animal pathogens which could be misused for weapons purposes. Both Acts and the convention apply equally to all microbial or other biological agents whether natural, enhanced or modified.

  It is our intention to continue to contribute to international efforts to prevent the development or acquisition of biological and toxin weapons by potential proliferators, specifically, to pursue the strengthening of the implementation of the biological and toxin weapons convention and to build on the existing international controls on the export of dual-use equipment and disease causing micro-organisms.
  83

  Book Supply
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the book the title of which has been supplied to him.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A copy of the book is on order for the stock of Ministry of Defence Headquarters Library.

  Abbey Wood Offices
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total anticipated cost of the Abbey Wood Office complex at Filton, Bristol; what sis the expected occupancy and the expected date of occupation; and how much has been spent so far on the construction of the complex.

  Mr. Aitken
  The estimated words cost of the new procurement executive headquarters at Abbey Wood, North Bristol, inclusive of site acquisition, construction, fitting out, professional works management and VAT is £255·4 million at 1993–94 prices. Within this sum £35·2 million has been spent to date on site acquisition, management, and preparatory works with a further £1·04 million contractually committed.

  The new site is being designed to accommodate some 4,800 procurement executive staff, together with service logistic support experts and other personnel, giving a total site population of 5,500. Occupancy is planned to start in autumn 1995 and complete by autumn 1996.

  When completed in 1996, collocation at Abbey Wood will produce running cost savings amounting to some £40 million a year; it is also a key element in our strategy to reduce PE HQ manpower by 25 per cent., yielding further savings of about £35 million a year.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in respect of how many parliamentary questions a substantive answer was not provided by his Department wholly or partly on the ground of disproportionate cost in each of the last 18 months(a) in total and (b) as a proportion of questions answered.
  84
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This is a matter of public record.

  Asbestos Exposure
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the information available on claims made by members and former members of the armed forces for compensation as a result of asbestos exposure.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  About 50 claims have been received relating to alleged exposure of service personnel to asbestos, dating back to the 1930s.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cases there have been of United Kingdom military aircraft breaking the sound barrier over Bosnia-Herzegovina; what is the purpose of such a practice; and what information he has of damage being caused to civilian property.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Nuclear Test Ban
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Her Majesty's Government will now declare a moratorium on testing nuclear warheads with a view in the medium term to a comprehensive test ban treaty on nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There is of course no question of our conducting further nuclear tests at Nevada while the current US moratorium remains in force. But the Government believe that progress towards a comprehensive test ban should be made on a negotiated and verifiable basis.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made in the negotiation of a comprehensive test ban treaty.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  No negotiations for such a treaty are now in progress.

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

Nuclear Missiles: Policy
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to procure an air-to-surface nuclear missile system.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, we are considering a range of possible options for our long-term sub-strategic nuclear capability after the eventual withdrawal from service of the WE177 free-fall bomb. An announcement will be made at the appropriate time.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Viscount not agree that at a time when we are cutting the defence budget and our infantry regiments, it makes no sense to spend huge sums of money on the new nuclear missile system? Its purpose is not clear and can probably be carried out much more cheaply and better by a Trident submarine.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I say that I suffer from a distinct sense of déjà vu. The noble Lord and I have exchanged similar views at several intervals over the course of the past 12 months. I ask the noble Lord to restrain his impatience a little longer. We are considerably nearer reaching a decision on this important matter than we were when he first raised the question. I assure him that the point he makes has played an important part in the consideration of the decision that we have to take.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the reason I have repeated the Question is a stubborn belief that sooner or later he is bound to come up with a better answer?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am flattered by the kind suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that I am capable of coming up with a good answer. However, I am sure he will agree that the decision we reach will be a rational and sensible one. We have not yet taken that decision. I shall be among the first to be able to lay before your Lordships the answer to the question that he poses. We are not yet in a position to do so.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that this is one of the few occasions when I hope that he will come up with one of those negative answers he is so good at giving.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, flattery from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is something that I always
1528
examine with slightly mixed feelings. However, I hope that, as always, my attitude towards the defence of the realm will be positive rather than negative.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Viscount confirm that it is the Government's view that the WE177 will not be effective after the end of the century? If that is the case, can he outline the strategic justification for the type of missile to which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, refers? In case it has escaped the attention of the noble Viscount, the Cold War has ended. Therefore, in order for the noble Viscount to provide a rational and sensible answer, is it not the time to conduct a complete strategic defence review of what we need?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is, I am sure, as aware as I am of the rationale for the possession of a sub-strategic nuclear capability. There is no point in possessing such capability unless it carries conviction. There is no point in spending money on a capability that does not carry that conviction. I asked this of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and now I ask the noble Lord, Lord Williams: will he contain his impatience for a little longer? I hope that I shall be able to satisfy both noble Lords that our decision is rational and sensible when the time comes to announce it.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, in arriving at the decision shortly to be announced, will the Government ensure that they take into account Section 2 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to which we are a signatory? Does he accept that a "rational and sensible" decision would take that fully into account?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Holme, knows as well as I that we are registered under the non-proliferation treaty as a nuclear power. Any decision under this head will take full account of that.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, instead of advancing ponderous arguments about secrecy and waiting to see what comes, is there any good reason why the Minister cannot relate, for the benefit of the House, the arguments between Trident and the expensive alternative?
Viscount Cranborne: I am sure that all noble Lords would agree that any presentation of a recommendation by a Minister of Her Majesty's Government to your Lordships' House should be well considered. It is the process of that consideration which is causing your Lordships some impatience. Nevertheless, I hope that the justification for the recommendation that I shall make in due course will be rational. One of the reasons it will be rational is that we have taken a sensible amount of time to come to our conclusions, which we shall defend to your Lordships in due course.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Viscount undertake that, when the decision is finally announced, it will be the result of a defence review? In that way, whatever the Government decide, we will know exactly what they are trying to do.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I have the feeling—it may be unjustified—that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is entering into the beginning of a circular argument which will not take us any further. The question of whether or not we have a defence review is immaterial. However, it is sensible to ask a question in regard to whether or not we should have a sub-strategic capability. Both I and Her Majesty's Government believe that it has a rational justification. The question is how it should be achieved. That is under consideration, as I have already said to your Lordships and to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, a number of times. I am glad to be able to say that we are reaching the moment when I shall be able to announce the recommendation. Your Lordships' reactions will be of considerable interest both to me and to Her Majesty's Government.

Prisoners and The Citizen's Charter
2.44 p.m.
Lord Erroll of Hale Lord Erroll of Hale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in keeping with the Citizen's Charter, persons serving sentences in prison are now to be treated as customers, as indicated by the Sunday Telegraph (2nd May).
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the Prison Service intends to act on Citizen's Charter principles in its dealings with both the public and prisoners. But it has no intention of treating prisoners as "customers".
Lord Erroll of Hale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. May I say that perhaps there is a need to ascertain the likes and dislikes of those in prison? Possibly one good way of doing it—not the Sunday Telegraph way—would be to take a random sample of perhaps one prisoner in 10 for a private interview with outside investigators who could ascertain the views of the prisoners themselves.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend thinks that it is a good idea to find out what prisoners feel. I would point out to him that it was not the suggestion of the Sunday Telegraph. The proposal was put forward by the Director General of the Prison Service. That is one way of finding out people's views. My noble friend has put forward another way. I shall certainly pass that suggestion on to the Director General of the Prison Service to see what he thinks about it.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that commercial and market-based language and commercial relationships are totally out of place in the context of judicial punishment? Surely our concern with justice does not stop with sentencing but should also cover the implementation of the sentence and should shape the prisoner's experience of punishment. In that context does the Minister not agree that standard setting and the definition of rights, duties and expectations of those in prison is the way forward, as suggested in the Woolf Report, to help to
1530
secure a just and fair prison regime? Does the Minister not agree that those kinds of standards and those kinds of rights and duties cannot, as experience in the past few weeks has shown, be secured by contracts with private firms?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may answer the last part of the question first, I do not agree. It is perfectly possible for standards to be adequately maintained by the private sector, as indeed by the public sector. There is nothing peculiar about prisoners that requires them to be looked after by civil servants. The important thing is to ensure that the contracts which are placed are correct and are kept. With regard to the main onus of the noble Lord's question, of course it is important that standards should be high. It is the business of government or the country not just to lock people up but to work with them. That is why the Prison Service has set forward its own proposals not only in its corporate plan but also in the Prison Service Citizen's Charter Standards of Service, in which it says exactly what it is going to do in order to raise the standards in the prisons and to make sure that the service is accountable properly to the prisoners, to the public and to families, friends, legal representatives and the visitors to the prisons.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the motivation for any private firm is to make money? I understand that that is part of the Conservative belief but it may not be the best way to try to reform people while they are in prison.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not agree with that. The whole point of privatisation is to see whether the private sector can produce the same standards as, and possibly even better standards than, the public sector is at present producing, at a cheaper price.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the question of the treatment of prisoners, the subject matter of this Question, lies within the remit of Judge Tumim, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons? He is doing a pretty good job and this matter is for the moment best left to him.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. Judge Tumim does a very good job of work as Chief Inspector of Prisons. But how the prisons are actually run and the way in which the prisoners are dealt with are specifically and principally matters for the Director General of the Prison Service. That is one of the reasons why it is important that he should know, and governors should know, the feelings of people in prison at any one time about any number of matters —apart from anything else, to stop trouble from brewing.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, if the questionnaire which is in the process of being sent to prisoners is such a good idea, why is the document headed "Confidential", as described in the Sunday Telegraph?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord has a peculiar fascination for believing every single thing that he sees in the Sunday Telegraph. It is perfectly true

1531
that it is headed "In Confidence", which is not perhaps quite the same as "Confidential". Even my own diary for the week is described as "Confidential". In confidence, I cannot think why.
This is at the moment being used as a pilot scheme in eight prisons. The idea is to see whether it works and whether the format is right. If it is right, then the matter might be pursued later. The questionnaire came into the public domain because the Prison Officers' Association said that it did not want to have anything to do with it. What is more, in a letter the general secretary, Mr. Evans, said:
"I have to tell you that in the event of this survey being promulgated the association will not only make it public but will ensure that the general public are made fully aware".
I dare say that that is the reason why the words "In Confidence" have a wider canopy.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, in view of the press reports over the weekend that one of the private security firms ferrying prisoners to and from court is considering the use of leg restraints, can the Minister say, first, whether the Government are aware of that proposal; secondly, whether they approve of it; and, thirdly, what safeguards there are, if any, that private security firms, or indeed those running privatised prisons, do not reintroduce regimes and methods which were rightly consigned to the dustbin of penal history many years ago?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness is ingenious. She must know that that question has nothing whatever to do with the Question on the Order Paper which is to do with the questionnaire that has been sent out. I am aware that the proposal referred to by the noble Baroness has been made. I believe that the Government will consider all manner of methods of preventing people from escaping, but I do not believe that they have yet come up with an official reply to that particular suggestion, and now is certainly not the appropriate time to give it.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, although aiming to please the customer is a praiseworthy principle, can the Government restrain Group 4 from taking that principle too far?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there have been one or two unfortunate incidents recently. Your Lordships should be fully aware that, regrettably, they are not peculiar to the privatised sector. Of course, steps are being taken to ensure that they do not happen in the future.

M.25 Congestion: Relief Proposals
2.52 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will postpone their proposal for up to 14 traffic lanes between junctions 12 and 15 of the M.25 until the schemes they have subsequently announced for speed restrictions and other traffic management measures affecting the same stretch of road have been tried and evaluated.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the experimental variable speed limits proposed for a section of the M.25 are intended to smooth the flow of traffic. They will not, however, provide a long-term solution to congestion on the motorway or provide the additional capacity urgently needed between junctions 12 and 15. We have proposed link roads for this section of the motorway and, following public consultation, hope to announce the way forward shortly.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for that Answer. I am sure that he is aware that the original £150 million proposal called forth objections on a very large scale. The closing date for objections was more than six months ago and we still await a draft order which may then he the subject of a public inquiry. In view of the expense, the controversy and the threatened devastation, both urban and rural, would it not make sense to wait and see whether these experiments, which themselves are costing millions of pounds, go some way towards meeting the problem of congestion for perhaps two hours a day, which is all that the problem involves?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, when the noble Lord speaks of expense and inconvenience, I know that he will bear in mind that the M.25 is perhaps the largest bottleneck between Scotland and its markets in Europe and that it is a problem which needs addressing urgently. That part of the M.25 is taking twice the amount of traffic that it was designed for. It is probably one of the busiest motorways in Europe, carrying over 200,000 vehicles a day. There is desperate need for additional capacity. That need is forecast at something like 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. required to accommodate the traffic. The slowing down of traffic to prevent bunching, on all the evidence which we have from Europe, would account for only 5 per cent. to 10 per cent.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the statement in the Question that it is proposed to introduce 14 traffic lanes on this road is accurate, and, if so, why?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the motorway will remain the same size. What is proposed is that there should be adjacent roads to the motorway to help relieve some of the local traffic which is at present using the motorway. It is interesting that the M.25 in particular is used as a local road as well as a motorway and that over 60 per cent. of vehicles leave at the second exit after joining it.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, would it not he better for the Government to have a comprehensive transport strategy and to use the kind of money involved to encourage freight to go by rail from the North of England to the Channel Tunnel rather than to go round the London périphérique?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord knows of the steps which we have taken to encourage freight to go not only by rail but also by sea. The fact

1533
is that almost 90 per cent. of the internal movements of the people of this country are done by car and that situation will continue for a very long time.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, as a member of a listening government, is my noble friend aware of the growing body of opinion that to spend a projected billion pounds widening the M.25—which will certainly not solve the long-term congestion on that motorway or anywhere else, as Los Angeles has shown—is a poor use of public resources either in terms of the opportunity costs or in terms of the very real problems which the Chancellor has with the public borrowing requirement?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords. I take the reverse view. The return from widening the M.25 in order to reduce the bottleneck which causes so much inconvenience to business is well worth while and is something which should be undertaken.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, the noble Earl confirmed, in a slightly tortuous way, that the Question is correct in saying that there will be 14 lanes, plus, no doubt, hard shoulders. Can he explain more clearly whether it is proposed to go ahead with the original scheme without troubling to wait to discover whether the money spent on the other plans shows results?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, all the evidence that we have shows that being able to reduce the speed at which traffic moves around a motorway improves the traffic flow by about 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. As regards the M.25, the problem facing this country is considerably greater than that. The scheme, which will be put forward as a result of the consultation, is something which I cannot forecast because we are still considering it.
Viscount Cross: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the M.25 has been a great success in that it has kept much through-traffic out of central London? Does he further agree that the proposed lanes for local traffic will be of great benefit to local residents? I may be wrong, but I visualise a three-lane road similar to the A.4 (the Great West Road) but without the traffic lights. Perhaps I may also congratulate the Minister on this far-sighted proposal which, by relieving congestion on the M.25, will enable that road to fulfil the purpose for which it was built.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the support which my noble friend has given the Government on this issue. There is certainly a problem. I believe that the proposal for link roads will be of benefit to the local community.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the idea of the M.25 was that it would solve all the problems of the London area? We now have another projection from the Ministry—no matter how well it is couched—that we are going to need 14 lanes. Will we not end up with adding more and more lanes until there is a complete
1534
circle of 14 lanes on the M.25? I understand that the scheme will cost £144 million. Does the Minister agree that the Government should begin to look at other methods of handling this situation, for example, by encouraging public transport rather than through continual expansion which eats into the green belt and causes pollution?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to draw attention to the much wider problems which the question of traffic flow poses. As he will be aware, we are considering that at the moment. I hope that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will make an announcement shortly.

Visiting Domestic Workers: Conditions
3 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will set up an interdepartmental committee to consider safeguards against exploitation and abuse of individuals brought into the United Kingdom by visitors as domestic servants or part of a family.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in May 1991 we introduced tighter criteria for the exceptional arrangements for domestic servants after an interdepartmental review had been undertaken. We have no plans to set up a further such review.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask what the Government are proposing to do about a number of cases of abuse of human rights recently reported in the Independent which have caused considerable trouble and distress to a very large number of people in this country, including Members of your Lordships' House?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if there is an abuse of human rights, the correct method of dealing with it is to go to the police and to complain of such an abuse.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the people to whom reference has been made are easily blackmailed into silence and are not able to complain in case they have to leave the country? Does he agree that there is room for further examination of this question in case in this land, the mother of democracy, there is almost a form of slavery for these people from the Philippines?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I would certainly be horrified if there were any form of slavery. The people who are given permission to come in are those who have been with their employer in their country of origin for at least 12 months, so they should know their employer's behaviour. We issue them with a leaflet and the entry clearance officers inform them of what is likely to be the case when they come to this country, explain their rights and so forth. Of course, one can never prevent anyone from contravening the law whether that person comes from another country or is indigenous to this country.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, if the noble Earl had been in the Moses Room a fortnight ago at a meeting organised by the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Hylton, he would have realised that something very near to slavery—if not slavery—is going on in this country. The noble Earl says that it is possible to go to the police, but some of these women are not able to get out of the houses in which they are locked, and their passports are taken from them. If they do get out and attempt to leave their employer, they can be deported as illegal immigrants. This is an absolute scandal, as I am sure the noble Earl will agree. We urge him strongly to look at the matter again and not to say that the existing law is operating because, indeed, it is not.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I recognise the concern of the noble Baroness. Anyone who restrains a person from so getting out is operating against the law. That happens to people in this country who are restrained by intruders and so forth. It is, of course, illegal to seize a person's passport, but all that one can do is to set the law and the standards and to say what is legal and what is illegal. The same applies in this case as to any other crime: it has to be pursued and notification has to be made to the policing authorities. I can see that that is difficult if a person is prevented from leaving a house, but that applies also to a person who is kidnapped in his own house.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that many of our British newspapers are carrying horrendous stories, including mental and physical abuse, of what is happening to some 20,000 home helps in domestic service who come from overseas? Is it not a disgrace to our nation? Will the Minister also take into consideration the fact that, as the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, rightly said, some of these people are being treated in such an appalling manner because those who employ them know full well that what they suffer here does not matter because, whatever it is, it is not so bad as what they would suffer if they went back home? Can the noble Earl also say whether the Government really intend to give tax relief to people who bring domestics to this country under the pretence that they are assistants to help in their homes to suffer what they are suffering?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord says that the newspapers are full of stories of 20,000 people who are suffering such damage. In fact, only 8,000 or so come here afresh each year. If the newspapers have information about 20,000 people, it is up to them to provide it to the correct authorities. When the noble Lord says that the people concerned know that they will be subjected to even worse procedures if they go back home, I can only tell him that when a person comes here—the majority come for six months—and requests to bring his servant with him, the latter is interviewed and his position and rights are exactly explained to him. One cannot do a lot more than that. Nobody will come to this country under those circumstances, which are outside the immigration
1536
rules, without having been in the employment of his employer for at least a year, so he knows what his employer is up to.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, the Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, contains a reference to "exploitation". Can the noble Earl say whether the Government have a view about the nature of exploitation and, if so, what it is since many of their labour market policies, as I think will be illustrated in this evening's "Panorama" programme, suggest otherwise?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there is no question about it—the Government disapprove of the exploitation of anyone whoever they are and whatever country they come from if they are resident in this country.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his comparison with kidnapping is not particularly apt since someone who is kidnapped almost always has someone outside who knows about their plight, whereas we are talking about people whose plight is not known? Will the Government do something about their immigration rules to ensure that people who are suffering this kind of persecution have a choice between incarceration by their employers where they are ill-treated or being deported if they complain?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, there is no way in which the Government can say that they can prevent employees being persecuted. All that one can do is to make the law so that those who do the persecuting are found to be criminal and incorrect. If the employee who suffers such persecution goes to the authorities, there is no reason for him to be deported unless, of course, he is here as an over-stayer, in which case that is a different matter.

Disability (Grants) Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is a short Bill. It serves one purpose and one purpose only. It provides authority to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to make grants to the Independent Living Extension Fund, the Independent Living 1993 Fund and Motability. The first two are the successors to the Independent Living Fund—the ILF—which has done a splendid job over the past five years in providing help for the severely disabled and enabling them to live independently in the community. The growth and success of the ILF is a tribute to the hard work and judgment of the trustees and staff of the ILF and I should like to pay tribute to all those involved with it. The work of the fund has paved the way for the community care reforms in demonstrating that disabled people do not have to be passive recipients of

1537
care plans devised for them by experts. They can participate in devising and managing their own packages of care.
But that said, the ILF was announced as an interim measure, pending the introduction of the community care arrangements. Those arrangements are now in place but, as I have said, the ILF has been so successful that the Government have chosen to continue support for independent living, adapted to suit the new arrangements.
As I have said, there are two successor funds which were established by trustees in February of this year, with operations starting on 1st April. The extension fund is quite simply what its name implies. It takes on the existing case load from the older ILF and will continue payments and will have the power to increase rates where any individual shows such a need. The other is the 1993 fund. By far the most popular aspect of the ILF was the flexibility and freedom of choice it allowed disabled people. The whole point of community care is that local authorities will respond to their clients' needs and provide such flexibility in the future. The 1993 fund is designed to fit closely with those arrangements, adding an element of cash payment, to ensure that the dignity and independence conferred by the old arrangements are carried forward into the new arrangements.
Both the new funds are now operational, with a full board of trustees. The hand-over from the ILF to the extension fund went smoothly and all clients continued to receive their weekly payments. The new director is also now in post, and we are progressing towards building the necessary bridges that will allow the innovative new partnership between the 1993 fund and local authorities to work smoothly.
With the introduction of the new community care arrangements, the vast majority of disabled people—including the bulk of those who would have looked to the ILF for help in the past—now look to their local authority to arrange their care needs. Local authorities either provide services themselves or contract with other providers to meet the needs of their clients. For the most severely disabled people whose care needs are so great that without additional help they would have to go into residential or nursing care, the 1993 fund will provide an additional option for social workers in planning packages of care with their disabled clients. The first applications have been received by the fund, and those are now being processed.
We expect that each year about 1,500 people aged 16 to 65 will get a cash payment from the new fund as well as help from their local authority. The Bill is part of the Government's overall strategy for disabled people—a series of measures that improve the lives of disabled people. Being able to make choices and decisions about everyday matters, like when to get out of bed in the morning or when to eat lunch, is something that many of us, for now, take for granted.
By continuing to fund the independent living extension and 1993 funds which offer flexibility and independence, more of the most severely disabled
1538
people in our society are able to make these important decisions for themselves. That undoubtedly increases the quality of their lives.
Finally, I should like to say a couple of words about Motability. The Motability scheme is an extremely successful joint enterprise of government, voluntary sector and the clearing banks. It serves to increase the quality of life of ever increasing numbers of disabled people and commands all-party support. I feel sure, therefore, that the House will wish to support this provision, which puts Motability funding on a statutory footing to ensure continued financial support in the future. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Henley.)
Lord Ennals: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, there are a number of Members on this side of the House who are worried about certain aspects of the legislation and who have been concerned since the funds were established. Will we have an opportunity to table amendments? Will there be a Committee stage? What is the situation in relation to whatever ruling may have been given by the Speaker in another place?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, this is a money Bill. The decision about whether it is a money Bill is a matter for the Speaker of another place. It is not something we in this House can challenge. My understanding is—this has been agreed through the usual channels and was moved last week by my noble friend the Leader of the House—that we shall take the Second Reading and all other stages today. I do not therefore imagine that it will be possible for the noble Lord to put down amendments. Bearing in mind that it is a money Bill, it would not be right for this House to send the Bill back amended to the other place, it having been declared by the Speaker to be a money Bill. It is not for us to challenge that decision.
3.14 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we thank the Minister for his clear introduction of the Bill. As the Minister said, the Bill funds two successor bodies to the old ILF—an ILF extension fund for existing clients and ILF 1993 for a limited number of new clients. Despite the Bill's bland clauses, the Bill is decidedly controversial. It disposes of considerable sums of public money to the disabled in ways that the disabled and the local authorities regard as retrograde. It is an odd Bill, drafted in a way which means that it evades, as my noble friend Lord Ennals has rightly pointed out, proper parliamentary scrutiny.
Those of us interested in DSS matters always face difficulties over scrutiny because the Benefits Agency is at arm's length. The ILF was set up by the Secretary of State, and the Bill merely grants its successor bodies the funds with which to fulfil their functions. Its terms of reference, including controversial items such as debarring those over 65 from applying to the ILF cannot, as such, be debated properly. It has been laid down in trust deeds, determined by the Secretary of

1539
State, and beyond parliamentary scrutiny until Members in another place demanded that the trust deeds be placed in the Library, and then moved amendments accordingly.
The Bill, as drafted by government, means that we in this House cannot even do that. As it is a money Bill we cannot realistically seek a Committee stage in which to press amendments which might have enjoyed your Lordships' support today, even though, as I say, it is a controversial measure with major implications for public policy and the disabled.
We on this side of the House face an arm's length DSS, an inaccessible trust and an unamendable Bill. So I hope that your Lordships will forgive us if I, and other speakers, make somewhat longer Second Reading speeches than we normally would, and go into matters in rather greater detail than we normally would so as to press those issues which ordinarily would have been explored in Committee. All that is the more worrying because of the unfortunate way the transition between the old ILF and the new successor bodies has been handled by government.
The original ILF was set up in June 1988 for five years to replace the special payments to the disabled which were wiped out by the Social Security Act 1988. Clearly, the original ILF had to be reconsidered in the light of the care in the community proposals, and we take no objection to that. But suddenly, and on 24 hours' notice, the Government announced last November that the ILF was to be replaced by two successor funds. When we on this side pressed the Minister at Question Time, he said that the Minister for disabled people would wish to hear the ILF's views about future arrangements. He did not and has not.
The original ILF had unrivalled experience and effectiveness. One might have expected it to have been consulted by government about successor bodies. No such consultation has taken place, despite the Minister's assurances to the contrary. One might have expected that some of the trustees—perhaps half—would have been invited to serve on the successor body, but not one of the Disability Income Group trustees was approached. Not one trustee will provide continuity between funds carrying the same name.
One might have expected that the old ILF would have been involved deeply with hand-over arrangements as 22,000 disabled people were affected. It was not. One might have thought that at the very least the old ILF fund would have been consulted about the timetable. It was not. It read about its fate in the DSS press release.
I cannot speak too highly of the two founding trustees of the successor bodies, but I have to say that I have never seen trustees of such a reputable body treated with so little respect for their skills and so little courtesy for their position. I can only assume that that was not because they did a bad job on behalf of disabled people but because they did a good job—too good a job for the comfort of Ministers and the Treasury alike.
In consequence, the old ILF had to close with 24 hours' notice, leaving a black hole against which disabled people could not claim for four-and-a-half months. Meanwhile, the Benefits Agency was
1540
introducing, or more accurately not introducing, a disability living allowance, and doing it so incompetently that it has recently been censured by the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Because applicants to the ILF had to be in receipt of DLA, it meant that many thousands lost their claim to such money because DLA claims had not been processed by the department.
When at Question Time the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was pressed on the matter he blamed the trustees for not exercising the discretion which we know they did not have. However, the Minister in another place, Mr. Scott, said on 15th March:
"It has been said, and technically it is correct, that trustees of charitable funds have discretion. However, I have always recognised that the need for an orderly handover prevented the trustees from being able to exercise their discretion in those circumstances. I want to make plain my regrets and apologies".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/3/93; col. 38.]
I am sure that on reflection the Minister will wish to be associated with Mr. Scott's apologies.
The way in which the two successor funds have been set up is unfortunate enough. More worrying still are the new terms of reference—the trust deeds—within which the successor funds will operate. As I said, and as the Minister frankly explained, the ILF extension fund will support existing ILF clients who in the past have approached the fund directly. ILF 1993 will support new clients but only if they have been referred by the local authority as needing more than £200-worth of care.
Who are we talking about? ILF clients are severely disabled people. Most of them suffer multiple disabilities; 45 per cent. are not able to move at all; 50 per cent. are able to move only with difficulty or with help; 45 per cent. have impaired sight. Only 6 per cent. can wash themselves; only 7 per cent. can toilet themselves; only 7 per cent. can go to bed without assistance; and only 4 per cent. can cope with their nightly needs without help. The majority of the young disabled are men. Of the elderly disabled, three-quarters are women. They need care throughout the day because without that they will have to go into residential care.
Astonishingly, only one-quarter of ILF clients were receiving any help from the local authorities. On average that help was limited to two hours per week of home help and one day a week at a day centre. They remained in the community not because of the help which they received from the local authorities but because they were able to tap a network of informal, private and voluntary caring. That in turn was made possible precisely because ILF moneys could reimburse the expenses of informal carers, pay for respite care and pay for additional help when informal carers were themselves in poor health or burnt out.
ILF moneys were useful because, as they were flexible and in cash, they could leverage the rest of the care package. By funding between 20 and 25 hours the ILF could float a further 60 or 70 hours of informal care cheaply for all of us and allow the disabled to do what they wish to do; that is, to remain in the community. The fund was targeted, flexible, in-dividualised, welcome and cheap. Without it the

1541
disabled would have had to enter residential care. All the research shows that people enter residential care not because their disabilities have grown more severe but because the informal network of caring has broken down.
That is why we believe the Bill and the two new successor funds have the structure so tragically wrong. The Bill destroys the capacity of disabled people to tap ILF funds to keep their informal care arrangements afloat. As a result, if informal care falters, as it often does, the disabled will become more dependent on formal and more costly local authority care. The local authorities themselves cannot afford to finance that.
I wish to look in particular at three aspects of the new arrangements about which I have notified the Minister and which concern the disability groups. The first is that local authorities must provide the first £200 of package before the client can be referred to the ILF. The second is that that £200 must be in kind and in services but not in cash. The third is that the arrangements are restricted to the under-65s.
First, under the proposed new arrangements in the trust deeds disabled people must receive £200 in services from the local authority before the local authority can refer them to the ILF. Yet we know that the severely disabled may need 24-hour a day intermittent care. But where they receive local authority support—and only one-quarter of them do—it will average only about two hours a week of home help and a day at a day centre, the value of which is about £40 a week. Can and will local authorities top up those services as required under the new arrangements? That is impossible.
Local authorities receive some £536 million for care in the community arrangements. Those are funds transferred largely from the DSS to fund existing residential care arrangements in private homes. Some such arrangements are £200 million short of what local authorities need to meet their existing commitments. In addition, the Government are producing £26 million, which we welcome, specifically to fund the £200 care packages for the severely disabled during the first year. That works out at about £50,000 for every 100,000 people—the average size of a district council.
If the severely disabled are already receiving an average of £40 per week in care from the local authority that £50,000 will buy, in an average district council, care of £200 per week for just seven severely disabled people. If the local authority perfectly prudently decides to stretch its money more thinly to help to keep more people afloat, not one will breach the £200 ceiling which would allow them to tap the ILF. As local authorities are capped they cannot add to their resources themselves. No one can make the sums work.
Research by the director of DIG, Pauline Thompson, asked directors of social services whether they believed they could fund the £200 package, which the Bill requires, within their own resources. Of the 68 who took part in the survey —that is, two-thirds of all the directors of social services—only one was sure that he could fund the package, 25 were fairly confident
1542
but 32 doubted that they could or would do so. Forty of the directors—that is two-thirds—admitted that care packages for the disabled would be determined not by the needs of the disabled but be limited by the resources of their departments.
Very few severely disabled people, therefore, will be able to turn to the ILF not because their needs do not exist—their needs are great—but because the gatekeeper, the local authority, will not be able to fund the first £200-worth of services, which make them eligible to pass through that gate.
I turn to the second criticism. I say "pay" for services, but, of course, the local authority is not permitted to pay, which is the second major problem. Local authorities are allowed to provide that £200 care package only in the form of services. They are not allowed to offer cash even when they wish to do so.
Many of the issues were aired around the Private Member's Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, to permit direct payments. Noble Lords from all sides of the House unanimously reminded the Minister of the virtues of cash payments. Cash payments are flexible; services in kind are inevitably inflexible because the client must fit the services rather than the services fitting the client. The clients may wish to go to bed at 11 o'clock, but if the local authority staff are to put them to bed effectively some of them must begin at half past eight in order to finish.
Cash payments are not only more flexible but cheaper. Formal home helpers charge £6.50 per hour, social workers' time costs £30 per hour but self-management—private brokerage which comes with cash payment—is not only more flexible but much less expensive. Cash payments also put the disabled people in control. The most recent Rowntree Report shows that service packages—that is, services in kind—are determined by professionals whose judgments are often at odds with what the disabled people want themselves. Above all—and the Minister spoke movingly of this - it is a matter of dignity and choice. Jenny Morris, herself disabled, said:
"Having the money to pay for personal assistance is the most important factor in enabling disabled people to assert the kind of choices which non-disabled people take for granted".
Another young disabled woman, Jane Campbell, said:
"Direct payments have turned my life around".
She has rediscovered spontaneity: to get up when she wants, to go out when she wants, to stay up late when she wants. That is everything that we take for granted. With cash, the carers work to her.
That principle is widely accepted in the other place. I quote from the debate on the Bill:
"We all know that by far the most popular aspect of the Independent Living Fund is the flexibility and freedom of choice that cash payments bring. Dignity and independence are as important to disabled people as they are to everyone else in society. Disabled people have come to value the ability to select and employ their own carers".
The speaker, of course, was the Minister, Nicholas Scott, speaking on a Bill which for virtually all disabled people takes away that right.
Why is that? In the debate on the Bill sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, the Minister argued that it is the job of the DSS to provide cash, the job of the local authorities to provide services and there

1543
should be no trespassing. That is nonsense. In Scotland trespassing occurs all the time. Indeed, in England local authorities make cash payments to children leaving care, to adults fostering children, adults running sports, the arts, and voluntary organisations. Cash payments are made to a wide variety of organisations and individuals, unless they happen to be disabled. It is only the disabled who are not to be trusted with cash.
The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, told us also that costs would escalate. Why should that be so? We seek only to give power to, rather than impose a duty on, local authorities to make cash payments. That power would be exercised by the local authorities only where it offered better value for money. It is already clear that the same resource put into cash rather than services will leverage far more informal care from neighbours and friends. Therefore, it will go further and help more people.
Indeed, without cash payments there is a greatly increased likelihood of a need for residential care. The Shaftesbury and Cheshire homes cost between £400 and £600 per week for the provision of care for the physically handicapped; yet Kingston social services department was keeping eight severely disabled people in the community at a cost of £55,000—a tenth of what it would cost to keep them in residential homes.
The Minister, Mr. Scott, said also that if local authorities can find a way around the law—for example, by paying money to a local trust to pay out to disabled people —he would be delighted. Is it really sensible social policy to encourage local authorities to bend the law rather than expect the Government to amend it? That really will not do.
I turn now to the third major criticism offered by the disability groups; that is, that the new funds are confined to those aged under 65.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I wonder whether my noble friend will deal with the top limit of £500. That seems to me to he extremely disturbing. There are many highly qualified doctors and nurses who have an enormous contribution to make who can only make that contribution if they are able to have the assistance which we are talking about here.
The Minister in another place, when dealing with the top limit of £500, said that he did not believe that there is anything offensive in our setting an upper limit beyond which it is not unreasonable that people would need help and decide, sometimes reluctantly, that the time has come for them to go into residential care. Does my noble friend find, as I do, that that is a shocking statement? Is the figure of £500 the price of freedom in this country for severely disabled people who have a great contribution to make to our society?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend raises an extremely important point. Indeed, in the other place the discussions became somewhat muddied as the Minister used metaphors about sandwiches. If a disabled person requires £200 worth of care, he gets that as a package from the local authority in the form of services. If he requires up to
1544
£500 worth of care, the first £200 comes from the local authority and the next £300 can come from the ILF. But if he requires £501 worth of care, he is not eligible at all to apply to the ILF. All funding must come from the local authority and must be funded entirely in the form of services. Therefore, my noble friend is entirely right. It means that a person in that situation will not have the flexibility to construct the care package which is needed, but very few disabled people will be financed by local authorities in that respect.
Finally, I turn to my last criticism; namely, that those aged over 65 are not eligible to receive money from the ILF. Thirty-seven per cent. of the old ILF clients were aged over 60. We accept that resources are finite but why are the Government privileging those aged under 65?
The argument advanced by the Government throughout is that older people have had the opportunity to share in the country's growing prosperity and to build up pensions and savings. As with so much of the debate, that is simply not true. Only one-third of the retired are disabled but those who are have only 88 per cent. of the income of younger disabled people. Therefore, they are poorer. Only one in six of those disabled have income above income support levels. They are poorer. One should add to that that three-quarters of the elderly disabled are women. They will not have built up pensions in their own right. Indeed, only 28 per cent. of all women leaving work qualify for a state pension in their own right. The rest are dependent on their husband's contributions. They certainly do not have access to private pensions or SERPS in their own right.
The reason that those women are very poor, usually on income support with no savings, is because too often they have been among the army of carers, caring usually for men. That has kept them out of the labour market so that by the time that they need help for themselves they are on very low incomes, with no savings, in poor health and can find by caring for others that they have become socially isolated. When the time comes for them to need care in turn, often they have no informal network on which to draw. Three-quarters of those living alone are women. Therefore, they are more rather than less likely to need to buy formal care.
Because those woman are now refused access to the ILF, what do the Government believe will happen to those older disabled women? Are the Government saying that they will not be cared for, or are they saying that because they are over 65 and because they are women they must be cared for differently, more expensively and in ways in which the women almost certainly do not want? The connections between poverty, gender and disability are there for all to see. By confining ILF funds to those aged under 65, the Government are denying help to those very women who, when younger, kept many other disabled people afloat in their community. That is deeply unjust.
This is a rationing Bill. It requires the first £200 to come from the local authorities in kind, which most social services directors believe is not financially possible. Secondly, it provides payment by services rather than by cash. That will allow local authorities,

1545
if they follow Mr. Lemming's advice, to conceal assessed needs and to make obscure the degree to which that is being met. Confining ILF funds to those aged under 65 ensures that those who have least access to informal caring and are, therefore, in greatest need —women—are denied access to the ILF altogether.
It is a rationing device and it is clearly very successful. Whereas the old ILF had 8,500 clients per year, the new ILF expects only 1,500. Whereas the old ILF had nearly 600 inquiries in its first month, the new ILF has had only 12 and, even now, there have been only 56 inquiries. If the money provided by the Bill is sufficient for the successor funds, it will be so precisely because the disabled will have been deterred or debarred from applying for it. In terms of the funds that it provides, the legislation may well be successful. It is a pity about the disabled.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, it has been pointed out to me that, under the Companion to the Standing Orders, we are not debarred from amending the Bill. Moreover, if we choose to do so, the House of Commons does not have to consider the amendments. Indeed, there have been cases in the past where this Chamber has actually amended Bills and the other place has accepted such amendments.
Having said that, I now find myself in the position of having to follow the speech of the noble Baroness who examined the subject in such detail that much of what I intended to say is more or less superfluous. However, I should like to support the noble Baroness on several of the points she made. For example, if you provide help to those who are disabled so that they can choose what it is that they need—that is, by giving them cash so that they can purchase their own assistance and support—you will give them far greater freedom. If you give someone freedom you are adding to his status in life and his ability to enjoy a quality of life. The noble Baroness was right to draw our attention to that fact. I should have thought that it was fairly obvious to all concerned that that is the case. If you want to give someone dignity and control over his life by allowing him to organise it himself, invariably the people who are receiving the help will be the best people to tell you how that help should be administered.
I concur totally with the point that we should not have a finite cut-off limit. An article in Social Work Today said that about 1 per cent. of those trying to claim extra funding would go over the 5 per cent. limit. Surely, bringing down an arbitrary line with that sort of heavy terminology is just a little obscuring. For example, if someone needs £501, as the noble Baroness said, that person will be debarred from help. Surely it is better to have a more flexible approach.
There is the other area of debarring those below the age of 65. As the noble Baroness said, a person who has had a disability for quite a long time will have had less chance to build up a pension or savings and thus will be in more need of help. Surely, bringing down artificial barriers—namely, a very rigid level of finance and a very rigid age barrier—will mean that more
1546
people are forced into residential care which is invariably more expensive. They will not be able to live in their own homes in dignity and enjoy a far higher standard of living as well as saving the taxpayer money.
3.42 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, on Thursday evening I attended a dinner with American people working in Britain. I was told that a couple of Americans were returning home and wanted to travel on the QE2. The wife was disabled. When the shipping firm was told, the attitude was that she would be a nuisance. I was told that the firm had been most unhelpful. The Americans, who now have antidiscrimination legislation, are understandably furious.
Are we, as a country, trying to push disabled people aside? The Disability (Grants) Bill now before us is causing great concern among organisations of disabled people. I am president of the Spinal Injuries Association. Many of our members are extremely disabled, having broken their necks in accidents which are often not covered by insurance. If you break your neck, you can become totally paralysed from the neck down. You can lose feeling from that area down and you can also lose the usual bodily functions of the bladder and the bowels. A manual evacuation of the bowels has to be performed every two days and the bladder has to be managed throughout the day.
To prevent pressure sores, the person has to be lifted and moved constantly. People without the use of their hands and arms require such things to be done for them. There must be trust in, and compatibility with, the carer. Care is costly. The Spinal Injuries Association runs campaigns on accident prevention. We are very pleased that the Government have put accident prevention as a priority category in The Health of the Nation.
I am attending a conference tomorrow on pressure sore prevention, organised by the Department of Health. Pressure sores are enormously expensive to the quality of life of the individual and to the Department of Health. I am very concerned that. without adequate care in the community, there will be an increase of such preventable conditions as pressure sores.
Will social service departments which assess and give grants to severely disabled people understand such matters? It is no small matter: we are talking about a life and death situation. Unless some amendments are made to the Disability (Grants) Bill, the organisations of disabled people believe that the Government's proposals will be the death knell of the future of independent living. Adequate and appropriate personal assistance provision is fundamental to equality for disabled people. Denial of that is a denial of equal rights.
One of the main reasons for the growth of the Independent Living Fund (ILF) was that social services departments were becoming increasingly unable to cope with the high degree of personal assistance needed by severely disabled people. It has been found that many local authorities are not providing adequate means; they are concerned that

1547
they are not meeting the needs because of financial stringency. Moreover, because of that, they may be under-assessing people so that they will not reach the threshold to qualify for the ILF money.
A young man who broke his neck in a rugby accident and lived with his widowed mother founded the Spinal Injuries Association with myself and others. David's mother was becoming very crippled with arthritis. On one occasion, he said to me, "I will never go into residential care". That severely disabled person must have realised how care in the community was moving, for some months after I saw him he was found dead in his lily pond in the garden. Somehow he had managed, without the use of his arms, to get himself there. To this day, no one knows how he did it. But I feel that society let him down. That is why our debate today is so important.
Another young man who had broken his neck was placed in residential care. His parents who lived in the East End of London did not want him home. They would not change to a more suitable flat. I saw the young man when he was being visited by his girl friend in a unit attached to a hospital for elderly people. The young man looked and felt like a caged animal. If that sort of person has to live in residential care, there is no light at the end of the tunnel.
I should like to ask the Minister why there is a requirement under the trust deeds that employment details of employees should be given to the trustees. That seems to be an infringement of privacy and confidentiality and represents unnecessary bureaucracy. It also negates the positive aspect provided by direct cash payments of flexibility and genuine self-control by the disabled person. I hope that the Government will review that requirement.
The Spinal Injuries Association estimates that, for its severely disabled members, the average personal assistance cost is in the region of £300 per week. Therefore, the amount of cash received under the new arrangements will not give them any meaningful control over their personal assistance arrangements. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of County Councils and the Association of Directors of Social Services have said that that will lead to,
"muddled personal assistance provision for severely disabled people".
All those bodies support the case for direct payments.
There has been so much change, especially as regards severely disabled people. Some might say it is change for the sake of change. The Government seem to be restless. They are always changing benefits and making the vulnerable feel more vulnerable. Many people are sorry to see the end of the Independent Living Fund, as it was. Its replacement is but a pale ghost of the original. Such experienced, admirable people as Peter Large, who has done so much for disabled people through the Disablement Income Group, are worried about the changes. It is severely disabled people who know the real importance of the Government getting a Bill like this right.
Many people are concerned that the House of Lords will not discuss the matter fully enough. Disabled people must contact their Members of
1548
Parliament about financial matters. This issue is probably more appropriate for another place rather than your Lordships' House as it is a financial matter. I hope that the Minister will explain the Government's position so that we in this House are not thought to be complacent. We consider this to be a very important matter.
3.51 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Henley for his introduction of the Bill which contains the Government's arrangements to replace the former Independent Living Fund and, we hope, carry on its good work. The two new funds are also designed to enable the severely disabled to live in the community outside institutions. I remember when the ILF was created in 1988. There were then doubts and criticisms expressed, including from the Opposition Benches in both Houses of Parliament. Now there is general agreement that it has been a success. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has just spoken of it in generous terms. It was intended to cover only a limited period of time until the community care system started.
In 1988 it was estimated that about £5 million a year in grants would be expended. But in the event after four years the figure reached about £100 million a year. It was also providing grants to some 21,000 severely disabled people. I wish to say a few words here about numbers. It may be pointed out by some that that is a very small proportion of the estimate of the total of disabled people in the United Kingdom which is thought to be over 6 million. The clear explanation must be made that these new funds are for severely disabled people who can, with help—and who wish to do so—cope with life without institutional care. The figure of over 6 million comprises disabled of all kinds, including people with minor handicaps, although the degree of handicap is sometimes not obvious. For example, the loss of one finger may not seem a serious disability but of course it has serious implications for a professional pianist. Moreover, about 80 per cent. of the 6 million are elderly people whose disabilities have arrived with age. They were able bodied in their youth and during their working lives. The large majority of these people who need help should be served by the general community care system now in operation. That new system caters for both disabled and elderly people. Many of its clients will be in both categories. This should assist local authorities in their organisation of functions. That, of course, is a wider subject and I hope it will be debated on another day.
I am glad that both in the general community care scheme and in this Bill which deals with the severely disabled the principle is to promote independence, if possible. Choice must remain because a few people prefer institutional care. We must remember that a choice must be given. Some of your Lordships will know that I have been advocating this principle in both Houses of Parliament for over 25 years. Therefore it will come as no surprise to noble Lords to learn that I support the principle of independence, where possible.

1549
In the mid-1960s the only disabled persons who received benefits related to disability were the war disabled and those who had received industrial injuries in certain circumstances. Others, however severe their disability— it may have been a lifelong condition—were subject to ad hoc care from their families, local communities, institutions, voluntary organisations or in enforced hospital life.
However, a voluntary organisation was founded in the mid-1960s with the aim of changing that situation. It has already been mentioned in the debate; it was the Disablement Income Group (DIG). After its earlier successes I was delighted in 1988 when it was chosen by the Government to manage the ILF upon its creation. I am sure that DIG contributed much to the ILF's achievements. Incidentally its founder, Mrs. Megan du Boisson, who died in a tragic motor accident four years later, was the first person in a wheelchair to ascend to the public gallery in another place. The then Serjeant at Arms co-operated admirably to enable her to hear one of the first parliamentary debates on disabled people. I initiated that debate as I had the good fortune to win a ballot.
I trust that comments in this single debate on the Bill in this House will be fully considered by the Government when bringing its provisions into effect. I shall now make my own comments. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has already mentioned direct cash payments. These are cash payments to individuals but they are not included in this Bill although they were part of the former Independent Living Fund system. The same principle is in the Bill being sponsored in this House by my noble friend Lord McColl of Dulwich. It worked well with the ILF and the Government's objections appear to be technical. I understand the Government object because the trustees are already in place in conditions which have already been accepted. Surely the Government can find a way of changing this without necessarily changing the terms of the Bill.
Accountability is, of course, needed, but that has been arranged successfully in the recent past. The principle of direct payments to individuals also extends choice. That is an aim of the Government in this field. Costs would not be increased but there would probably be better value for money as the payments would meet the particular requirements of an individual.
I shall now comment on right of review; that is, a right to have a decision independently reviewed. Admittedly this did not exist under the former ILF scheme, but that scheme was temporary. I understand the Government have said that there will be a review mechanism, but will it be based on an independent body or person as that is the vital element if it is to be a proper review?
I now turn to Motability. The Bill is rightly being used as a timely means of continuing grants to this charitable organisation which runs an excellent scheme of helping to provide vehicles for disabled people. About 140,000 people are at present being helped in this way, mainly through favourable terms for leasing and hire purchase. Some 330,000 vehicles
1550
have been provided under the scheme since it started. Motability certainly deserves continued support with our approval.
I have a question for my noble friend. How do the funds relate to mental disability, a subject in which I am much involved? I was especially involved with it when I was the chairman of the Scottish committee during the International Year of the Disabled in 1981. As a result I am the patron of one of the mental illness organisations. Were some mentally disabled people included among those receiving grants under the old ILF scheme? I do not expect the Minister necessarily to reply today, but perhaps he could write to me later. Will such people be included in the new schemes?
I make clear my own view that the new fund is not likely to be applicable to the usual cases of severe mental illness because the individuals do not need physical help and their state is often highly volatile. They need understanding and sensitive supervision. When relapses occur, perhaps because on a whim the person has decided not to take medication, temporary institutional care is probably the necessary remedy. In other words, either the individuals are in the community or hostels under observation, or they are in hospital in a crisis.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, is due to speak later in the debate so I have restricted my observations to the mentally ill. He may have more to say about other mentally disabled people.
To sum up, the old ILF was temporary and, contrary to some forecasts, has set an exemplary pattern. The new funds will be launched with the best hopes of most Members of this House. The Government will be wise to bear in mind the main comments made today in this debate.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, we should welcome the fact that the ILF survives at all. Half a loaf is better than no bread. This is only half a loaf, but at least it gives us something to build on and to improve by continued pressure in the future. As my noble friend Lady Hollis spelt out so distinctly, this Bill certainly needs some improvement.
Incidentally, something else which needs improvement is access to this House for disabled people for the purpose of listening to our debates, particularly for those who use wheelchairs. I hope that that matter may be given consideration at some time.
This debate has demonstrated the widespread support for giving disabled people the resources with which they can buy the services which they need in order to live in the community. That was overwhelmingly clear in the other debate on the Bill to which reference has been made, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, a debate in which we who spoke scored all the goals but after which the Government Front Bench team awarded themselves the victors' medals.
The history of the Government's attitude towards grants for disabled people has been chequered. They have not so much moved the goalposts in the course of their consideration of the matter as changed their jerseys. Now we are told by Downing Street that we

1551
are to have a listening government. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, emphasised, it is critically important that the Government should listen to disabled people on this issue. They should listen to social service departments. They should listen, as I have, to those who are charged with assessing the needs of disabled people under community care, who are in no doubt whatever about the superiority of direct grants. They should, and I hope will, listen to their own Back-Benchers who have spoken this afternoon and on other occasions.
The Minister's right honourable friend the Minister in another place, speaking on the Bill said:
"I have a feeling that I will be constantly reminded of the arguments that have been put forward and that the Government will have to reconsider this from time to time to see whether the new arrangements are bearing up or what changes may be necessary".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/4/93: col. 902.]
Given the constitutional position, all we can do this afternoon is to put up some flags charting the areas on which we shall concentrate in the future. My noble friend Lady Hollis has done that very ably. Her comments were based on the proposition that assistance to disabled people to live an independent life should he a right. That assistance could take the form of providing the disabled person with the means to make decisions about his or her own care arrangements and providing the necessary resources. The Bill falls short of that test.
Those resources should he provided on the basis of common standards and common conditions, avoiding inconsistent treatment. No scheme which depends basically on assessment by a multiplicity of local authorities can meet that test. Finally, assistance should be available to anyone who passes the test of being able to cope in the community, and the Bill falls short on that score also.
I recognise that the Bill goes at least some way towards meeting the needs of disabled people, but it puts unnecessary hurdles in the way of disabled people. That is the very last thing we ought to do to persons who use wheelchairs or who have, for example, impaired vision.
My noble friend Lady Hollis made an overwhelming case. I should like to underline two of the points which she made in relation to the Independent Living 1993 Fund. The first is the fact that individual local authorities will decide whether people have access to the fund at all, and before an application can even be made the local authorities must be making a contribution or providing services of the order of £200 a week, an amount which very few local authorities spend on individual cases now. Local authorities have not been meeting the full needs of disabled people. As my noble friend illustrated, they are now telling us that they cannot meet them in future. We know that assessors are being told to keep down the provision which they make. They are being told in effect to deprive Peter in order to support Pauline. What ought to be a needs led service is obviously incompatible with budget limited provision.
We accept that there have to be some financial limits, but the likelihood is that different local authorities will interpret needs in different ways. That
1552
will lead to inconsistent treatment of people with similar needs. I hope that the Government will monitor that issue very carefully. I can assure the Minister that organisations for disabled persons and those of us who are sympathetic to them will be doing so.
My second point relates to the fixing of the upper limit at £500 a week, to which other noble Lords have referred, and the limitation on the ability of the 1993 fund to provide a cash top-up if the cost of the whole package is more than £500. Reference has been made to the uncertainty which surrounds that provision. I heard with interest my noble friend Lady Hollis claim that the local authorities would have to pay the whole of the cost. If that is so it is news to me. I hope that the issue will be clarified by the Minister beyond peradventure.
More important is the question of the £500 limit itself. It is my understanding that the extension fund can pay up to £560 a week whereas the 1993 fund can pay only up to £500. If that is so, why is there that difference? Independence should be based on an assessment that the person can cope and not on a cash limit. As has been said earlier, in effect the Government are saying that £500 a week is to be the price of freedom. I accept that there has to he some limit on the amount of cash made available, but this is unreasonably restrictive. There cannot be many disabled people whose costs exceed £500 a week, and surely the fund grants can be made sufficiently flexible to accommodate the few marginal cases which would be affected. The alternative is residential care, or possibly nursing care.
My final point, echoing what my noble friend and others have said, concerns the upper age limit which applies to both funds, namely the limitation of entitlement to people of working age—presently 60 and 65. That limit is being questioned strongly, not least by the Government themselves. It has been far too arbitrary in terms of defining the possibility of making contributions or the point at which needs begin to emerge in the community. We are told that drawing that line will save £2 million in 1993–94, £9 million in 1995–96. But that is marginal when we consider the amounts of money involved.
Previous speakers have emphasised the way in which the provisions will affect old people and their carers, many of whom are themselves beyond working age. It was said that old people have savings. Some do; but the recent Carnegie report on the third age has demonstrated the wide and increasing gap between the incomes of third agers generally, on the one hand, and the poorest of them, on the other, and the steady decline of income with age. It is also said that local authorities can provide additional services, if necessary. But those people do not want local authority services. As has been said, they wish to be able to choose.
I repeat what I have said in earlier debates. That provision is analogous to giving old-age pensioners grocery tickets instead of cash. The gross cost will be £2 million. However, instead of that money being made available local authority services in kind will be provided which will be more costly. Alternatively,

1553
some people will have to go into residential care which will also be more costly. On the grounds of the economical use of resources, it would be sensible to build adaptability and flexibility into the operation of the funds. I hope that it is not too late to review that proposal and to consider again the agreement that has been reached between the Government and the trustees. At the very least high priority should be given to extending provisions in that way as part of what must be an ongoing and regular reassessment of whether the funds are achieving the objectives that the Government themselves have set. The Minister said that he expects the Government to be under pressure on those and other points. He will not be disappointed.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, this is the first time that I have had the rather unusual experience of speaking in your Lordships' House during a debate on a money Bill, with its somewhat arcane restrictions. I am reminded of Harry von Tilzer's famous old music hall song of long ago—1900 to be precise—of being "A bird in a gilded cage". Admittedly, I am of the wrong sex. But as any amendments that I or other noble Lords care to proffer can be disregarded, emasculation rather than emancipation is a word which is more easily spoken "trippingly on the tongue". That is a pity, for there are many amendments which were offered by both sides of the House in another place which could have greatly improved the new Independent Living 1993 Fund and the Independent Living Extension Fund. Alas, those were largely disregarded.
We now face a Bill which has caused a number of grave concerns to be voiced by MENCAP and other organisations working with or on behalf of people with disabilities, as well as the Disability Alliance itself. Perhaps I may quote the words of Lorna Reith, the director of the alliance. She said:
"What is at stake is the quality of life and the right to live independently of the most severely disabled people in the country".
Other noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Masham, have spoken eloquently and movingly on those grave concerns. With your Lordships' indulgence, I wish to summarise those anxieties.
The first concerns the problems to be faced by those affected by the upper age limit, with its ludicrous denial of funds for people over 65. Of all those receiving help from the old ILF, 34 per cent. were over that OAP limit. The second anxiety is over the £200 local authority contribution which can no longer make cash payments to an individual. The third involves the upper ceiling of £500 overall, with its overt threat of residential care being seen as the preferred alternative once that figure has been reached. The fourth is the right of review being qualified by those dread words "if necessary". The fifth refers to ensuring adequate provision for existing beneficiaries as promised in the Government's manifesto commitments but now capable of being set aside. The sixth involves confidentiality, which will
1554
now be breached by the disclosure of all carers' names, addresses and national insurance numbers to the Secretary of State.
The seventh anxiety involves the parliamentary accountability being promised in a very half-hearted way by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Alistair Burt, who said in another place on 23rd March, at col. 18 of the Official Report, that,
"as the fund is new, if time is available, a date would probably be appropriate after a year to see how the running of the new fund is progressing".
Another ministerial statement made a month later on 27th April, at col. 902 of the Official Report, seemed to anticipate U-turns ahead, as we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest.
Finally I come to the dread hyphenated words "ring-fencing". The Disablement Income Group Report, Cause for Concern, found that only 57 per cent. of directors of social services surveyed were planning to spend their independent living allocation on funding the first £200 of individual care packages. Ring-fencing of those funds and others would assuage our fears on that and on community care as a whole.
That leads me in a general way to MENCAP's fears, as anticipated by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. For those among us with a severe learning disability and additional sensory and/or physical disabilities, community care plans promise, at best, further thought and for the most part nothing, even though 12 years ago, and many times since in similar words, government have set out their community care priorities as being,
"to maintain a person's links with family and friends and normal life and to offer the support that meets his or her particular needs".
Five years after Care in Action the then Secretary of State for Social Services told the annual conference of the Association of Directors of Social Services:
"The reality is that community care policies have significantly improved the lives of many people who would otherwise have spent years in institutions cut off from normal living. None of us would wish to see the people for whom we care confined to that sort of existence indefinitely".
The vast majority of people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities at present live at home with their parents. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said, we want a flexible system which will support them more adequately while they live in the family home. Most care packages, to use the jargon, probably cost local authorities well under £200 a week. Some families receive negligible help. Beyond the family home most profoundly disabled people will in time need good quality residential care. For some the old ILF did, and the new ILF could, offer an imaginative alternative. That imaginative choice is ruled out by the Minister's statement in the Adjournment Debate on 25th February last that beyond an upper limit of cost, choice will be denied. Once again the most severely disabled people have least, or zero, choice.
If the Disability (Grants) Bill is not amended, many severely disabled people may well find themselves in the 1986 phrase uttered by the then Secretary of State,
"confined to that sort of existence indefinitely".

1555
Old Harry von Tilzer was pretty close to the mark, was he not? He might well have been writing about community care and the ILF—might he not—with the words:
"She's only a bird in a gilded cage,
A beautiful sight to see
You may think she's happy and free from care,
She's not, though she seems to be"?
4.19 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I welcome the Government's efforts to continue the excellent independent living fund with the Independent Living Extension Fund and the Independent Living 1993 Fund. However, that may be as far as my welcome goes today.
I have seen suggestions that the overall level of funding for the two new funds, with the number of severely disabled people who will be eligible under the funds, will produce a shortfall. Can my noble friend assure the House that sufficient funds will be available and, if not, the shortfall will be made up?
As the law stands, the inability of local authorities to make direct payments is disastrous to the working of the fund set up under the Bill. If the Government were to take on hoard the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McColl—the Disabled Persons (Services) (No. 2) Bill—and see it safely through not only this House but the other place, it would help to make the Bill that we are now discussing work properly.
The first £200 worth of funding for severely disabled people under the Bill has to be provided by means of services from the local authorities. As I understand it, that means that there will be little choice. A number of disabled people who are currently working, paying tax and playing a useful part in society will be unable to continue their work because they will not have the flexibility under the local authority services that they have at present.
The upper limit, the additional —300 over and above the —200 in services, can be provided in the form of cash. That will make an absolute mishmash and it will be very complicated. It would not be difficult for local authority staff to run, say, 50 or 100 severely disabled people and all that the staff would have to do would be to monitor the accounts of the special funds set up at banks and check the receipts for the money expended.
I gather that in the other place the Minister, when dealing with the Bill, suggested that once people needed more than £500 per week spent on them they would have to go into residential care. I work for a voluntary organisation which runs a number of good residential care homes, providing the kind of services to severely disabled people who, the Minister says, would have to go into homes and for which those people would have to find the funds. The cheapest I could find was £535 per week, and it does not include all the services that such people would require. For disabled people who need help with all bodily functions and feeding the cost works out at £635 per week. By my calculation that is 27 per cent. above the £500 that the Government say will be the cut-off point at which people will have to go into a home. Far better value for money could be obtained through increasing
1556
the grant, making it more flexible and allowing people to choose their own staff. It would be much more satisfactory for the disabled person and allow local authorities to distribute cash over the whole range, thus reducing administrative costs. There is no doubt in my mind about that.
The other point is ring-fencing, also mentioned by other noble Lords. I gather that the funds being produced under the Bill will not be ring-fenced. What steps will my noble friend the Minister take to ensure that the funds given under the Bill to local authorities are used properly and not for other social services? They should not just be frittered away. I am sure that local authorities will not be able to use the funds for totally different purposes, but it is essential to ensure that the money provided under the Bill is used for those for whom the funds are set up.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, with the permission of the House I wish to speak in the gap. I should like to make two simple points. As a preface, in the 1960s and 1970s the first attack on the welfare state was started by friends of the Government in the various think-tanks, including the Institute of Economic Affairs and other places. It was said that what was wrong with the welfare state was that it provided things in kind. It would be much better if the cash were provided.
The fundamental attack that people like Professor Friedman find Professor Hayek made on the welfare state was that by providing things directly in kind, the state denied people a choice. We have now come full circle, after 30 years. The Government who profess to defend choice now say, "No, you can't have cash, you must have things in kind". Clearly, as many noble Lords have pointed out, that will be a severe restriction on people's choice to live independently, as many will wish. It is also paradoxical that, as many people pointed out, that is a more expensive way of doing things than getting value for money.
I wish particularly to comment on the various parts of the so-called "sandwich" of £500 and above. It has been pointed out and corroborated by surveys that local authorities do not currently provide anything like sufficient help to the severely disabled to justify the £200 requirement in the present provision. People are required, under present legislation, to take £200 worth of services in kind from the local authority before they apply for the £300 in cash. That seems to be a perverse rule because I could easily imagine someone receiving, say, cash of £250 and being able to provide much better for themselves than if they had to go to the local authority for £200 for an activity which the local authority may or may not have the capacity to provide. What is more, if such rules are imposed it will lead to cost inflation. Services will be increased to £200 worth in order to allow a person to claim the next £300. Clearly, cost inflation is unnecessarily built into the sandwich. A direct payment of cash would save on expenses.
However, what about people who need to spend more than £500? As we know, most of us are able to make our own decisions on when to get up, when to eat, and so on. For other people it would cost a

1557
considerable amount to have such freedoms: for some it may cost more than £500, for some less than £500. What is the logic of the cash limit of £500? I do not understand it. It is not as though people will go on a bonanza if there is no cash limit.
I wish to put a question to the Minister and I apologise for not giving him notice of it. It relates to the top of the sandwich. If a person has a problem which costs £550, could the services for that person be unbundled so that he or she could buy £200 worth from the local authority and exactly £300 from the Independent Living Fund, with £50 coming from somewhere else?
There was an indication from the Minister in another place that some unbundling would be allowed because part of the sandwich could be bought one way and another part another way. However, if it is the case that someone who costs more than £500 would receive nothing from the Independent Living Fund, that is a severe restriction and, if I may say so, a silly rule. It helps no one. All it does is to take people into the much more expensive residential care option. Surely that is not what the Government wish. If they want to save money they should find a better way than they have found so far.
I should like to make one last point, about the elderly. We are experiencing a growing population aged about 75 and almost 80. Many are women. Many do not have private pension funds. Demographically it is also true that the generation which is now entering the 75-plus age group had fewer children than the generation which grew later on. That was the effect of the First World War. Those people do not have children. Therefore, if a person aged about 75 were to have an accident and suffer a severe disability, under the present rules that person would have nowhere to go. If the Government do not want that to happen, surely they must rethink the rules about the elderly not being eligible for the new fund which has been set up. I urge the Government, if they want to save money and to provide choice —both of which I entirely approve of—they must rethink aspects of the current Bill and, before too long, improve it in its implementation.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as always when one winds up a debate of this nature, most of the points have been adequately covered and I can therefore be reasonably brief. As has been said, the Bill is a money Bill. We have no chance to probe or amend it at Committee stage. Even if we put down amendments, they would have to fit the Long Title of the Bill, which is about the making of grants. It is therefore important that when the Minister comes to reply he answers the many questions that have been raised in the debate. I am sure that he will.
It is a money Bill in another respect. It is a Treasury Bill, all about the limiting of cash and the rationing of provision. That has been made extremely clear by a number of speakers. I have no wish to go through the various points again in detail. It occurred to me that it would be interesting to go back to 1988 when the
1558
ILF was set up. I moved an amendment to the 1988 Social Security Bill at Report stage which was intended to probe the intentions of the Government in setting up the ILF. That debate makes extremely interesting reading now.
The amendment was purely a probing amendment, but I see that it included arrangements for adjudication and appeal concerning grants from the ILF. That point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. At the time there was considerable interest in the number of people who were likely to benefit. I see that I said:
"In the week of the announcement, in a radio broadcast, the Minister referred to 'a few hundreds'. In the other place he referred to 'hundreds and not thousands'. I understand from the Disablement Income Group that it believes that the number of claimants might be of the order of 1,000 to 2,000". [Official Report, 3/3/88; col. 295.]
I asked the Minister if he could give the latest estimate of the department. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in his reply, said at col. 303:
"Our evidence is that this is likely to amount to a few hundred people. I have conceded already that 250 may not be exactly the right number, but we are in broad agreement with DIG that the numbers are small. We both agree that it is a few hundreds: up to 1,000".
I quote not in any sense of disparagement. We were all wrong. The estimates were wildly incorrect, and they merely revealed the paucity of adequate statistics concerning the incidence of severe disability.
We hear much now, in terms of community care, about unmet need. The success of the ILF proves that there was an unmet need which the ILF identified and met. I cannot help wondering whether, if the Government had known then what they know now concerning the numbers of people who would be helped by the ILF and the cost of that help, they would have been so keen as they were to set up the fund. It is clear that the ILF has been a very considerable success. I admit at once that the reservations and fears that I had, and that many others in this House and outside had, at the inception of the scheme, have proved to be unfounded. I am delighted that we have been proved wrong.
What is so worrying about the new arrangements, proposed in the Bill, is that they seem almost expressly designed not to build on the successes of the ILF or to deal with the problems that its operation has revealed. For example, the ILF weekly awards have maxima of £450 to £560 a week, excluding the value of local authority input where that exists. That compares with the much lower figures now proposed by the Government.
The Government make great play of local authority responsibility in providing community care, as if that were to wave a magic wand over the problems. The successful operation of the ILF has revealed the paucity of local authority effort and, above all, expertise in this area.
Enough has been said about the value of direct payments without my adding any comment, save to say that once again the DSS (or is it the Treasury?) seems to be flying directly and deliberately in the face of ILF experience. We can all understand that the limitation on grants of those under 65 is a deliberate

1559
exercise in cash limiting. It has no other rationale. The point was well made by my noble friend Lady Hollis. The majority of the elderly disabled are women.
The new arrangements seem almost perversely designed to drive severely disabled people into residential care—the precise opposite of the fundamental of the principles of community care that we all worked so hard to introduce in the 1990 Act. The situation is extraordinary. The ILF has developed a successful and flexible operation. It is ring-fenced. It can make direct payments to disabled people. It provides an expertise that most local authorities lack. It keeps people in their own homes and out of residential care. Do the Government attempt to build on that success and develop it? No, they do not. The dead hand of the Treasury intervenes and effectively kills the. scheme so far as the future is concerned. The buck is passed expertly back to the local authorities and to the new ILF fund. The Government are effectively able to wash their hands of the financial problem that the success of the ILF created for the Treasury.
I have referred to the problem over estimates of numbers at the inception of the ILF. I ask the Minister: what is the basis of the Government's estimate of 1,500 people and £4 million for the new fund? I hope that we are not about to have a repeat of the numbers game that we had with mobility allowance when a mysterious entity—the OPCS data tapes—was called in to justify the Government's under-estimate. It proved to be wrong by about 10 times when the final figure emerged.
I put another direct question to the Minister: what will the Government do if their estimate of 1,500 people and £4 million proves to be wrong? Will they increase the fund? Will they alter the criteria to constrain the cost? Or will they attempt to pass the buck to the local authority and the social services departments?
We have heard about the curious concept referred to in the other place of the "sandwich". I cannot resist passing on the comment of one disabled worker, who said that so far as she could see the main contents of the sandwich were pure boloney. How is that curious mix and match of local authority provision, the contribution of the ILF and the upper cash limit intended to work? The point was made extremely well by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, with his great expertise.
The question of the calculation of the £200 of services that the local authority has to provide is, as the Minister will know, causing considerable concern. Can he tell us how that is to be estimated? Will the cost of making the assessment be included in the £200? The press release from the DSS, which announced the new arrangements on 1st April, says:
"Prospective applicants should apply first to their local authority. If the application is supported a package of care will be drawn up by the Fund's social worker, the local authority social worker and the disabled person or their representative. The local authority will arrange care services to the value of about £200".
I cannot believe that it is proposed to include in that £200 the cost of the local authority social worker. I have been asked to make that point and put it to the
1560
Minister. If that sum were included, we would have the absurd situation of the cost of the bureaucracy created by that arrangement reducing the amount of direct services provided. I ask again for details of the guidance that the Government are giving regarding the calculation of the £200.
To pick up extremely briefly a few points that were made in the debate£and in the formidable analysis provided by my noble friend when she opened it—can the Minister explain the inexplicable? Why at least were not some of the trustees of the old fund asked to carry on in the new fund? Everybody concerned with this matter is baffled by the department and its failure to build on the expertise that those people have. An unelected and appointed independent trust, removed from parliamentary scrutiny, is allowed to make direct payments while local authorities, democratically elected and accountable, are not allowed to make direct payments to disabled people; as my noble friend pointed out, they make direct payments to many other people.
I am not sure whether the Minister has seen the study entitled Paying for Independence—the first findings of a new survey of more than 1,000 disabled people—published only last Friday by the independent Policy Studies Institute. It concluded that most disabled people preferred to employ people they already knew and trusted. Local authority services were seen as inflexible, difficult to obtain and vulnerable to cutbacks. Regular guaranteed payments from the ILF gave disabled people peace of mind that help would not suddenly be withdrawn.
It seems extraordinary that the Government have a policy—which we all welcome—of reducing bureaucracy and regulation in industry and other areas of our national life but are responsible for a Bill which will result in an increase in bureaucracy for severely disabled people. If we take the case of a severely disabled person trying desperately to maintain an independent existence in his or her own home; having to struggle with two rates of attendance allowance and a matrix of 11 variations of disability living allowance; having to negotiate a care package with the local authority and the ILF worth up to £200 (but with the calculation of the £200 still largely an unknown quantity); and, then having to obtain up to £300 of direct payments from the ILF and all the time worrying that if the total requirement exceeds £500 he or she may have to go into residential care, one wonders how all that is supposed to be an improvement on the existing arrangements.
The first Motion that I ever moved in the House was to draw attention to the needs and problems of people with disabilities. In that debate I coined the phrase "the disabled divide"—the gap between the expectations and the living standards of the disabled and the non-disabled. There is nothing in the Bill which helps to narrow that gap, and I fear that it will make it wider.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, let me reiterate the reason for the Bill. The need for it arose because doubts were raised in 1992 as to whether Section 64 of the Health

1561
Services and Public Health Act 1968 could properly be relied upon to cover payments made by the Secretary of State for Social Security to the ILF and its successor bodies. It is concerned with the payment of public funds to those new trusts. I must make it clear that the fact that that makes it a money Bill is entirely a matter for the Speaker in another place. The noble Baroness, I believe, claimed that the Government were trying to evade parliamentary scrutiny. That is not so and it is wrong of the noble Baroness to suggest that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I was clear in my opening remarks that the Bill, as drafted by the Government, meant that it was necessarily certified by the Speaker as a money Bill. I was careful to draw that distinction and it is unreasonable of the Minister to confuse it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was trying to make clear the purpose of the Bill, which is purely to fund the ILF. Both the previous and existing ILF organisations were set up as independent trusts by the Government and therefore all that was needed was a mechanism for funding them. We thought that Section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act was appropriate; it was not. That is why the Bill comes before us. It is wrong of the noble Baroness to suggest that we were trying to evade parliamentary scrutiny. Having said that, I accept, as my noble friend Lord Campbell put it, that we will take note of all the concerns put forward. I accept that that, to some extent, is the point of the debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Murray, put it, we shall certainly listen.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said that, strictly speaking, to move amendments to such a Bill was a matter for the privilege of another place. The Bill should not go to Committee. The House generally agrees not to commit money Bills. That is a well understood convention. We agreed in a Business of the House Motion moved by my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal last week to take all the remaining stages of the Bill in one day. Again, that having been said, I have no intention of not listening and not responding to the various points made by speakers in the course of the debate.
I shall begin by referring to some of the comments concerning delays that occurred in payment of disability living allowance. The noble Baroness said that I had not apologised for an occasion when she claims that I misled her. I reject the claim that I owe her an apology. I do not believe that I misled her on that occasion. However, I repeat the apologies made that the procedures for paying the disability living allowance did not meet the usual high standards of the Department of Social Security. Many people suffered some delay in receiving their payment. I am not sure that the noble Baroness has yet apologised for her own party taking over four years to bring back mobility allowance to its recipients in the early 1970s. I would certainly prefer to wait one year rather than a total of four.
The noble Baroness suggested also that the trustees were not consulted over the change-over. They always knew that their trust fund was an interim measure
1562
with a limited life, as I stressed in my opening remarks. It was the choice of the trustees to decide the point at which they would stop accepting applications in order to be able to process them by 31st March. There was no question of either the November decision on new applications or the 31st March final closure date being unknown to the trustees.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked why none of the old trustees is continuing to serve under the new system. I stress that there will be a degree of continuity in terms of the staff. But I must make clear that we are talking of a different animal. The important new trust is the 1993 fund. The extension fund will merely mirror the old arrangements for the existing recipients.
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will give way. Is he saying that it is the same bureaucrats but different trustees?
Lord Henley: My Lords, not entirely. As the noble Lord will be aware, there is a new director. But many existing members of staff are continuing in their jobs. The 1993 fund is the important one for the trustees looking after it because that is the one that will grow as the extension fund, sadly in the nature of things, gradually shrinks. We are not comparing like with like. The 1993 fund will operate in a different way.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in his theatrical intervention, questioned the £200 of services that the local authorities must provide before involving the ILF and the fact that local authorities would control access but not necessarily manage to meet all needs. A key feature of the 1993 fund is the partnership with local authorities. The scheme will help people who are the most severely disabled. That is the important point. The £200 threshold is a quick test for local authorities as to whether a person may be classed as severely disabled. If an individual is severely disabled it is absurd to think that local authorities would spend less than £200 on his or her care needs. Therefore, the £200 threshold should not exclude any of the people intended to be helped by the 1993 fund. As has been mentioned by various noble Lords, local authorities have been given an additional £27 million to meet the cost of providing the first £200 of care. I shall be turning to that somewhat later.
I turn now to the £500 limit which was the concern of many noble Lords. Again, I stress that the 1993 fund—the extension fund mirrors the old arrangements—is designed to target help towards a select group of people; those whose care needs are greater than £500 are outside that group and cannot be helped by the fund. When care exceeds £500 the local authority becomes solely responsible for meeting the individual's needs, as the noble Lord, Lord Murray, asked me to confirm. It may decide to provide intensive services to that individual or, in consultation with the disabled person, that his or her care needs can best be met in residential care. We believe that the numbers affected will be tiny.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. He said that the local authority might decide in consultation with the disabled person whether or not residential care was the right solution. What happens if it is not prepared to continue to give care at home and insists on the disabled person going into residential care much against the wishes of that individual and his family?
Lord Henley: My Lords, what I am trying to make quite clear to my noble friend and other noble Lords is that the £500 limit will not itself force any individual into a residential home. If the limit of £500 is exceeded it will be a matter for consultation between the local authority and that individual. My noble friend will have to accept that there will always be constraints on the expenditure of public money by both local and central government. Obviously, there may be occasions when in the end the local authority will have to say that the individual's needs are such that they can be met at reasonable cost only by means of residential care. I cannot give a guarantee that every local authority on every occasion will be able to say that any individual will be able to stay in the community. In passing, I stress that the old ILF had a countrywide higher limit that ranged between £450 and £560. Therefore, I do not believe that it is unreasonable that a limit should be imposed in the case of the new 1993 fund.
The second principal question raised by the noble Baroness and repeated by many noble Lords was why local authorities could not pay directly to individuals what we insisted they should provide in the form of services. The policy on direct payments is well established. I understand the strength of feeling on this point. We do not believe that now is the right time to add to their already full agenda as they set up community care. We firmly believe that direct payments should continue to be the province of the social security system. As the noble Baroness reminded us, this point has been extensively discussed during the passage of the Disabled Persons (Services) (No. 2) Bill. I do not wish to have a long debate about a supplementary issue at this point. However, I reiterate that this Bill is about the provision of funding for the new independent living funds. I do not believe that it is the right vehicle to change the way in which local authorities work merely to suit what, in the case of the 1993 fund, will be a very small number of people to be helped each year.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I also thank him for his conciliatory remarks about direct payments. The main reason he found against it was that local authorities should not be asked to add to their already overburdened agendas for community care. Does he accept that if the local authorities themselves seek that power as a way of reducing their overburdened agendas for community care the department will in consequence respond?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I will not go as far as the noble Baroness. I was hoping to be relatively conciliatory. I do not believe that now is the right
1564
time, nor do I think that this is the right Bill. If others come forward with further plans no doubt they and the noble Baroness will discuss them further in relation to other Bills to which I have referred. But this Bill is certainly not the right vehicle.
I turn to another issue that vexed a great many noble Lords: the 65 year-old cut off. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, suggested—it was reminiscent of the old days in dealing with earlier social security Bills—that this was merely a Treasury Bill. To be reminded that the noble Lord had not changed his spots and was still prepared to spend money indiscriminately without any let or hindrance was most welcome. But at last we had an admission from the noble Baroness that resources were finite. Sadly, that was not echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, but at least the noble Baroness from the Front Bench recognised the finite nature of funds available for all government spending, in particular by the department that spent most of the taxpayer's money: the Department of Social Security.
I stress that, given those limited resources, it is reasonable to limit the scope of that fund to people between the ages of 16 and 65. People in that age group are the most likely to have longer-term care needs. Those disabled early in life have often lost the opportunity to earn and save. The highest priority for independent living must be those for whom the usual pattern is to live and work in the community. Whether we like it or not, for elderly people residential care is often a necessity. Although the Government have every sympathy for people who are disabled after the age of 65, our research evidence has also shown a significantly greater disparity in income between younger disabled and non-disabled people than between those over pension age.
Nor do I accept that the provision of part of an individual's care needs by giving services necessarily reduces the choices available to the disabled person, as the noble Baroness and others suggested. It seems to me that people become rather confused when they discuss this issue and relate cash payments purely to dignity via the concept of choice. I cannot accept that if no cash is given a person automatically loses some of his or her dignity. However, I accept that it is extremely important to provide care services in a professional and co-ordinated manner. It is that which gives the individual dignity, not the provision of cash alone.
I turn next to the vexed matter of ring-fencing that was raised by my noble friend Lord Swinfen. I agree that the £27 million to which we have referred is not separately ring-fenced, but it is ring-fenced as part of the wider community care funding of some £539 million. Because of the very small number of people involved—we estimate about 10 per local authority —we believe that it is not sensible to ring-fence this relatively small amount of money separately, but as part of the wider provision it is ring-fenced within community care costs.
I deal briefly with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, about the requirement to provide employment details of carers and the fact that this was degrading. I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who suggested that this could lead to

1565
some breaches of confidentiality. I would certainly be prepared to look at that suggestion to see whether there was any merit in what the noble Lord said. The old ILF asked applicants to provide the names and addresses of their carers. The new funds simply repeat that requirement in the trust deed, with the addition of a request for the carer's national insurance number. I believe that to be a perfectly reasonable check to ensure that payments are not abused.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether that is also true of severely disabled people in the area of AIDS where confidentiality is very important. Those people fall into this category.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not think I can answer the noble Baroness off the cuff but I will certainly look at what she said. If necessary, I will write to the noble Baroness.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, seemed to suggest that my right honourable friend the Minister of State in another place was encouraging local authorities to get round the law by devising schemes to make direct payments from local authorities. What my right honourable friend said was that it was up to individual authorities to ensure that any innovative and flexible schemes satisfied the district auditor. Obviously, it was not a matter that we should be looking at; it was for the district auditor to consider when he went through the accounts of the particular local authority. Many schemes appear to be running perfectly satisfactorily to the benefit of those authorities and disabled people. We welcome that.
I refer to the question of appeals and the review procedure. This matter was raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell and the noble Lord, Lord Rix. The new funds, like the ILF, are independent bodies which will be managed by trustees. Because of their independent nature and the fact that they are outside the social security system, we believe that it would be wholly inappropriate for their individual decisions to be subject to external scrutiny or inquiry. The ILF had an established internal review and appeal procedure. I could detail it now at the Dispatch Box but I do not think that that would be an appropriate use of the time of the House. It had a review and appeal procedure which the new trustees have certainly decided to adopt. I believe that it has worked very well in the past and there is no reason to think that it should not work well in the future.
Perhaps I may also respond briefly to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on mental disability. I understand that the old ILF was able to help people with learning difficulties—what used to be called mental handicap—but the fund was never primarily intended for people with mental illness. They do not generally need the kind of personal, domestic services for which the old fund was intended. The new fund will, similarly, not generally be a suitable support for this group.
Lord Rix: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify one point. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, mentioned mental illness. I mentioned learning disability or what used to be known as mental handicap. The two are different. I hope that that is clear to the Minister.
Lord Henley: My Lords, there is certainly clarity in my mind about this issue. What I am trying to say is that for mental illness in itself this is not generally the suitable vehicle to help. But for those with mental disability, there might be physical consequences for which the ILF might therefore be able to provide suitable help. I certainly see the distinction.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. He is confirming what I said. I assumed that the old ILF and the new one were not relevant to severe mental illness. There is in the community care system now the ring-fencing of mental illness, which I welcomed at the time and which is now in the form of the mental illness specific grant.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for bringing even greater clarity to what clarity I thought I had on this matter.
Perhaps I may comment briefly on payments in Scotland. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, suggested that they were legal in Scotland. I understand that local authorities have power to make cash payments but it is a very limited one. Cash payments may be made only in an emergency and where this would be cheaper than some other form of assistance or where aggravation of the individual's need would cause greater expense to the authority on a later occasion.
Lastly, I turn to the question of adequacy. The noble Baroness questioned, as she normally does, despite her earlier return to fiscal responsibility, whether the —27 million was adequate. We estimate that some 1,500 people a year will be helped by the fund. That —27 million was costed on the basis that the caseload would build up over the year and not all come on-stream on 1st April. Funding of —27 million allows the entire 1,500 we expect to join the fund this year so long as they receive the first —200 of services from their local authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, quite rightly asked how we estimated that total caseload of 1,500. We took the total caseload of the ILF and then excluded people with care costs lower than —200 and higher than £500 and then excluded all people over the age of 65. Four million pounds provides for a weekly payment calculated on the basis of the ILF experience allowing for a gradual take-up of 1,500 people over the years.
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, asked for a cast-iron assurance that any shortfall will be made up. I have to say, of course not, but I ask noble Lords to look at our record on expenditure on ILF over the years. In its first year the total spend (the estimate was some £5 million) was more than £1 million; in the second year it was £8.5 million; in the third year it was £26.4 million; in the fourth year it was £49.8 million; in the fifth year it was £95 million. The estimates for

1567
the current year for the two funds are some £124 million. If one takes the total expenditure on independent living, by adding in the £27 million to local authorities, there is total funding for independent living of some £150 million. That is expected to rise—these figures are provisional—in 1994–95 to £197 million and in 1995–96 to £241 million.
I could go on and list the increased caseloads for all our disability benefits and the dramatic growth we have seen over the past few years as we have made benefits available to greater numbers of people. Attendance allowance has gone up from around £250,000 in 1978–79 to jolly nearly £1 million; mobility allowance has gone up from under £100,000 to over £650,000. I could go on.
Many noble Lords have spoken as if the new independent living funds are the sole source of help to those who live in the community. That is to get the picture out of perspective. Those new funds are an extra resource available to provide extra help to a limited group of the most severely disabled people. The community care reforms were all about making choice and dignity available to all disabled people. These new funds will supplement this help, not replace it. It will not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, put it, be the death knell of independent living but merely takes it forward further into the era of community care. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before the noble Lord moves the Second Reading, as I did not wish to interrupt his flow earlier, perhaps I may ask a question arising out of an exchange between him and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. If local authorities were to indicate that it would reduce their over-burden to make direct cash payments to disabled people, would the Government accept the Disabled Persons (Services) (No. 2) Bill currently before the House, or would they bring forward their own legislation to the same effect?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not going to comment on that Bill. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege has done so. I was trying to make it clear that I did not think that this Bill was the right place for such provision; nor did I think this was necessarily the right time in the early days of community care when local authorities had, as I put it, a great deal on their agenda and a great deal to learn.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 13th May), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Local Government (Amendment) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Noise and Statutory Nuisance Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction (Amendment) Order 1993
5.8 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st April be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this order is made under Section 1 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1991 and makes three amendments to the High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991. The first two amendments are very minor and require only a brief explanation. The third amendment arises out of the new regime for enforcing parking charges in London and a rather fuller explanation may therefore be of some interest.
I turn first to Article 3 of the draft order. This will amend Article 6 of the jurisdiction order to provide that appeals against decisions of auditors under Section 19(4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 shall be commenced only in the High Court. At present such appeals are commenced in the county courts whereas other proceedings under Sections 19 and 20 are commenced in the High Court. This anomaly may cause practical difficulties for auditors involved in such proceedings.
Although appeals against decisions of local authority auditors can concern quite small amounts of money, they may involve questions of public law and raise issues of considerable importance. Consequently the policy of the jurisdiction order was that such cases should be commenced in the High Court. At present Article 6 does not mention appeals under Section 19. The proposed amendment will put appeals under Section 19 on the same footing as other applications.
I turn now to Article 4 and the second minor amendment effected by the draft order, which is contained in that article. The provision amends Article 8 of the jurisdiction order so that a judgment or order of a county court for the payment of a sum of money which arose out of an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and which it is sought to enforce by execution against goods, may be enforced only in a county court.
At present judgments relating to agreements regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 can be transferred to the High Court for enforcement where the sum for which judgment has been given is £2,000 or more. The policy behind Article 6 of the jurisdiction order was that where it is sought to enforce a judgment arising out of a consumer credit agreement by

1569
execution against goods, enforcement should only be carried out in a county court. This will implement that particular policy.
Finally I turn to the third and main amendment effected by the order, which is contained in Article 5. This provision confers sole jurisdiction on Cardiff County Court in proceedings to enforce certain road traffic debts. These arise under the new regime for the enforcement of on-street parking charges in London, established by the Road Traffic Act 1991.
Under the Act parking enforcement proceedings are removed from the jurisdiction of magistrates' courts. A parking penalty will instead be enforceable as a civil debt by way of county court proceedings. A special procedure has been established for parking charges incurred in London and the initial processing stage of applications to enforce London parking charges will be dealt with by Cardiff County Court.
This order is not concerned with any of the details of what will happen when a driver in London receives a parking ticket. However, it may seem curious that Cardiff should be involved at all with the enforcement of London parking charges. To enable your Lordships to understand the way in which Cardiff County Court will be involved, it may be helpful if I briefly explain how the new system will work.
Under the Road Traffic Act 1991, a driver who receives a parking ticket will first have the opportunity to object to the local authority which imposed the charge. This will be done by making representations to the local authority and, if necessary, by way of proceedings before a new body to be known as the parking adjudicator. If the driver still fails to pay, the local authority will be able to obtain an order that the charge may be recovered as if it were payable under a county court order. Exclusive jurisdiction to make such an order is conferred on Cardiff County Court by Article 6 of the proposed amendment to the jurisdiction order. The procedure for making the order will be relatively straightforward and will be carried out at Cardiff on receipt of the requisite information from the local authorities. Even after the order has been made, a driver will have a further chance to object on grounds specified in the Road Traffic Act. If he does so, the case will automatically be referred back to the local authority.
The other aspect of Cardiff County Court's involvement will be to authorise the issue of a warrant of execution at the request of the local authorities. Distress will then be levied by bailiffs certificated for this purpose and will, of course, take place where the debtor's goods are situated. Where distress proves to be unsuccessful, and the local authority wishes to attempt enforcement by other methods, such as by garnishee or charging order, the order will be transferred to the driver's local county court.
It is expected that over a million of these cases will be enforced through the county courts each year. The administrative nature and the large volume of the work lends itself to a high degree of streamlining and computerisation, and it was therefore decided that only one centre would be used. Cardiff was chosen primarily on logistical grounds. It was clear that the
1570
county courts in the Greater London area would not individually have had the capacity for this work, and to site the parking enforcement centre, as it will be known, in London would have been an expensive alternative.
As your Lordships will appreciate, the jurisdiction conferred on Cardiff is very much of an administrative, rather than judicial, character. If, at any stage of the proceedings, it is necessary to consider a driver's individual circumstances, this will be done either in London or in the driver's home court, and the driver will be given an opportunity to make representations.
I hope that the proposed new rule will enable parking charges in London to be enforced by county courts with the maximum efficiency. In no circumstances will the driver be expected or required to attend the parking enforcement centre in person, and the fact that Cardiff is given jurisdiction to deal with these proceedings should not inconvenience drivers in any way.
Before making the order I am required to consult the designated judges—that is to say, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division, the Vice-Chancellor and the senior presiding judge. I have done this. They are content that the order should be made. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st April be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, we welcome the proposed arrangements. They make modest and useful improvements to the disposal of court business. Perhaps I may first mention Article 3. It is plainly right that appeals against decisions of auditors under Section 19(4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 should be commenced in the High Court regardless of the amount involved. We agree with what the noble and learned Lord said on that subject. The auditor's power to call in question an item of local authority expenditure is very important. The auditor can, for example, set at nought promises made by the majority party to its electorate and the auditor's decision could eventually lead to the disqualification of councillors. Plainly, the High Court should deal with those appeals because of their significance for good government.
Next, Article 4. We do not cavil at the county court as the choice of forum. No advantage, however, will be gained for the efficient dispatch of business unless the resources allocated to the county courts are commensurate with the additional workload. The noble and learned Lord's department is well aware of the increasing strain experienced by county court staff up and down the country, striving to deal with the increased workload which these, and many other measures, impose on them.
The commendable aim of allocating court business to the appropriate court level within the system will only be achieved successfully if resources follow the case loads. I seem to recall, in the context of the health service, that resources are expected to follow the patients. It would be welcome if the noble and learned Lord could comment on that issue.

1571
Finally, we agree with the noble and learned Lord that the most important issue is the choice of Cardiff County Court as the court centre for enforcing road traffic debts. We welcome that choice. We welcome the enhanced role for the premier county court in the Principality, but the efficiency that this measure is intended to achieve will not result, it would appear to us, unless Cardiff County Court has the extra manpower that it will need to discharge this major function.
The staff at the county court in Cardiff will have to process more than (as I understand the figure) 1.5 million charges every year. Why has Cardiff County Court been chosen? Perhaps I may make it plain that I have nothing but affection for the capital of the Principality. But the present county court building is a typical example of a public building erected nearly 100 years ago with scant interest or regard for the requirements of the public. The courts are high up in the building. They are approached by a very narrow, steep and precipitous staircase. There are no lifts. The location of the courts within that building is wholly unsuitable for the elderly. There is no provision at all for the disabled. Seven courts are able to sit; three presided over by circuit judges and four by district judges. The seven courts share only three conference rooms for litigants. Those rooms are minuscule in size. The former first-aid room has been converted to a court for a district judge and one of the robing rooms for solicitors or counsel has had to be taken over for use as a judge's retiring room. Staff are located in a dark and dismal basement where they are seriously overcrowded. That is the position on the ground.
We know that there are plans for a new court building but they have remained plans, with nothing done, for over 30 years. I understand—and the noble and learned Lord can better inform the House—that the most immediate plan is to convert the adjacent post office—derelict for a decade —into a new county court complex. Is that correct? Has building work commenced? When will it be completed? How many courts and conference rooms, and what provision for litigants, as consumers, will there be? Have the staff been informed and consulted about the large addition to their workload which will result from the implementation of the order? May I question whether the present building has the scope to accommodate the increased workload on a temporary basis? Has the noble and learned Lord satisfied himself to the contrary?
Of course the court staff will loyally make every effort to discharge every duty placed upon them. But has the noble and learned Lord any comment to make on the adequacy of the present building? Can he inform the House when the new court, if it is to happen, will be built and become operational? Does he envisage any increase in staff levels and any temporary additional staff accommodation being made available to cope with the increased workload which Article 5 will generate?
Where precisely in the new building will the new parking enforcement centre be situated, on the footing that that new building is to be the location of the new centre? Secondly, where will the new parking
1572
enforcement centre be situated on a temporary basis within the present accommodation? Thirdly, are extra staff to be engaged and, if so, how many and at what grades? Will they have the same conditions of employment as the existing staff?
Perhaps I should make it plain from these Benches that we support the principle of a parking enforcement centre for processing purposes, as distinct from disputed cases. We support Cardiff as that centre. But the reason that I have invited the noble and learned Lord to address the questions that I have sought to put in some detail, if he will be good enough, is that we are concerned that sufficient thought may not have been given to practical implementation on the ground.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, for his reception of the order in its three branches. Undoubtedly, the most important is that which refers to the parking enforcement centre. The reason that we thought, after considering the matter carefully, that Cardiff was suitable was the likelihood of the new building in Cardiff being able to accommodate the centre—that is, assuming that the order is passed.
The intention is that the new county court building in Cardiff should be ready in about 16 months' time. I stress that this particular enforcement centre is for administrative work. As I explained, there is no question of court accommodation being required for this purpose. We have been able to secure temporary accommodation outside the present court building for the work of the parking enforcement centre in the meantime. I expect that up to 24 staff will be employed in the centre although the precise number will depend on the work generated. Needless to say, we shall watch that as operations begin.
I believe that the earliest date on which work will come into the parking enforcement centre will be September 1993. So it is proposed that it should be accommodated in a reasonably near building (not absolutely adjacent) on an interim basis. I believe that it will be possible to make arrangements for the work to he located within the new county court building when it is ready in about 16 months' time. As I said, up to 24 staff will be required for that and they will be employed on the same basis as other members of the court staff.
I am satisfied that the correct arrangements are in place to accommodate the new work. Your Lordships will see from the order that I am left with the date on which the order shall come into force once your Lordships have approved the draft.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, before he sits down will the noble and learned Lord be good enough to specify what the temporary accommodation for the parking enforcement centre will be within the Cardiff County Court before the new building becomes available?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I thought that I had made it plain that it is not within the existing county court building but in a separate building which is available for temporary purposes on an interim basis until a new building is ready.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I followed that, but can the noble and learned Lord state where that accommodation is?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord details of the accommodation if he wishes, but if he is prepared to accept it I shall do so in writing. I do not have the precise details with me although I have looked into the circumstances. I have been to the existing Cardiff County Court and know a little about its present facilities, as the noble Lord described them. Therefore, before I was prepared to accept Cardiff as the location, I needed to know that proper accommodation would be available. I am assured that proper accommodation is available on an interim basis to house the up-to-24 staff who will be required.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord again attempts to resume his seat, may I ask whether he can assure the House that the example of the city fathers of Limerick will not be followed in this case? He will recall that the city fathers of Limerick decreed that there should be a new gaol in Limerick, that it should be built from the stones of the old gaol, and that the old gaol should stay in use until the new gaol was completed.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I hope that I have explained my proposal in sufficient detail for the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to see that I am not proposing to follow the city fathers of Limerick. It would be particularly inappropriate to follow that example in the Principality of Wales. The Question is, that this Motion—
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, may I briefly—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I understand that I am out of order, but what I wanted—
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, before I resumed discussion and after the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, had finished I gave the House some time to respond. However, I am very loath to exclude the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, altogether, and it may well be that the noble Lord will be able to ask me some questions before I sit down and that I may be able to answer his points.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the first question that I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, is whether he can give the House an indication of when he believes that the order will be applied. Secondly, is it envisaged that all the administrative functions will be transferred on a given date to the Cardiff County Court, or will that be phased in over a period?
Having said that, I very much welcome the decision to centralise this function at Cardiff County Court. Drawing on my own experience of that court over very many years, I can speak of the excellence of the administration there and of the sense of fairness of its staff. On the other hand, I, like most Members of the House, am conscious that parking charges are unpopular. I hope that Cardiff County Court will not
1574
attract to itself any unpopularity. I am sure that if it is given the accommodation and the staffing resources its history will stand it in good stead.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am delighted to answer those serious questions. First, I accept entirely the view that the administration in the Cardiff County Court, notwithstanding the physical difficulties to which the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, referred, is good. I believe that it will be especially good at doing the work required. It is a new system to be set up in respect of London, the administration of which will start in Cardiff.
We shall seek to make as plain as we can that Cardiff bears no responsibility other than for the implementation of the order and that all the authority has come from elsewhere. In that way, we shall do our best to deflect from Cardiff County Court any suggestion that the unpopularity attracted by parking tickets should go to that court. It will be seen as merely carrying out the necessary administration so that parking charges, once properly incurred, are processed fairly. It is an extra operation for Cardiff which will help by employing additional staff there. No consequent obloquy of any sort will fall on Cardiff County Court.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Functions of Traffic Wardens (Amendment) Order 1993
5.31 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th March be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move, that the draft Function of Traffic Wardens (Amendment) Order 1993 be approved.
The order amends the Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1970 in order to give new powers to traffic wardens. The order is designed to help the police by allowing traffic wardens to take on some additional parking enforcement duties. Those duties are ones which, at the moment, only a police officer can perform.
By allowing those duties to be undertaken by traffic wardens, the order will help to release police officers for other more important duties, which have, and should have, a higher priority.
If your Lordships have been good enough to look at the order —which I am sure your Lordships have in some detail—it may not have been obvious exactly what the order purports to do. That is because it amends an existing order, and its effects are not, therefore, immediately obvious. I will, therefore, try to describe, in plain language, the changes which the order seeks to make.
There are three main ways in which the order extends the powers and the functions of traffic wardens. The first of these main changes is under Article 2 (g) of the order. That gives traffic wardens the power to authorise the wheelclamping of vehicles which are illegally parked on public roads. Wheel

1575
clamping on public roads—which I know is not an act which endears itself to many of your Lordships—is authorised for use in London only, and then only in designated parts of it. In the year which ended on 31st March 1993, the Metropolitan Police authorised the use of wheelclamps in 93,541 cases.
Under the present law, each of those clampings had to be authorised by a police officer. But, we do not feel that it is the best use of the time of highly trained police officers for them to be tied up in duties such as wheelclamping when there are other—and considerably more important—demands to which they should reasonably address their attention. Traffic wardens carry out parking enforcement duties every day and they are quite capable of making proper decisions on when it is appropriate to have a vehicle wheelclamped. The instructions, which cover the wheelclamping procedure when it is undertaken by the police, will apply equally to traffic wardens when it is undertaken by them.
The second major change which is made by the order is under Article 4. Article 4 will allow traffic wardens to issue fixed penalty notices for three additional parking offences, two of which are endorsable offences. Traffic wardens can already issue fixed penalty notices for a wide range of parking offences.
The new offences, for which they will be able to issue fixed penalty notices, will be: causing an unnecessary obstruction; parking within the limits of a pedestrian crossing (which is an endorsable offence); and leaving a vehicle in a dangerous position (which is also an endorsable offence). At the moment, a police officer has to deal with those offences. The offences are, though, parking offences which wardens come across routinely in their daily duties. It seems to us, therefore, that it is perfectly sensible that traffic wardens should have the powers which are necessary to deal with them.
Endorsable offences are, of course, more serious than other parking offences, because they represent a danger to other road users. When taken to the courts, the offences carry a maximum fine of £1,000 and three obligatory penalty points on the driver's licence. When they are dealt with under the fixed penalty process, the penalty is £40 with the addition of three penalty points on to the licence.
The offence of causing an unnecessary obstruction, when it is dealt with by the courts, carries a maximum fine of £1,000. When it is dealt with under the fixed penalty system, the penalty is £30 in London and £20 elsewhere. The third change, which the order makes, is under Article 3. That will extend a traffic warden's power to require an offender to produce his or her driving licence. Traffic wardens already have the power to require the production of a driving licence when they are undertaking custody functions at a car pound. The order will give them the same power when they are dealing with the two endorsable parking offences to which I have referred.
As well as those main changes to the 1970 order, Article 2 of the order before your Lordships deals also
1576
with the interim disposal of vehicles which are removed under Section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
The term "interim disposal" describes the action which the police may take when they pass on abandoned vehicles to the local authority which has the ultimate responsibility of dealing with them. This is a small amendment which will ensure that if vehicles are removed by traffic wardens—which will be possible under another order—those vehicles, as well as those vehicles which are removed by police officers, can be handed over to the local authority for disposal if they are abandoned vehicles.
The order provides the police in England and Wales with the means to increase the role of their traffic wardens in day-to-day parking enforcement. The time of police officers can then be saved and can be devoted to work which is of a higher priority. It remains, of course, essential that the new duties which traffic wardens will have are carried out in a proper way. In particular, the training of traffic wardens in the exercise of the new duties is essential if they are to be correctly undertaken. We shall, therefore, be emphasising to chief constables the importance of training in the advice which we will issue to them about the new order.
I think that those new arrangements should make a helpful, and, in some cases, significant contribution to the ability of chief constables to make the most efficient use of all of their resources, whether those resources are police officers or traffic wardens. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th March be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for explaining the orders so clearly. Before I make the few remarks that I have to make about the order, which we generally welcome, I suppose that I should declare an interest in that my car was towed away from a back street in Islington some 18 months ago. Since I could not possibly believe that I had committed an offence, I went to the local police station to report its loss. The local police station knew nothing about it but had a brainwave and suggested that I should telephone the Metropolitan Police pound, which is where, indeed, I found my car.
In that case there was a lack of communication between the police in their impounding capacity and in their local policing capacity. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that the order will not make that worse in any way, but indeed may improve it. There may be better communication between local police stations and the impounding authorities.
Having appeared to confess guilt to a crime, I should say that I took strong objection to being towed away when I considered that I had not committed the offence of unnecessary obstruction. I took the matter to Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court. The case was dismissed and I got all my money back.
The events covered six to eight months. During that time there were two adjournments because the

1577
policeman who had to substantiate the alleged offence was not available. When he was available, his memory of the occasion, which purported to be based on notes made at the time, was defective. I really do not believe that policemen who accompany vehicle removal squads make notes at the time. I also noticed that a large number of police officers spent a great deal of time in the many courts at Highbury Corner. It occurred to me that that was a shocking misuse of police time. My experience leads me to welcome the thrust of the order, which is to relieve police time for matters of higher priority.
My honourable friend Mr. Alun Michael asked in another place why the extension in the power of traffic wardens to see a driving licence or to insist that it be produced within seven days should not extend to an insurance certificate. My honourable friend is right. Is not an insurance certificate at least as important a part of the protection of the public as a driving licence and a greater element in that protection than a current road tax disc? Would it not have been wise, while the order was being prepared, to have extended the power to demand to see a current insurance policy on the same basis as a current driving licence?
With that minor proviso we believe that the order is a rational extension of the power of traffic wardens. Provided that it is adequately supervised by chief constables and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, and provided that the training of traffic wardens meets the requirements, we believe that the order should be approved.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for giving such a warm welcome to the order, in particular such a personal one. I was disturbed to think that his car was towed away even 18 months ago. I realise that nothing infuriates people more than having their cars towed away. The noble Lord said that there had been a lack of communication between the impounding authorities and the police. I can only assume that in his view there was an excess of communication between the impounding authorities and his motor car. I am sorry that he had such an experience. However, it all ended happily and the noble Lord received his money back. That is an example of how true British justice works. I am glad that the noble Lord is happy to see the power to carry out the duties extended to traffic wardens.
Some people are always frightened at the thought of giving other people additional duties. However, these are duties with which traffic wardens perpetually come into contact. The police will be saved a great deal of time as a result of the order and will be freed to carry out duties which are more suitable to police officers.
The noble Lord asked why the opportunity had not been taken to allow traffic wardens to inspect insurance certificates. On the face of it that seems a reasonable question, as are all the noble Lord's questions. If that were done the powers of traffic wardens would be considerably increased because they would have to go into all the details of insurance; that is, whether the certificate adequately covers the
1578
car and so forth. It was thought that at this juncture it would be inappropriate to extend that power to the traffic wardens.
I am grateful to your Lordships for approving the order. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Garbage) (Amendment) Order 1993
5.45 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th April be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in speaking to the order I should like to speak also to the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) (Amendment) Order 1993.
These two orders are necessary to amend the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Order 1983 and the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Garbage) Order 1988 and to incorporate respectively MEPC Resolutions 14(20), 42(30), 47(31), 51(32), 52(32) and 48(31) made by the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organisation. The orders will implement amendments to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973 and its Protocol of 1978, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, and will enable amending regulations to be made to diminish the threat of pollution of the sea by oil and garbage.
A great deal of concern has been expressed about the effect on the marine environment of the operational discharge of oil into the sea from ships. The MEPC has acted upon this issue and Resolution 51(32) halves the permitted rate of discharge for oil from tankers to 30 litres per nautical mile. For discharges from the machinery spaces of all ships the maximum permitted discharge of oily mixture is substantially reduced from 100 parts per million to 15 parts per million.
This leads me to Resolution MEPC 42(30), which makes the Antarctic Sea below 60° south a special area for the purposes of Annex 1 of the MARPOL Convention. The effect of pollution on the delicate ecology of Antarctica has been of concern for several years and under this amendment the discharge of oil or oily mixture into the sea in the Antarctic area below 60° south will be prohibited. It will be the responsibility of the Government of a party to the convention, at whose ports ships depart en route to or arrive from the Antarctic region, to ensure that adequate reception facilities for oil and oily mixture are available. It will be the responsibility of flag states to ensure that before entering the Antarctic special area vessels registered with them are fitted with tanks of sufficient capacity on board for the retention of oil and oily mixtures.
A fundamental change to the design and construction of oil tankers to prevent or minimise oil

1579
pollution in the event of collision or stranding have been agreed at the IMO. Resolution MEPC 52(32) requires all oil tankers of 600 tons deadweight and above, for which a building contract is in place on or after 6th July 1993, or which will undergo a major conversion after that date, or which will be completed after 6th July 1996, to be built to new standards. Oil tankers more than 5,000 tons deadweight must have double hulls or be constructed to an approved, alternative design which will ensure at least the same level of protection against oil pollution in the event of collision or stranding. Oil tankers of between 600 and 5,000 tons deadweight must have double bottoms. Any alternative form of construction to that described in the resolution would require approval in principle by the IMO. While there is no proposal currently at MEPC to limit the size of tankers, the resolution does include revised calculations to limit the size and arrangement of individual cargo oil tanks.
It will be several years before these safeguards are in widespread use and, therefore, the IMO has also considered measures to enhance the safety of existing oil tankers. The same resolution requires that crude oil tankers of 20,000 tons deadweight and above and product carriers of 30,000 tons deadweight and above shall be subject to a more stringent programme of inspections. Such tankers more than 5 years of age shall have on board a complete file of the survey reports and structural work carried out, accompanied by a condition evaluation report. In addition, a phase-out/conversion schedule is introduced for tankers above a certain age. An oil tanker which is 25 or more years old must either meet the rules for new ships or have protective double bottom or wing tanks. If these conditions are met, or other operational or structural arrangements are made which can be shown to provide an equivalent level of protection, the requirement to comply with the regulations for new ships is deferred until the vessel is 30 years old.
Despite the improvements in tanker construction to prevent oil spills, it is accepted that accidental discharges of oil will continue to occur. The damage caused by oil spills may be compounded by ill-considered actions by those on the scene immediately after the event. To minimise this risk, Resolution MEPC 47 (31) requires that every oil tanker of 150 gross tonnage and above and every ship, other than an oil tanker, of 400 gross tonnage and above shall carry on board an oil pollution emergency plan, written in the working language of the master and officers. The plan must include procedures for reporting an oil pollution incident and a detailed description of the action to be taken immediately by persons on board to reduce or control the discharge of oil. For UK registered ships, these plans will be subject to approval on behalf of the Secretary of State.
The amendment to confirm Antarctica as a special area for the purposes of restricting garbage disposal under Annex V of MARPOL is contained in the second order before the House. Strictly limited discharge of food wastes is permissible within a special area but MEPC have resolved that the Antarctic area should be regarded as an exceptional case and Resolution MEPC 42 (30) prohibits the dumping of
1580
garbage of any kind into the seas of the Antarctic special area. Again ships entering the special area must ensure that they have sufficient capacity to store garbage while operating in the area and to conclude arrangements to discharge it at a reception facility outside the special area.
The other amendment on this second order designates the wider Caribbean a special area for the purposes of garbage disposal. The wider Caribbean area will be subject to similar restrictions applied to special areas which prohibits all garbage but pre-treated food waste from being discharged into the sea at a minimum distance from land. All other waste must be stored on board for disposal at a port reception facility.
In conclusion, we are satisfied that these amendments will contribute to the reduction of pollution at sea. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th April be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Viscount Goschen.)
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these rather complicated provisions. I have given him notice of a number of questions which I propose to raise in the course of my remarks this evening.
There is no doubt at all that marine pollution remains an extremely serious problem although it is as well to recall in that context that something like 85 per cent. to 90 per cent. of marine pollution is land based. Those are the land based sources of marine pollution. However, we obviously approve any reasonable proposals designed to cope better with pollution of the sea and, indeed, the accords based upon IMO legislation are thoroughly to be welcomed.
However, one must say that the wheels of implementing international maritime legislation grind exceeding slow and we need to devise ways and means of hastening those procedures and implementing through our own legislation accords reached at the IMO and then to ensure that there is swifter implementation in practice.
Even though the amendments to the 1973 convention and the MARPOL Protocol of 1978 enable amending regulations to be made to mitigate further the threat of pollution at sea by oil and garbage, a great deal more time will elapse before the safeguards will be applied generally.
I am sure that the Minister will concede—indeed, the Minister in another place did so—that helpful though the draft statutory instruments are, and we welcome the enhancement of shipping and environmental standards nationally and internationally, one regrettable factor affecting the IMO legislative process lies in the fact that public opinion demands urgent action, particularly in the wake of certain catastrophes. Public opinion regards delay which invariably occurs as unconscionable. Therefore, demands are made for unilateral action by governments. I believe that unilateral action is usually, certainly if it is taken outside the competence of the IMO, inimical to the interests of a sensible regime emanating for world shipping. Law must be capable of enforcement to have value and unilateral action is likely to be the subject of

1581
legal challenge. Therefore, governments must seek ways and means of coping with those apparently conflicting interests; for example, interests which arose after the "Torrey Canyon", the "Amoco Cadiz", the "Herald of Free Enterprise" and, more recently, the "Braer" disaster.
On the whole, governments—certainly those of the leading shipping nations—succeed by galvanising the IMO into a speedy response and/or taking action which can be legitimately undertaken in their own territorial waters. It is sometimes argued with force that apart from delays, IMO procedures lead to the adoption of the lowest common denominator. However, the best is so often the enemy of the good and the alternative to that patient approach is simply that no legislation would be applied at all in countries where it is most in need.
It is clear that the two draft statutory instruments which we are considering are by no means the only instruments which Parliament will have to consider concerning IMO legislation. For example, there is the question of the ratification of the IMO convention on salvage, a point raised by my honourable friend Joan Walley in the corresponding debate which took place in another place on 5th May. When can we expect that legislation in another place and then in this House? I am not sure whether the Minister replied to that point in writing to my honourable friend but, in any event, in my view, the reply should be on the record.
These draft statutory instruments are about setting standards rather than enforcement. But I suggest that enforcement needs to be given a much higher priority than is the case at present and, specifically, as regards the evenness of international enforcement of the law. Ports of convenience are quite as dangerous as flags of convenience. There have been one or two cases in the very recent past where ships have been sent to sea after inspection when they had no business to be there at all.
Of course, we welcome improved programmes of inspection. We are aware that the IMO is in the course of concluding its work on inspection guidelines to cover detailed inspections of all ships so that the guidelines can be introduced in about 1995. Nevertheless, inadequate attention has been given to the point raised about implementation. Why should consideration not be given to introducing the notion—to be applied, it is to be hoped, in the European Community regarding environmental inspection—of the creation of a Community inspectorate of national member states' inspectorates? I believe that that would create a much greater evenness of implementation.
I am sure that further useful consideration of safety measures which are needed will emerge from the Donaldson inquiry into the "Braer" disaster. We eagerly await the report and we shall certainly co-operate with the Government in ensuring the swift passage into law of any legislation which may be required in consequence.
In a similar debate in another place on 5th May an interesting point was raised by Mr. Jim Wallace regarding the working language of officers and crew. Of course, the Minister was right to say that, ultimately, it is a matter for the master. But too many
1582
instances of confusion regarding language have arisen to enable that principle to be the only effective guiding principle. That issue is specifically raised in the regulations.
We are living in a world where multi-lingual crews are more often than not the order of the day. Safety is too often subordinated to profit and if there were more reliance on the high standards set by reputable flags rather than on the loose standards operated by flags of convenience, and indeed others, then the maritime nations of the world would be insisting on stricter guidelines and not adhering to the rather casual reply by the Minister in another place. In that debate the Minister said that the IMO was reviewing the International Convention on the Standards of Training, Certification and Watch-keeping in order to ensure that its provisions are adequate. Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to indicate what is the timetable for that consideration and for any action that may follow.
I return now to the statutory instruments specifically. I should like to make one or two points. While the Government must ensure that they play a leading role in the IMO for tightening the regulations for preventing oil pollution at sea, the technical regulations set out in the first statutory instrument may well require a thorough review in the light of the report on the "Braer". Does the Minister agree with that view? Incidentally, how widespread is the ratification by the IMO—or, at least, by member states of the IMO—of the accords which are the subject of the regulations?
So far as concerns the statutory instrument on garbage, there was some discussion in the other place about the definition of the word "garbage". The annex of MARPOL defines the word as,
"all kinds of victual, domestic and operational waste generated during the normal operation of the ship".
Accordingly, it would seem that that annex does not control the disposal of commercial waste. Is the Minister in accord with that view? While the regulations are clearly beneficial in implementing internationally agreed measures, they must not be allowed to be a substitute for the strict implementation of the prevention of waste measures by the United Kingdom in its role as a coastal and as a flag state. Does the Minister agree that it is in fact open for the United Kingdom to impose stricter measures than those agreed under MARPOL? Further, do the Government have any intention of so doing?
Finally, implementation of the measures agreed at the IMO should be as rapid as possible. Certainly, there is a great deal of room for improvement in that direction. But that should never be regarded as a substitute for the formulation of a consistent policy by the United Kingdom and by the UK operating as a member state of the European Community. That consistency is evidently lacking at present. It is lacking because of the wholly inadequate approach of the Government towards shipping policy generally. Perhaps we shall have a little more to say regarding that aspect during the debate on Thursday on the Merchant Shipping (Registration etc.) Bill.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for referring to the provision in the order as regards the requirement in the Antarctic. However, can he say anything about how it will be enforced? The matter has been discussed in the Antarctic Treaty. Therefore, if he can give us any information on that aspect it would be most helpful. There is no doubt that there is a real problem and one which will grow steadily as tourist ships tend to go into the Antarctic.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his broadly favourable remarks this afternoon. He asked about the number of states which had ratified the International Conference on Salvage and the five annexes to MARPOL. For salvage the number is seven states. For Annexes I and II to MARPOL the figure is 74 states; for Annex III it is 52 states; for Annex IV, 43 states; and for Annex V, 57 states. The noble Lord also asked when the Government intend to ratify the salvage convention. I can only tell him that the Government have every intention of ratifying the convention at the earliest opportunity; but beyond that I cannot be more specific.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, further asked whether inspectorates should be established at IMO or EC level to ensure comparable standards of inspection. The European Court State Control Committee is aware of inconsistent standards being applied. Work to harmonise and to ensure comparable standards is now being undertaken. The UK has consistently exceeded the target level of 25 per cent. For inspections of foreign ships visiting UK ports the 1991–92 figure was just over 34 per cent., with 195 ships being detained. The International Maritime Organisation recently established a new subcommittee on flag-state implementation which will consider the enforcement of proper standards.
As regards the Donaldson inquiry, the Government have given a commitment to implement any findings that the noble and learned Lord recommends. As regards the question of the language of the oil pollution emergency plan, the requirements do not take the language of the crew into account. Crews of merchant ships work at all times to the instruction of the master and his certificated officers. Actions taken on board ship to control or reduce oil pollution are required to be taken by the master and his officers, assisted by the crew under their instructions.
The noble Lord also asked about the proposed timetable by the International Maritime Organisation for a review of the conventional standards of training, certification and watch-keeping. The IMO is aware of the urgent need for a review of the convention and is looking to put an accelerated programme in place. It is expected that work will commence in the Autumn of 1993 and be completed in June 1995.
The noble Lord asked whether the UK was prepared to take action independent of the IMO. The new requirements that have been agreed internationally at the IMO are broadly similar to those introduced by OPA 90, with the exception of the alternatives to the double-hull design. Therefore, the Government do not believe that action independent of
1584
the IMO on the issue is necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked a question about enforcement in the Antarctic region. If I may, I should like to write to him on the matter. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) (Amendment) Order 1993
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen My Lords, I have already spoken to the order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Order laid before the House on 14th April be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Viscount Goschen.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Potato Market: ECC Report
6.8 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne The Earl of Selborne rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on the Common Organisation of the Market in Potatoes [19th Report, H.L. Paper 74].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, when Subcommittee D launched an inquiry into the regulation, we were all well aware that the proposal, which is described by the Commission as "lightweight", had explosive properties so far as concerns Great Britain. Your Lordships have already fully debated the possibility that our Potato Marketing Board might be ruled incompatible with the regulation: this was done when we discussed the Agriculture Bill. Strong views were expressed then on whether it was wise to change our existing potato marketing scheme, which has been operating for over 40 years and which is held in high regard by many.
The questions that we set out to address were as follows. First, do we need in this country—or, rather, in Europe —a common regime for potatoes? If so, is the proposed scheme one that we would want? Further, is it either necessary or desirable to change our existing potato marketing scheme even if we do decide that we need a common regime for potatoes? At the outset, I should like to say how grateful we were to have the help of our specialist adviser, Mr. North. I should also like to express my gratitude to our clerk Mrs. Mary Bloor for all her assistance.
The proposed regulation is deceptively simple. It seeks, first, to provide assistance for the formation of new producer groups; secondly, it seeks to bring under Community rules state aid for the production of and trade in potatoes; and, thirdly, it gives the Commission power to require third countries to apply for import licences.
All the force of the draft regulation lies in the second provision. That is the one which seeks to prevent member states from giving support to their growers, whether on an ad hoc basis or by sophisticated statutory schemes, such as ours, in so far as that might be incompatible with the Common Market.
Our report sets out in paragraphs 6 to 13 the nature of our potato marketing scheme and how it operates. I am sure that this will be familiar to your Lordships. Essentially it controls supply by transferable, tradable quotas and allows for intervention buying. There are, of course, additional functions which I shall refer to later.
The purpose of quotas is, above all, to achieve stability in the potato market, thereby benefiting both the producer and the consumer. It is most important that we keep the consumers' interests in mind. The cost of intervention buying, of administration, research, promotion and the collection of statistics is carried by producers. Government help on the cost of intervention buying is now about to end. It is necessary for anyone growing over 0.44 hectares of potatoes to have a quota. If a producer does not have a quota, he pays a fairly heavy penalty. Some would consider this to be a very heavy penalty.
The evidence we received, both written and oral, all tended to concentrate on the issue of whether the potato marketing scheme achieved the desired stability, and furthermore whether the demise of the board would lead to loss of stability and thereby to a loss of confidence by producers, to the disadvantage of consumers and the country as a whole. There was agreement that most member states intervened in the market, usually in times of surplus. Such support as was given by member states inevitably favoured the producers of one member state against another. A recent report from Nottingham University on this proposed regime—I believe that has been circulated to many of your Lordships—confirms the evidence that we received on this point. This report states on page 106 that many countries have provided intervention, aids for storage and indeed export subsidies.
We concluded that such distortions by member states were likely to occur where the farming lobby was strongest. We felt that such assistance was undesirable in a single market. Quite frankly we felt that if member states were going to play at this game of helping their own nationals with export subsidies and other such measures, we were likely to lose out, as we were not as likely to be so belligerent as some of our producer neighbours on the Continent. Therefore, for reasons of expediency—let us be honest about this —but also for reasons of principle, we favoured bringing potatoes within the scope of Community rules. This would mean that any further aid would have to be notified to the Community and would have to be compatible with the EC treaty. That does not rule out support but the support must be compatible with the EC treaty.
Most witnesses agreed—this opinion was almost universal —that the present potato marketing scheme was incompatible with the regulation as drafted at the moment. Some therefore concluded that the regulation needed amending. Others concluded that the potato marketing scheme needed amending or abolishing. All witnesses addressed the central issue of whether the scheme was achieving the desired objectives of stability for producers and consumers, as
1586
well as helping to advance the interests of the potato industry in this country. Not unexpectedly there were widely differing perceptions on this central issue.
We took evidence from the Ministry of Agriculture who acknowledged that plantings had been more stable than in other countries but suggested that prices fluctuated as much in the UK as elsewhere, though around a higher mean; that is, around a higher average price. The Potato Marketing Board disputed this, claiming that a stability had been achieved which would not have been possible without area control. It has since quoted the Nottingham report to substantiate this claim. There is a graph on page 15 at figure 2.6 of the Nottingham report. It does not match the graph of the Ministry of Agriculture, which covers a longer time span.
However, I shall for the moment refer to the Nottingham report. That report suggests to me that UK prices have indeed been on average higher. At least the Ministry and Nottingham University probably agree on that. However, the price fluctuations in the Nottingham report appear to have been less than in the three other member states mentioned in the report. However one looks at the graph, stability is not the word which comes to mind. Perhaps it is possible to reconcile the two graphs produced by MAFF and Nottingham University respectively, although my own suspicion is that much depends on the relative weighting of components. That point was made in the Nottingham report. I am quite content to leave the question of comparing like with like to the respective economists, and may they reach a conclusion! Some will say that that seems unlikely.
We had to conclude, however, that supply control by means of quotas has not achieved price stability. Bearing in mind the chronic fluctuations in yield of the potato crop, it is probably too much to expect that it ever could achieve stability in an absolute sense. The price of quota itself has proved an unstable element in potato production. We took oral evidence from the National Farmers' Union of Scotland. The union informed us that quota had peaked at about £2,500 per hectare and had now fallen to £50 per hectare and it was continuing to fall. The production costs of those growers in the quota market have therefore not been stable. One has to ask whether the operation of a transferable quota scheme, with its inevitable disincentive to expansion for those producers without access to the necessary finance, has worked to the detriment of the British potato industry.
The Ministry of Agriculture's evidence on the steady decline in numbers of producers is corroborated by Nottingham University. If the objective of the potato marketing scheme had been to keep potato producers in business—that was not the objective of the scheme—then an 80 per cent. drop in numbers between 1955 and 1992, as mentioned in the Nottingham University Report, would suggest that the objective had certainly not been achieved. However, this would not be a fair measure of success. Instead we suggest that we should judge the success of the potato marketing scheme by the extent that it has given the potato industry the confidence and stability

1587
to position itself in our own market, and indeed in the European market, as well as keeping consumers satisfied with our product. That should be the yardstick as regards our success rate over the years the scheme has been operating.
I have already referred to prices. The consumer might have a mild grumble here, as prices seem to have been a little high. However, the position on exports, as mentioned in our report, is confused by a subsequent revision of statistics by MAFF. To be fair to MAFF, it referred in the evidence it gave us to a forecast for 1992. I understand that has been revised. That has the effect of showing increased export figures over the figures for the years 1981 to 1983. There are now forecast to be 121,000 tonnes of exports in 1992. That is about 2.2 per cent. of production and it compares with 1.4 per cent. of production between 1981 to 1983. Those are not figures we can be proud of.
Our weakness is our level of imports, not so much of ware potatoes but of processed imports, which now stands at 556,000 tonnes. That is a much larger figure than the figure I have just mentioned for our exports. When the chairman of the Potato Marketing Board gave evidence to us he described 73 per cent. self-sufficiency in processed products as a success story as it was better than the 64 per cent. we had previously achieved.
Our main competitors in our own market are the Dutch. They have been more successful in attracting investment in processing and have thereby benefited from increased employment and the added value which goes with that industry. We could not agree that there was any element of success in our present level of imports of processed potatoes. Our conclusion was that quotas had inhibited investment in this country by processors in spite of the formation of the joint consultative committee. Our home producers had conceded a significant share of our own market when we should have had all the advantages. As producers we have economy of scale in what is a capital intensive crop where larger fields provide significant unit cost savings, and of course we are close to our home market, which is sophisticated in the matter of potatoes and recognises the much wider choice of varieties which are grown in this country. We have a high consumption of potatoes compared with other countries. This is a classic situation, in which, if ever there was a commodity where we should be able to take on the opposition and win, it is this one. However, we have not done so.
Therefore, we concluded that, with hindsight, the potato marketing scheme could not be judged a success and that we should allow our natural advantages to reassert themselves. Our proximity to the market and our relatively sophisticated production systems should ensure that we compete effectively within a common market for potatoes. We felt that to be the only member state imposing area supply control would be to inflict a self-imposed handicap on ourselves. While that might well be favoured by our competitors, it was not a move that we could recommend. We recommend instead that, rather than
1588
amend the regulation to allow the scheme to continue within the potato regime, we should abolish the potato marketing scheme itself.
The evidence we received from some of the more successful producer groups suggested that some faced the demise of the quota scheme with equanimity. However, it must be emphasised that a large number of producers are extremely alarmed at the prospect. It may be that some of those producer groups are not so strong as others and that some have not invested in suitable production systems for the developing market. It will be the case that, if we enter a common market for potatoes, a number of producers will face an uncertain future.
We have already seen a steep decline in the number of producers. That is bound to continue. We felt confident that the market share which would be released by such producers would and should be taken up by the more efficient producers. That is simply to state what has happened in the past. There is no reason why it should not happen in the future, with or without transferable quotas. If we kept the scheme in existence in the hope of sheltering vulnerable producers we would be failing to act in the long-term interests of the British potato industry or the consumer.
Lastly, we recognised that many functions of the Potato Marketing Board, such as promotion, research and collation of statistics, should continue. We acknowledge that a development council, as allowed for in the Agriculture Bill, might well be a suitable vehicle. We note the provisions in the regulation for promoting new producer groups and for enabling the Commission to require third countries to apply for import licences. We feel that those two measures, although relatively trivial, may be helpful.
We were suspicious of the proposal of the Council of Ministers to introduce quality standards into the regulation, although we felt that some common definition of quality standards might be helpful. That is not so much a matter for the regulation as for a code.
Without doubt most growers see the board as having achieved a stability which would not have been possible without a compulsory potato marketing scheme. Those producers claimed that when everything else is changing in the common agricultural policy this is not the time to abandon the scheme. Reluctantly, we have been forced to disagree. We should never have allowed ourselves to be put on the defensive and to become a net importer of potatoes and potato products when we have every natural advantage. We should be exploiting more effectively our expertise as producers and the advantage we gain from having a higher consumption of potatoes per head than any other European country. We need to encourage our successful producer groups and to allow them to make contracts with buyers uninhibited by an area quota scheme. This EC regulation should be seen as an opportunity to compete more effectively with the rest of Europe and to remove the danger of unfair national aid schemes which tilt the playing field against us. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on the common organisation of the market in potatoes [19th Report, H.L. Paper 74].—(The Earl of Selborne.)
6.24 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful for the clarity and the concise way in which my noble friend introduced the report. Those of us who were members of the sub-committee are no less grateful for the ability with which he chaired the inquiry.
Potatoes, and how they are grown and marketed, are extremely important to this country, more important than to any other country in the European Community. Potatoes represent 16 per cent. of the output of our arable farms. If one excludes cereals they represent 84 per cent. We are the largest consumers of potatoes and potato products in the European Community. We consume on average 4½pounds of potatoes a week per head, 102 kilograms a year, while across the Community the average is only 80 kilograms. This report, and any changes in the arrangements in the Community or the United Kingdom which lie ahead, are important matters for the United Kingdom.
In its response to the report the Potato Marketing Board commented that this was a complicated subject. It certainly is. Perhaps with hindsight it is too complicated for a short inquiry and a quickly produced report. However, the Select Committee decided to deal with the matter this way to make sure that the report was published before final decisions were taken by the Community and while the related United Kingdom Agriculture Bill was still under discussion in Parliament.
Fortunately, some of the background information which the committee might have considered with advantage but could not because of the timetable—for example, information about the potato industries in other member states—has since been set out in a most helpful and interesting report produced by the Nottingham School of Management and Finance, to which my noble friend referred.
The questions which the Select Committee had to address, and which my noble friend rehearsed, were simple enough: is the European regime necessary at all? If it is necessary, is the suggested regime the right one? What should now happen to the existing potato marketing scheme in the United Kingdom?
Those are simple questions, but in considering the answers we encountered problems. First, the committee found itself shooting at a fast-moving target. The proposed European regime, for differing reasons in different member states, was meeting huge hostility among Community potato farmers generally. It was rejected by their two big co-operatives —COPA and COGECA—and those views were subsequently reflected in the European Parliament. There was clearly a growing likelihood that the Commission would have to amend its proposals or abandon them altogether. The regime was, and still is, a moving target.
1590
As to the future of the United Kingdom potato marketing scheme, the committee found itself hearing evidence that reflected deep divisions, with witnesses' opinions on all sides of the argument based partly, of necessity, on guesswork. The questions were simple but there was too much conjecture all round. For that reason, I found that it was not a comfortable inquiry to conduct.
In considering whether there need be a European regime at all, the committee received conflicting advice. As my noble friend said, the Commission's evidence expressed the view that the Treaty of Rome imposed a duty upon it. It told us that potatoes were one of only two major agricultural products not covered by the CAP and that that meant that there had been an "untidiness" for years.
The Potato Marketing Board disagreed. It considered that there was no legal requirement for a regime. The Country Landowners' Association commented, I thought refreshingly, that the nonexistence of a regime is no reason for having one. MAFF linked the proposed regime with the need to do away with national schemes which distorted competition, while the National Farmers Union and the Scottish National Farmers Union would only contemplate a European regime if it permitted national schemes to continue.
In the event, the committee was strongly influenced by the evidence of Mr. Pooley, the manager of a large group of many hundreds of farmers involved in the production of some 30,000 acres of potatoes in England, himself at present president of COPA and COGECA. He believed, from his European experience as well as his home experience, that it was important that there should be a European regime of some kind, if only to ensure that member states were not able to give direct government aid to their own farmers and so distort competition. The committee took that point, as my noble friend said. It has happened from time to time in the past. In the new single market it would no longer be appropriate and should not be possible.
My noble friend has commented on the committee's views of what sort of European regime it should be. I shall not reiterate them except to say that the committee looks for a very light regime indeed.
The third question relating to what should happen to the potato marketing scheme is of course by far the most important to the industry and in particular to potato farmers in this country. Living as I do in Angus, a part of Scotland where the growing of seed potatoes has for many years been the backbone of the rural economy, and indeed having had—although having no longer—involvement in the industry, I take seriously the doubts and anxieties of seed growers in particular about life beyond the statutory potato marketing scheme. Most seed potato growers take the view—and the evidence to the committee of Mr. Melrose reflected it—that without the potato marketing scheme, demand for and prices of ware potatoes, and with them the demand for and prices of seed, would fluctuate far more from year to year than they do under the scheme. Overall the price would be lower. It is because of that belief that the growers

1591
contribute large sums to the scheme. Seed growers are also of the view that fluctuation within the seed trade would be greater than the effect on the trade in ware potatoes. The Nottingham report confirms that and indeed estimates that the effect would be double.
Incidentally, at the back of most potato growers' minds is the fact that their own quota is currently without value. However, if quotas were maintained it might acquire a value again in the future although it will probably never reach the £2,500 referred to by my noble friend. It is in examining that question and the future of our UK scheme that the limitations on evidence and time imposed by a quick report show themselves most clearly. At the end of the day the balance of evidence received suggested to the committee that to limit production and to keep prices up by artificial means, as the potato marketing scheme does, in the context of the new single market, in the longer run must reduce rather than expand the scope for competent potato farmers. It must increase rather than decrease the import of potatoes and potato products from other Community countries to the United Kingdom. As my noble friend said, the Select Committee therefore takes the view that whether or not the European regime falls by the wayside, the United Kingdom potato marketing scheme, if retained, will over a period of time become disadvantageous to UK consumers who wish to buy British, to United Kingdom farmers, and to the United Kingdom economy.
Many of the committee's facts and figures are confirmed and enhanced by the Nottingham economists. The economists in fact come to a different conclusion, suggesting that the potato marketing scheme will continue to benefit the industry and even that it is a model for farm policy that might be developed in other sectors. It is perhaps a little wicked to comment that, "They would say that, wouldn't they?" After all, the report was commissioned by the Potato Marketing Board.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the noble Baroness is surely not suggesting that professional economists are incapable of being objective. It is surely not worth their being prejudiced if they do not produce decent reports.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I would not dream of calling into question the integrity of the board, but the report was paid for by the board—which means by the producers. It must have cost a lot of money. I should have thought that the producers would be rather angry if the board then recommended that it does away with itself. I am not sure; I was making that comment in a rather light-hearted way.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Is she aware that one of the authors of the report is my noble friend Lord Peston? Is she calling into question his academic integrity?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, absolutely not. Perhaps I may explain what I seek to say. The report is fascinating and most useful. In the course of argument the report makes a good suggestion: that seed potato producers might with advantage link their
1592
businesses more closely to the producers of ware. However, as a lay person I perceive that the economists, like the Select Committee, have not been able entirely to eschew guesswork in some of the conclusions that they draw. For example, the report confesses that,
"it is extremely difficult to estimate the extent to which the quota holds quantity down and prices up".
Perhaps I may give another example. The economists arrive by a precise and clearly defined path at estimates of large numbers of farmers who might stop growing potatoes because of the ending of the potato marketing scheme. They then add, somewhat vaguely, that,
"of course, the more efficient farmer may seek to expand [though…] not overnight".
At the end of the day much depends on how people react. I often recall my experience as chairman of a committee which some years ago considered the likely effect of a projected relief road in Edinburgh on traffic in and out of the city. That experience leads me to suspect that, however skilled, professionals cannot always predict how human beings will respond to new opportunity in a complicated network of circumstances, whether those are changed choices of routes home in the rush hour, or a new freedom to choose to stop, reduce or expand the growing of potatoes.
The committee had a difficult task. I believe that the report should be helpful. I certainly believe that the Potato Marketing Board report is also very helpful. I commend the report of the Select Committee to the House.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I have once again to declare an interest, in that I am and have been a producer of potatoes since 1954. As a result, I have to say that the report of the Select Committee is one that I cannot support. I do not look forward—indeed, I never do—to the remarks which I intend to make any more than your Lordships will care to hear them. I do not mind irritating some of your Lordships some of the time, but I am fearful of irritating all of your Lordships all of the time, including my noble friend on the Front Bench, although I detected that my noble friend Lady Carnegy also had reservations about the report. However, to be anodyne is a sin that I will not commit.
I believe that Sub-committee D failed to realise the importance of a number of factors that affect the United Kingdom potato industry. If it did so realise, it drew the wrong conclusions. I believe that it concentrated far too much on the quota as opposed to other matters. Indeed, the speech of my noble friend Lord Selborne concentrated vastly on the quota problem. The committee failed to understand the effect of the English Channel. It failed to understand how much more varied is the use of the potato in the United Kingdom compared with our continental colleagues, in particular, the stronger demand for the fresh potato. The committee failed to understand the effect of the strong co-operatives in Europe. I think that 80 per cent. of the Dutch crop is co-operatively

1593
marketed, which would put them in a powerful position should our potato marketing scheme be abolished.
The committee assumed that there is and will be a level playing field, though listening to my noble friend Lord Selborne I have to say that he put it in, if I may say so, a slightly more defeatist way. I wonder whether, when my noble friend on the Front Bench replies, he will be able to give an assurance that the United Kingdom Government will match, ecu for ecu, for United Kingdom producers any help given to continental producers.
The United Kingdom Government's record is not all that good. For example, I was staggered to be told in a Written Answer on 29th March (at col. WA. 33 of Hansard) that they were ignorant of how much continental countries had given in support last year, whereas a telephone call to Brussels would have enlightened them. I have sent my noble friend on the Front Bench details of those subsidies, which amounted in France alone to well over £19 million sterling, compared with the United Kingdom's paltry £1¼or £1½ million.
The committee came to the conclusion that our potato marketing scheme restricted the processors' ability to purchase United Kingdom produce. I do not believe that to be so. They could not or would not take up all the offers of contract last year; I know that we could not get all our extra quota acreage. In particular, frozen chips are imported because processors do not have the plant in the United Kingdom. It is a question of the chicken and the egg, I believe. If the processors put up more plant they would get more potatoes. Incidentally, the fewer chips eaten and the more fresh boiled and baked potatoes eaten, the better, I am told, for the country's health.
The committee was unfortunately fed inaccurate or incorrect information by the Ministry of Agriculture. For example, Annex A, Table 5.14—my noble friend Lord Selborne admitted this in the end—contained serious errors in the raw potato export figures. The UK raw exports increased; they did not decrease. If one bases one's evidence on a fact which is 100 per cent wrong, it makes it somewhat suspect.
Secondly, MAFF failed to understand the vital difference between a crop and a calendar year, so suggesting that there was intervention in each of the past five years, whereas it occurred only three times between 1988 and 1992.
On a smaller point, MAFF implied in Table 1, Annex B, that the United Kingdom potato prices were £6,000 per tonne due to an error: it interpreted 100 for one. It is an understandable error like those that I make every day, but it does not exactly inspire confidence in MAFF's report.
When Sub-committee D questioned Mrs. Attridge of the Ministry, she clearly failed to understand the role of the Potato Marketing Board's consultative committee. She stated:
"It does not build in an element for exports or at least [has] not done so up until now".
I should not like to say what I put by that. Suffice it to say that that just is not so.
1594
I realise only too well that my noble friend Lord Howe believes that I have got my knife into the Ministry of Agriculture. I made it quite clear to my noble friend in a letter that I have no objection to much of MAFF's overall strategy, including incidentally the hated IAC and BSP schemes. It is the small print that lets MAFF down. I suggest that it has done so again in this matter. I strongly commend the article in The Times of 6th May by Sir Peter Kemp, a former prominent civil servant. It was headed:
"Mandarins are not the only fruit".
Ministers should shuffle advisers too.
So much for the errors in the evidence. Perhaps what worried me most was Sub-committee D's misinterpretation of Article 39 of the Treaty of Rome. It appears to have neglected the words:
"ensure stability of the market and a fair income for producers".
The report does not address that vital matter. Indeed, the report from Nottingham, to which noble Lords have already referred, on page 112 states a categoric no. That view, as my noble friend Lady Carnegy said, is supported by COPA, COGECA, ECOSOC and of course the European Parliament. In common with those organisations, I cannot accept paragraph 50 of the Select Committee's report which states that our potato marketing scheme would be incompatible with a European Commission scheme. It is just that the United Kingdom does not want to negotiate such a scheme.
So I have to conclude that this was a poorly thought out report, based on poor and incorrect evidence, reflecting the gospel coming from the Minister, which could result in throwing out the baby with the bath water. It seems to be saying, "We have a less than satisfactory situation, so let more chaos reign".
I have to end on a constructive note. I suggest that your Lordships accept the Government's view in 1989 which was expressed as follows:
"to retain the basic elements of the existing scheme in view of the need to maintain stability in the potato industry at a time of major adjustment in the arable crop sector generally".
I entirely agree. I hope that the Commons will take such a view and, more importantly, I hope that my noble friend Lord Howe will confirm that those sentiments expressed by the Government in 1989 are still held by the Government.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, as one who had formerly grown potatoes for a good many years under the aegis of the Potato Marketing Board, my first reaction on hearing that the Commission was to introduce an EC potato regime was to have misgivings similar to those voiced by my noble friend Lord Stanley. However, having had the privilege of rejoining Sub-committee D under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Selborne just in time for our inquiry, and after hearing the evidence, I took a different view. It is one that is wholly in accord with our conclusions on pages 12 and 13.
The Commission clearly regards this as a single market measure in that it is aimed at dismantling national support measures which act as restrictions on

1595
trade. There is a strong case for preventing member states from operating national schemes which distort the Community market in potatoes.
As my noble friend Lord Selborne reminded us, in Great Britain, the PMB, with its potato marketing scheme, controls the area of potatoes grown by means of a quota system. It supports the market by contract buying and by operating an intervention system.
My noble friend Lord Stanley thought that we had overstated the quota issue. Sub-committee D has been consistent during the years I served on it and before in opposing quotas in principle. In previous reports we have argued against the use of output controls both on economic and on practical grounds. We have said that the quota system is not in the interests of consumers, manufacturers or the agricultural industry as a whole.
When we wrote our report on the reform of the CAP, we said:
"Quotas distort markets, create artificial shortages of commodities and impede restructuring in agriculture … we believe that in the long term quotas should be progressively phased out".
In a debate in this House on 10th March this year, my noble friend Lord Selborne spoke very effectively on this question of supply controls and their malign and potentially damaging influence on food production.
It was not unexpected that most producers and producers' organisations wanted to keep the potato marketing scheme. The overwhelming weight of producer opinion wanted to retain a national quota system whose purpose was to act as a cushion against violent price fluctuations. One witness summed the matter up when he said that the PMB and its ability to control quotas equalled stability. That perception of the benign effect of the potato marketing scheme was not supported by any figures. To the contrary, the figures supplied by MAFF, which were referred to by my noble friend Lord Selborne and which appear in graph form on page 25 of the report and on page 14 of the evidence section, show that British prices of main crop food potatoes fluctuated in very much the same way as prices in other member states but that British prices were consistently higher. The Potato Marketing Board, in the brief which it sent to Peers—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that to have higher prices for potatoes in this country is a bad thing?
Lord Middleton: My Lords, I will deal later with the, again, malign effect of higher prices on the penetration of our market. To that extent, I believe that they have had a bad effect.
The Potato Marketing Board, in the brief which it sent to Peers in anticipation of this debate, disputes MAFF's figures. It claims that producer prices are fully competitive with continental prices. But again it does not supply any figures of its own—or if it has supplied them, I have not seen any. It backs its claim by referring to the negligible quantity of ware imports. Great Britain has an in-built protection against imported ware. Because of their weight and hulk, raw ware potatoes cost about £30 a tonne to transport into this country. So one would not expect much competition from that source. Therefore I find that
1596
explanation unconvincing. There is the graph on page 15 of the Nottingham University report. to which my noble friend Lord Selborne referred. He has dealt with that point, so I shall not repeat what he said. We find other examples of the disadvantages of supply and price management when we consider the potato market in Great Britain. I should like to expand a little on what my noble friend said about penetration of our home market.
The processing of potatoes by manufacturers is a very important outlet for growers in this country. In 10 years the take-up from the United Kingdom crop has risen from 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. of the total output. It is a growth industry. Yet under our quota system the potato industry appears to be unable to satisfy increasing consumer demand for processed potatoes. Imports of processed potatoes have risen by a factor of four in the past 10 years in terms of tonnage. While 10 years ago 10 per cent. of the processed chips, crisps and so on consumed in the United Kingdom were imported, the figure is now nearly 27 per cent.
Surely we ought to be perfectly capable of satisfying the whole of our domestic demand for raw and processed potatoes, except perhaps for the out-of-season earlies, from our own fields. It does not say much for a system that exerts close control over both output and quality if this growing penetration of our market can be allowed to happen.
In its brief to Peers, the Potato Marketing Board says that the reason for the admitted import deficit in processed products in Great Britain is insufficient or inadequate processing capacity. My noble friend Lord Stanley repeated that tonight. The Nottingham University report recently commissioned by the PMB, to which my noble friend Lady Carnegy referred, is equivocal on the subject. The section on the processing industry says:
"Whether the import deficit is due to a production or a processing bottleneck is an important question.
"In other words the import deficit may be due to constraints imposed on processors by the P.M.B. through the P.M.S., or to lack of processing capacity and marketing ability in the British processing industry".
So that does not get us very much further.
However, MAFF told us in its evidence that in Great Britain processors found that the quota system made it more difficult for processors to be assured of their supplies and that quotas. by restricting production, gave a higher average price of their raw material. That was borne out by the representative of the Potato Processors Association, who said:
"the potato marketing scheme has been disadvantageous to us —particularly in the way it operates in this country … This has resulted in potato prices being generally higher in this country than in most other E.C. countries and in our finding it is more difficult to obtain potatoes of the right quality, variety and value for our processing plants".
He went on to say that there was at present in Great Britain sufficient processing capacity to take over a proportion of the imported tonnage but that new plant built to satisfy the home market would be more likely to be placed on the other side of the Channel. He blamed the potato marketing scheme. He said:
"If the present scheme stays … I believe that it will adversely affect investment here in the United Kingdom".

1597
Finally, he quoted a Dutch person as saying to the secretary of his association:
"I hope to goodness your potato marketing scheme stays. It is the greatest advantage that Dutch processors have in helping them to exploit the UK market".
The Dutch look like following the example of the Danes, who captured more than 40 per cent. of our bacon market, which our home pig industry had ample capability but not the wit to satisfy in full.
Those are some of the reasons which lead me to agree with the conclusion in our report; namely, that a free market in potatoes would lead to a more competitive industry, where efficient British producers would not only increase their share of the home market but should also aim to penetrate markets abroad. I shall be very unpopular with my farming friends for saying so, but I fear that our producers cannot do that within the restrictions of the potato marketing scheme.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I do not grow potatoes now. Like my noble friend I am an ex-grower. I hasten to add also that I do not have any quota. However, unlike him, during debate on the Agriculture Bill I said quite a bit in support of the Potato Marketing Board. Though I am now better informed (I hope), I do not recant what I said then. Indeed, I find the subject an extremely complicated one. I can understand the anxieties there must have been among members of the Select Committee over the matter.
One at once picks up that prices are higher in the UK. The question is whether we are comparing like with like in the kinds of potatoes which we are considering. I do not believe that we really know. Something else on which we must keep an eye is the great asset of the Dutch—their land. It is their greatest asset in the potato industry. We need not give up heart because of that, but to some extent we must remember that factor.
If the potato marketing scheme quotas are abolished, the insurance provided by support buying must go also; the one supports the other. I therefore find it difficult to accept that abolition of quotas will not result in greater fluctuations in price and in the acreage planted. The scheme at least kept acreage planting more constant.
It follows that if we are not careful and make a wrong decision, investment in potato growing, which is extremely important, will be discouraged. There will be a danger that instead of quota abolition stimulating production and reducing import penetration, the reverse could arise. That is pointed out in the Nottingham report. It is said that the potato marketing scheme is against the consumer interest. To a small degree that may be so. However, to date it has encouraged investment by growers which, in the long run, has been to the advantage of consumers.
There is evidence that we endure greater yield variation per acre than some other parts of Europe. Some of that could perhaps be cured by relocation or irrigation. It would be a good thing if and when that comes about. If we go on as we are it will probably
1598
happen anyway. But as regards potatoes for processing, we have greater difficulties over ensuring quality. We have difficulties in obtaining the right sugar content and that is climatic. It may be alleviated by better varieties, but that is in the long term. The importance of our seed industry is again illustrated.
Many processing varieties of potato are useless for other purposes if rejected. One is then back to the need for a support scheme over the problem of quality risk in producing processing potatoes. Of course, the potato marketing scheme provided that when a processing crop was unsatisfactory. Without that insurance through the levy, producers will carry the whole burden in such cases.
I should like to mention our market. In processing there is a tendency for it to be in the hands of internationals. Unlike Holland, we have one processor with 60 per cent. of the capacity. For the rest of the market we have to keep an eye on the increasing power of the supermarkets—very much a UK phenomenon. I have said a good deal about that in this House on several occasions. Therefore the position of the United Kingdom growers is more bleak than anywhere else unless they have strong marketing. The road ahead does not spell that it is safe to rely on laissez-faire. There are too many oligarchies around for that. Most growers feel that some form of direction is needed for the industry.
It must be said that we were able to solve some of our marketing problems in the absence of strong co-operatives as in Holland by means of the potato marketing scheme. European growers all want something similar—greater stability if they can obtain it. They could not achieve that before the advent of the European market, as we could, because of their cross-border trade and their market being less isolated than ours. Hence the controversy over the new EC proposal in COPA and in the European Parliament. That controversy is something that should not be lost on us.
I suggest, if possible, that we do not abolish or disrupt the potato marketing scheme. Unless there is something strong enough to take its place I fear that abolition of quotas would be a serious blow to the industry in this country. It is not the same situation as is the case with milk, where at least for the moment quotas are a protection for British producers. The potato situation is considerably less safe. It is essential to pay more heed to growers' views. As far as I am aware the majority of them are in support of the PMS and I believe that also applies to the majority of the acreage. One should definitely take all those points into consideration before being ready to accept the recommendations made by the Select Committee.
I fear that we could lose more ground to the Dutch and others by scrapping our marketing system without establishing a co-operative like theirs. Our quota system —certainly as claimed by the Potato Marketing Board—is capable of adjustment to accommodate more processing. That would come about when processor over-capacity in Holland, which is the position at the moment, is more fully

1599
used. The quota scheme is now much more like co-ordinated production planning and there seems to be a need for that.
I am sure that in Holland one will find that loyalty to one's co-op is strong. Dutch producers plant with an eye to the market. They have discipline and show it. Their approach is not unco-ordinated laissez-faire; it is a thoroughly co-ordinated affair. I do not believe that a laissez-faire approach in this country would work. I believe that our system, with modification from time to time, is best retained and built upon. It would then be capable of producing a sound basis for producer and processor investment to get the right production in the right places. It may not produce stability of supply because of weather, yield and quality. But it will produce stability in acreage planted. That in itself is extremely useful.
I believe that there is another moving target in addition to the EC scheme; that is, the Potato Marketing Board. It has evolved considerably. It is probably well capable of evolving further and we should abandon it only after a great deal of thought. We may do so at our peril.
7.9 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Selborne and the members of his committee for all their hard work in producing the report we are discussing today. Your Lordships will know of the Angus mafia, as explained by my noble friend and neighbour Lady Carnegy. My noble neighbour who has yet to speak—the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie—grew, and for all I know is still growing, potatoes in his new area. My noble friend Lady Carnegy is still growing on the lovely lands of Lour, but perhaps not in her own capacity.
I have to declare an interest, in that I have quota but allow some of the giant processors to grow on Kinnordy land. I, and I believe all potato producers in Angus in Scotland and elsewhere, will pay tribute to the very hard work of the Potato Marketing Board over nearly 60 years. I believe it is agreed that that operation has provided the stability which is, to put it politely, demanded by my fellow Scots, be they producers of ware or, above all, seed potatoes.
I thought fit to speak in this debate in a fairly humble capacity only at the weekend. For that reason I did not receive all the fascinating reports from Nottingham University. I saw some reference to them and received something by fax this morning. What struck me was paragraph 47 of the report of the Select Committee. I should like to quote from the report of my noble friend Lord Selborne. The report suggests that significant fluctuations in production since 1985 are noted. However, that is also the case in Europe. Paragraph 47 goes on to mention that demand is inelastic and that has produced considerable variations in producer prices. Evidence was given by Mr. Black, who I believe was the representative of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland. He said at page 49, Q108, that, although demand might have been inelastic, he was continuing to sell potatoes. I do not know whether those potatoes were ware potatoes for the pot, fresh potatoes or potatoes for processing. He
1600
said that he had sold pre-packed supermarket potatoes last year for £150 per tonne. At the same time of year this year he is selling presumably the same type of potatoes to the same supermarkets for £55 per tonne. Yet he says that prices in the supermarkets have remained the same. I find that most interesting. We find that demand is inelastic and that prices will go up or down, yet prices at the farm gate can be one third of what they were last year but not change in supermarkets.
What amuses me considerably is another comment in paragraph 47 of the report. Mention is made of the same fluctuations in prices in other member states. This arises very much in the context of the Potato Marketing Board's quota. I refer to the end of the paragraph:
"the main effect of the potato marketing scheme is that potato prices in Britain fluctuate around a higher mean".
I have heard that once most distinguishedly from my noble friend Lord Selborne. I do not know whether when he and I took O-level or elementary mathematics at Eton 37 or 38 years ago we covered things like higher mean figures. We were concerned with simple figures.
Perhaps I may take my noble friend and your Lordships to Appendix 6 on pages 38 to 40. The appendix deals with the prices of potatoes for processing in Britain. The figures purport to be in support of the case made by the potato processors. We have heard a great deal from all who have spoken that it is the Netherlands potato industry that is our greatest competitor. It is the greatest supplier to the market. Whatever "higher mean" may mean, I invite your Lordships to look at what appear to a simple Angus man to be simple figures. Referring to page 38, in 1987/88 the annual average within the band above —that is to say, column (A) under "Great Britain" (for the purposes of these calculations Northern Ireland is excluded)—was £64.56 per tonne as against £42.97 per tonne in the Netherlands. At the bottom of page 38 in 1988/89 your Lordships find that the figure is £60.61 per tonne as against £54.79 for the Netherlands. If we look at page 39, we find that for the past three years, according to figures produced by the processing industry in support of their case, average prices per tonne in 1989/90 have been £112 in the Netherlands versus £90 for Great Britain; in 1990/91, £83 against £75 and in 1991/92, £79 against £78. The processors tell us that the quota scheme of the Potato Marketing Board is not acceptable and produces higher prices. These figures come from the processors who want the scheme done away with because they say that that will assist the housewife and the industry.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy raised a point relating to the seed potato industry in Scotland. I await the thunderstorm from my noble friend and neighbour Lord Mackie. Perhaps he will allow me to allude to one or two points made in evidence. I refer particularly to the evidence of Mr. Melrose, who was speaking for the seed potato industry in Scotland. Your Lordships will see that on page 70, at 187, Mr. Melrose points out that the seed potato industry needed a lead time of perhaps seven, eight or even 10 years before the material found its way eventually to

1601
an English or perhaps Scottish farm and into the ware and production cycle. I seem to remember using a similar argument for the protection of long lead products a fortnight ago when arguing for the pharmaceutical industry.
Nevertheless, I believe that what Mr. Melrose presented to the committee had some force. He stressed the export opportunities for the Scottish seed potato industry overseas. Over the weekend my mind wandered to places like Russia, Poland and other large potential markets for the Scottish seed industry. Coupling the seeking of those overseas markets with the long lead time, it was his belief, and, I understand, that of the farmers' union in Scotland, that the current scheme with quota, warts and all, provided stability, and that that was what the seed industry was seeking.
I should like to turn briefly to paragraph 48 of the report and couple that with the wise evidence of Mr. Pooley. The committee accepted the point made by the Scottish seed potato growers; it went a good way to accepting the points made by the industry. Mr. Pooley in evidence stressed on page 81, at Q240, that the scheme should not cover breeders. He felt that breeders were major entrepreneurs and that any scheme proposed as a result of the recommendations of the committee, or from elsewhere, should not necessarily cover breeders of Scottish seed potatoes.
I am very interested in paragraph 47 of the report. I hope that noble Lords and my noble friend on the Front Bench will consider the three examples given on pages 38 to 40. Perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench or my noble friend Lord Selborne can tell me why it is thought that the potato marketing scheme as it exists in Great Britain at the moment produces a higher mean. I accept that I have taken average prices in the three most recent years, comparing the Netherlands with Great Britain. However, those figures are presented by the processors. I wonder whether I or the processors have got them wrong. It seems that some of the evidence does not necessarily demonstrate the inefficiency of the quota.
That said, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Selborne and his committee and all the experts who have produced a very readable and lucid report. I believe that it is of immense importance to the potato industry and also to the seed potato producers and experimenters in the great county of Angus.
7.19 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I apologise for not having put down my name earlier but I did take the necessary safeguarding steps in order that I might speak in the gap on the speakers' list.
First, I must declare an interest. It is not a very large interest but all the same I grow potatoes. This year I wish that I did not and I think that most growers of potatoes are of the same opinion. Indeed, it occurs to me that it may be rather a bad time to introduce change—a radical change—because we do not know what will come about if we do away with the Potato Marketing Board, go into the deep end of no restrictions of any kind and take our chance with the rest of Europe.
1602
Perhaps I would not mind taking our chance with the rest of Europe if I felt that the Government could guarantee that we would all be treated in the same way. However, I have heard again and again today that in one way or the other there have been subsidies to almost all the other countries in Europe. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said that even if there is a general scheme of things there is no guarantee that other countries will not continue to support their industries. All they have to do is to report it. Knowing the position of the British Government, I am afraid that they certainly would not support their industry. We would be in the position of having got rid of our Potato Marketing Board, whose cost, incidentally, is almost entirely borne by the potato growers and not by the Government—they have helped a very little this time.
So the first thing that occurs to me is that, if there is to be a change, we must be sure that from then on we have a level playing field. Otherwise, we shall find the same kind of thing as happens at the present time in other areas of farming whereby other European countries somehow seem to get around the rules. One of the arguments in favour of the change was that the system as it stands is very untidy and that only two commodities are not covered as a whole. That is about the worst argument I have ever heard. What does being untidy matter if the system works?
I find this a very difficult subject. As has already been pointed out, we ought to enjoy an advantage in the ware potato market because it costs £20 or, as some other noble Lords have said, £30 a tonne to bring potatoes from Europe to this country. But I am worried by the fact that prices do not seem to affect consumption. I say that very forcefully in relation to this year. Many potato growers have seen the price drop by 80 per cent. but that does not increase consumption.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, has the noble Earl noted that the 80 per cent. drop has not been reflected in the supermarket?
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I entirely agree. That is another way of saying what I was trying to say. The fall in the price does not mean that consumption will increase. I am not entirely clear about the reason for that. It may well be, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said, something to do with the system of great supermarkets in this country which we do not find in Europe.
Another thought occurs to me. The report tells us how the countries of Europe, particularly Holland, have very successful co-operatives. What guarantee do we have that getting rid of the Potato Marketing Board, which in a sense is a co-operative, will result in more successful co-operatives in this country straight away? There is a risk in getting rid of our Potato Marketing Board entirely and being at the mercy of co-operatives, which take a long time to develop.
What are my conclusions? It is a very difficult subject and we have heard the views of those who have studied the subject carefully. Two points arise. First, we should be certain that the other governments will not be able to help out their own producers unless we

1603
can too. I am clear that we will not if the Potato Marketing Board disappears, because the Government will not be prepared to help out in the same way as others. I do not blame them, but that is what one has seen again and again.
Secondly, if we are to do this, is there no way in which the Government can do it gradually? To take a plunge into icy water at a time of uncertainty is a mistake. If the Government wish for change, I beg them to do so in a way that can be gradual. Once one stops the activities of the Potato Marketing Board altogether it will be difficult, if not impossible, to bring it back again. If the Government are determined to go forward I hope that they will do so gradually. I do not know what I mean by that but I do know that it is very necessary.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I crave the indulgence of your Lordships to say a few words in the gap in support of my noble friend Lord Selborne, on whose sub-committee I had the honour to serve. I declare an interest as a potato grower and an identity of interest with the noble Lord, Lord Perth, in that I too expect to make a loss on my potatoes this year despite the Potato Marketing Board and the quota system.
I should declare straight away that I am a free trader by instinct. Perhaps that has something to do with 17 years at the Economist. But that does not mean that I do not see the advantages of fixed and rigged markets from time to time. The ERM is a lovely idea if it produced a stable currency network, and a single currency might also be very nice. In certain areas market intervention works well. We have milk quotas which have been successful. That is because they apply throughout Europe. What in my opinion would be wholly unacceptable to the British farmer and to the British potato producer is constraints on the acreage of potatoes that may be grown by British farmers with no such constraints on farmers in other countries of the European Community and completely free trade in potatoes. The cost of transporting potatoes is a relatively unimportant factor—compared to milk.
I understand why the Potato Marketing Board should be mounting a bit of a campaign against our report. I studied Karl Marx for long enough to understand how people react on such matters. Equally, I can understand why some farmers will be apprehensive at the loss of the potato marketing scheme on the old adage of "holding firm to nurse for fear of finding something worse". In my area of England, Suffolk, I do not believe that I shall be unpopular with my potato growing neighbours for saying that I believe that the potato marketing scheme should go. The committee attempted to get evidence of this alleged widespread support for the scheme and we did not find it.
I believe that the crucial factor is that the Potato Marketing Board and its potato quotas have not in fact increased the stability of the potato price. The reason has already been referred to. It is in our report and also in Section 6.3 of the Nottingham University report—the inelasticity of the demand for potatoes. This also explains the point raised by the noble Earl,
1604
Lord Perth. There is a limit to the number of potatoes which the supermarkets can sell. On the whole, for the people in this country money does not limit the quantity of potatoes which they buy. They buy the number they want to eat.
If, due mainly to the weather or sometimes imports, there is a big fluctuation in the supply of potatoes, the supplier will be paid less by the supermarket. The supermarket goes on selling at the same price because it can get the same price. If the supermarket cuts its price it would not sell more. It probably has an idea of the price which people are prepared to pay. So when the price to the producer falls the supermarket does not have to cut its prices. That is the explanation of the apparent paradox of the noble Earl, Lord Perth.
We in Britain, as they do in Holland, have very good producers' co-operatives. I am a member of one, Anglian Produce, which I believe is the biggest in Britain. Co-operatives try to regulate the market to help farmers by telling the potato growers when to lift and when not to. Thus they reduce the perennial rip-off of the potato growers by the supermarkets and processors.
Potatoes have always been, and I believe will continue to be, one of the most speculative crops that farmers can grow. I do not believe that our prospects will be adversely affected by the scrapping of the potato marketing scheme. I support the report. I also support my right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture. I believe he has a healthy scepticism of assumptions about attempts to regulate which do not really work.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I too must thank the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, for putting his case with great clarity. But I regret to tell him that it has failed to convince me. I was quite shocked at some of the things in the report. When I came to paragraph 47 I could hardly believe what I read:
"The Committee note that these price fluctuations are not more pronounced in other Member States and therefore agree with MAFF and the Potato Processors' Association".
That is a combination including both the devil and the deep blue sea. The report goes on to say that the main effect of the potato marketing scheme is that potato prices in Britain fluctuate "around a higher mean".
What we have seen already is that a higher mean must be good for the potato growers of Great Britain. As the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, said, one of the objectives of the CAP is to give the farmers of this country and Europe a reasonable standard of living. I cannot see why the committee should believe this combination of MAFF and the potato processors—one driven wholly by self-interest and the other by doctrinaire assumptions which are becoming more and more unpalatable to the voters of this country.
I then read paragraph 49:
"The Committee take the view that a free market, in potatoes would lead to a more competitive industry, where efficient British seed and ware producers would increase their share of the home and export market. The Committee therefore support the abolition of the Potato Marketing Scheme".

1605
Paragraph 51 is even worse. It states that the committee supports the abolition immediately, whether there is a scheme produced by the CAP or not.
These are arguments which I would like to contradict. I shall start with the core of the argument both from the ministry and the committee. It is that in a free market we would supply all the extra consumption of processed potatoes, whether crisps, par-fried chips or anything else which the British public have taken to. That is the core of the argument from both the Government and the committee.
When one looks at the admirable report from Nottingham University it puts the processors on the spot. The processors have a very good method of getting their supplies. They contract for 50 per cent. which gives them the core. Then they realise on fluctuations in the market, which is downwards mostly, so that they fill up the rest of the requirement and do not have to contract for the lot. That is the first thing they do. It may be good commercial practice but it is not particularly good practice for the industry in Britain.
Then the report continues by giving some more interesting features. One of them is that in the great processing industry 10 of the members have 95 per cent. of the business in Great Britain. The largest single business has 60 per cent. That may or may not be a good thing, but it is a significant factor when it comes to any surplus potatoes in this Country and the price which farmers may get for them.
I am delighted that the report shows exactly what kind of return is being obtained on the money. It is far greater than that achieved by any other section of the food industry. In 1991 McCain Foods was knocking off 26.5 per cent. on the return, Walkers Crisps 54.6 per cent. and Bensons Crisps 40.5 per cent. Good luck to them. That is absolutely ideal because they are making money. No business or industry can prosper without making cash.
Then we come to the great restrictions on a competent industry; namely, that the potatoes required cannot be grown in this country. That is simply not true. A number of things can be done. The first is that an extra quota can be available and applied for by the processors if they want to contract it out to farmers. Surely that is the efficient way to produce good crisps; namely, to contract out to farmers all their needs and insist on the quality that they require. The farmers are perfectly willing to do it. The record growers grow to good records. The Burbank potato was grown for the people who wanted it for their particular job. Surely to make one's suppliers happy and give them a price that gives them a return—not necessarily of 50 per cent. on their capital but a decent return—is the way to build up an industry that will have the confidence of the consumers who will buy its products.
One of the other things that the report shows clearly is that when it comes to the end price to the consumer the price of the potato hardly matters. Although we all knew that, it is nevertheless an extraordinary revelation which the report quantifies.
1606
Those facts show that what the Minister should be doing is looking at the energy, application and enterprise of the processors. They are the people who must contract and get the farmers to grow what they want, but instead of doing that here they prefer to invest in Holland. I do not know whether they think that they can get a bob or two more there, but I know that, if they want to get a good hold on the potato market in this country, the way to do it is to make a proper bargain with the suppliers on both price and quality. If that is its argument, the processing industry has completely failed this country, and it would be well to look at the Potato Marketing Board's suggestions in this area.
There is no question but that the problem of the primary producer still deserves our attention. It has not been solved. He is always at the mercy of market forces, especially when it comes to potatoes. Potatoes can grow well one year but badly the next. I must admit that I remember with great joy that in 1974, 1975 and 1976 potatoes went to a ridiculous price. Although that knocked consumption back in this country, it was not an inelastic effect. Those years were followed by some of the worst years for potatoes in the history of the industry. Obviously, this year is appalling and a great many people will lose a great deal of money. However, the producers are willing to have another go and, under the umbrella of the potato marketing scheme, fewer will go under than would have been the case with another scheme. That will guarantee supply to the consumer.
There is no question about it—one cannot stabilise the price of a volatile crop such as potatoes but one can help it. One can give the producers confidence, and that is what the potato marketing scheme has done. I implore the Government not to spoil the whole thing. I implore them not to rush for a free market position but to take a look at who is really to blame for the lack of production for consumption of the newer varieties of potatoes in this country. I do not think that it is the grower; I think that it is the industry and perhaps the Government. Anyhow, I like the way the report is set out; I like the colour of the label; but I reject its contents.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, for introducing it. I thank him and his committee also for choosing to examine this subject which, as we know, is timely and of great interest. The Agriculture Bill is now at Report stage in another place. From reading the report of the Committee stage there, it is clear that the Government are determined to revoke the potato marketing scheme and to wind up the Potato Marketing Board whether there is a European Community requirement to do so or not. That determination will certainly be strengthened and supported by the conclusions of the Select Committee.
I have to say immediately that in my opinion the committee reached the wrong conclusions. It received some wrong evidence from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It received a wholly

1607
predictable, parti pris stance from the Potato Processors' Association. In my view, it conducted a less than thorough economic analysis of the actual market situation.
I should like to deal at the outset with two extremely important matters which are germane to this debate. The first relates to MAFF's evidence to the committee. I do not apologise for repeating remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. As your Lordships will know, I served on Sub-committee D for over five years and I regret now that my Front-Bench commitment as the Opposition spokesman on agriculture and rural affairs means that I can no longer serve on it. Never in my time on that committee can I remember a government department producing evidence so riddled with error as that given by MAFF to your Lordships' committee. First, MAFF got the statistics hopelessly wrong. How on earth can a government department produce statistics for a parliamentary committee showing that UK exports of potatoes have declined when in fact they have increased? The ministry's figures for the five crop years 1988 to 1992 were wrong by 21 per cent. That led directly to the committee reaching the wholly erroneous conclusion (in paragraph 49 on page 12) that the British potato industry is less competitive than that of France, Holland or West Germany.
Secondly, MAFF mixed up calendar years and crop years—a misunderstanding which is so blatant in farming terms that it beggars belief. Thirdly, it got its figures wrong on production in Holland. Fourthly, it could not tell the difference between one kilogram and 100 kilograms, producing prices in Annex B on page 14 which completely baffled me and others when we tried to work out what on earth the figures meant. I spent many hours on that last week and feel extremely sore about it. Fifthly, MAFF used a common measure of Eurostat prices, which were multiplied by ecus, and thereby produced a price series which bears no relationship to reality and is a mere statistical figment. It is statistically meaningless. Sixthly, it misunderstood the market intervention system which is operated by the PMB. Seventhly, it incorrectly described the method by which the joint consultative committee calculates the target area.
The kindest thing that one can say about the evidence given by MAFF to the committee is that it has all the hallmarks of the clock which struck 13—one not only doubts but completely disbelieves that which has gone before and that which comes afterwards. When the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, responds to the debate, could he tell us whether it is intended to produce an erratum sheet or something that will indicate to those who read the report (because it is now in the public domain) the serious errors in MAFF's evidence?
The second important point concerns the report prepared by Nottingham University, An (Un)Common Potato Regime for Europe, which has been quoted. In my view, it is a great pity that the report was not available to the committee. If it had been, I suspect that the committee might well have reached a rather different conclusion. I was extremely disappointed to see that Mr. John Gummer attempted
1608
to rubbish the report in another place by pointing out that it was commissioned by the Potato Marketing Board—the same point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour —thereby tending to call into question the academic integrity of its authors. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will not repeat Mr. Gummer's statement, particularly as my noble friend Lord Peston was one of the authors of the report and anyone who calls into question his academic integrity does so at their peril.
I should point out that over half the research and development that was commissioned by MAFF in 1991–92–a total of £123 million—was commissioned from external organisations. Are we to understand that all the external reports prepared for MAFF are no longer to be regarded as independent simply because MAFF pays for them? Any such suggestion would raise questions from the National Audit Office. Equally, that would cast doubt on the reputations of the researchers and the academics involved. I understand that the academics involved in this report were never approached by PMB staff at any stage before publication. The only PMB comments that were made on the initial draft related to factual inaccuracies in the text. I understand also that the Potato Processors' Association never responded to calls that were made to it and thus lost its chance of direct involvement in the study.
As we know, the committee decided to report on potatoes because the European Commission is proposing to introduce a potato regime and the Government are taking powers in the Agriculture Bill to wind up the potato marketing scheme. Taking the European Commission first, I do not think that I have seen a more blatant example of European Commission ideology in practice than that which was stated by Mr. Roberts, the deputy director general, in his evidence on page 54—this has already been alluded to—when he said:
"One of the reasons why we want to have a potato regime is simply that it is one of only two major products that are not covered by the common agricultural policy, the other one being alcohol, and in that sense it has been an untidiness for many years".
It is not a question of whether the potato market is failing the producer or the consumer; not whether there is some great distortion in the market requiring Community intervention; not whether the European taxpayer and consumer is being held to ransom as in the rest of the CAP. No, it is untidy, and so we must do something, but we are not entirely sure what and so we will do very little.
If the agricultural directorate spent less time tidying up that which offends very few people and more time attempting to deal with the £6 billion of fraud within the EC, which is mostly in the CAP, its time would be must better spent. Mr. Spitz, also from the Commission (page 57) said:
"I should stress the fact that market forces prevail at least on the continent. Even if some governments such as the French or the Italian occasionally take some measures, we should not over-estimate their effect".
Denmark, Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Luxembourg and Holland all have schemes of one type or another for helping the potato producers. I do not believe that that point was brought out fully by the

1609
committee. It is crucial. If there is a lightweight regime will those national aids all be swept away? The Government and the committee tell us that the PMS and the PMB will have to go, but does anyone believe for a moment that all the other member states will fall meekly into line and stop helping their potato producers? The committee apparently does not mind, because in paragraph 51 it recommended:
"If, for any reason, there is a failure to agree on the Commission's proposal, Britain should not continue to impose unilateral market controls".
If there is no regime, all those other countries will presumably be able to keep their national aids, but ours have to go: we have to wind up anyway.
The Government's enthusiasm to wind up the PMS, which is backed up now by the report, has a simple objective: to ensure that potato processors can buy their UK potatoes more cheaply. It was clearly stated by Mr. David Curry, in Committee in another place when, after referring to the consumption of fresh potatoes, which was about 34 ounces, and the consumption of crisps and frozen chips, which was about 4 ounces, he said:
"Processed potatoes, in whatever shape or form, probably account for more than a third of the market. The heart of the argument is whether, when we consider the overall interest, the scheme still accommodates those changes".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee F, 4/5/93; col. 187.]
Although it was in the evidence, nowhere does the committee report draw attention to the fact that the frozen chip sector is dominated by one multinational with 60 per cent. of the domestic processing capacity and five firms which control nearly 90 per cent. of the capacity. I was not in the least surprised to see that the PPA in its written evidence said (page 65) on its fourth point:
"It therefore strongly opposes:—any form of production quota system—any form of price support or intervention. It believes free market forces are likely to produce the desired effects most speedily".
With one processor controlling 60 per cent. of the market and five firms controlling 90 per cent., I bet it believed that free market forces were likely to produce the likely effects most speedily. Curiously, the committee did not attempt to question Mr. Richard Harris of the PPA about the degree of concentration in the potato processing industry and, not surprisingly, he did not attempt to volunteer the information.
The committee says in paragraph 47 that it accepts the evidence of MAFF and the PPA that the PMS has not brought about the stability that most growers perceive. I have already pointed out that the MAFF evidence on prices is statistically worthless and that the PPA has a particular point to make. It is a great pity that the committee did not have the benefit of the rigorous statistical analysis contained in the Nottingham report which shows that the range of British potato prices is much narrower than it is for continental potato prices and British potato prices are not more expensive than those in Europe. Also, although GB potato yields are more variable than those in other European countries, price variability is in fact lower. So there is more stability in the market, and that can only be the result of the operation of the PMS. That is an important point. Indeed, it is crucial
1610
to the committee's conclusions. It seems to me that the committee was over-persuaded by the incorrect evidence of MAFF and the predictable evidence of the PPA and that of Mr. Robin Pooley of Anglian Produce and did not seek a full econometric analysis of the available statistics.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does not the noble Lord think that the Anglian Produce charts which are produced on pages 82 and 83 of the report demonstrate big fluctuations?
Lord Carter: My Lords, they demonstrate fluctuations, but if one looks at the mean, they also show how stable the market is if one takes the weighted average. If one takes any period, with all the differences in the quality of potatoes, there will be a wider range of potato prices. The market is notoriously cyclical. One should look at the weighted average. If one refers to Mr. Pooley's evidence, I believe that he said that if one wants to look for evidence of stability in the market, then one should look at the weighted average.
As I say, Mr. Pooley's evidence obviously impressed the committee greatly. I am not in the least surprised by that because I know Mr. Pooley. However, what struck me when I read his evidence was his description of a vibrant and thrusting industry which is investing heavily, is co-operating with its European counterparts and is generally performing well. All that has been done while the PMS has been in existence. I suspect that that has helped Mr. Pooley and others considerably to plan their marketing because they knew that the market was underpinned by the PMS.
The other important point upon which the committee touched in its questioning of Mr. Harris of the PPA, was the role of the joint consultative committee. What seems extraordinary is that, despite the constant protestations of the processors that they cannot obtain the quantity or quality of the potatoes that they need at a competitive price; they never seem to have used the JCC to correct that position. That was a point brought out by Mr. Tipping in Committee in another place. He put it well. He asked:
"Am I right to remind the Committee that, at the joint consultative council, there has never been disagreement about the amounts and types of potatoes grown? Is not it the case that there has been no substantive disagreement during the past three years and that the Potato Processors Association is well represented on the joint consultative committee? I believe that it holds three of the 18 places on that committee. It is strange when consensus is not achieved".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee F, 4/5/93; col. 188.]
When the point was put to Mr. David Curry he had no answer, but the Nottingham report comes somewhere near the answer when it points out that the dominant position of some processors has encouraged them to believe that sophisticated contracts are unnecessary when their market power can be brought to bear.
At the moment the PMS and PMB exercise a degree of countervailing power and the JCC fulfils an important role in producing market stability. Without them, the producer of processing potatoes would be in a much weaker position. The Nottingham report

1611
suggests that there is already a considerable exercise of market power in the processing sector. That cannot be ignored, as the committee appears to have done.
We have heard a great deal about the success of the Dutch in that respect. It seems to me that as they over-invested considerably in processing capacity in recent years there has been a great deal of cheap processing Dutch capacity as a result and they have been able to export at marginal cost. That is now changing. It is noteworthy that the processors are now starting to invest in this country.
An independent survey of registered GB growers conducted by Public Attitude Surveys Limited in March of this year shows that 71 per cent. of growers support the GB scheme representing 76 per cent. of the planted area. The majority of British potato growers both by number and acreage want to use their own money (at no cost to the taxpayer) to produce stability in a notoriously cyclical market where potato processors are an oligopoly but where there is a mechanism (the JCC) which could produce the quality and quantity they want if they cared to use it. But of course they will not use it so long as they have a complaisant government who have swallowed their arguments hook, line and sinker and are prepared to hand over British potato producers, completely unprotected, to a market where five firms control some 90 per cent. of capacity; where the European Commission can produce no better argument for a potato regime than that Europe looks untidy without it; where ECOSOC and the European Parliament have found the proposed EC regime wanting and have proposed amendments to it; and where we have a situation which lives and breathes subsidiarity. I do not apologise for repeating the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. He told us that only three years ago in 1989 the Government decided to retain the basic elements of the existing scheme in view of the need to maintain stability in the potato industry at a time of major adjustment in the arable sector generally. What has changed in three years?
Another conclusion is that of the report of the University of Nottingham. It states:
"Most importantly, the analysis of the Potato Marketing Scheme concludes that removal of the Scheme would reduce prices and production in Britain. As many as 40% of growers might lead the industry in the medium term in response to squeezed margins on variable and fixed costs. As much as 500,000 tonnes of output could be lost and 7,000 producers might leave the sector. Certainly, removing area control would allow other growers to expand but the analysis suggests that the likely increase in plantings would be relatively small. The effect of this on agricultural and rural employment and on import demand for potatoes and processed potato products would run directly counter to the stated objectives of the UK Government. The adjustment to a 'free market' in potatoes would not be painless".
I have the greatest respect and regard for the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and for his committee. However, in this case I believe that the Select Committee and the Government have got it wrong.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, for a subterranean vegetable the potato has recently adopted a fairly high profile. It seems like only the other day that we were engaged in a
1612
stimulating debate on potatoes in the context of the Agriculture Bill. Now here they are again cropping up, if I may say so, under the aegis of the European Communities Committee report on the proposed common organisation of the market in potatoes.
Before dealing with the detail of the report I wish to congratulate my noble friend Lord Selborne and the committee on what I consider to be a most thorough and excellent piece of work. They took evidence from the widest spectrum of interests in the industry; for instance, from those who favour the retention of our potato marketing scheme whether or not there is a Community regime to those who wish to see its central provisions done away with. The evidence given is fully and clearly recorded. It is to the credit of the committee that, faced with a plethora of information, it has emerged with a set of recommendations in the clearest of terms. I do not say that merely because I happen to agree with the thrust of the recommendations. Surely it is in everyone's interests, whether or not they agree with the report, to have the issues so thoroughly analysed and such clear conclusions reached.
During the Agriculture Bill we discussed at length the implications of the Commission's proposals for our potato marketing scheme. It was clear then, as the committee's report accepts, that our scheme would be incompatible with the regime as drafted. At that time I presented various arguments to demonstrate why, if the regime were introduced, the loss of our scheme would not be the tragedy that many predicted. Having taken evidence from a wide range of experts in the field, your Lordships' committee has come to the same conclusion. Indeed, it has gone further in saying that, whether or not there is an EC regime for potatoes Britain will be better able to compete in Europe without the constraints of the potato marketing scheme.
Before I deal with the detail of the report, which the Government welcome, perhaps I may bring your Lordships up to date with events since we previously debated the subject. The House will recall that in December Ministers asked for work to be done on incorporating marketing standards into the proposals and agreed to take decisions once the opinion of the European Parliament had been received. Work has been proceeding and proposals incorporating marketing standards are now before the Council. The European Parliament has also delivered its opinion, which is basically favourable, although it contains several suggested amendments. The most notable allows a member state to retain its national arrangements, including quotas and intervention, should it so request. To attempt to allow such special pleading must surely be nonsense in the context of a single market.
In another place the Government have made it clear that we shall not be pressing for the retention of the quota and intervention elements of the potato marketing scheme in the context of a Community regime. That position is supported by the report of your Lordships' committee. We are prepared to accept a regime which sweeps away the various support measures that exist throughout Europe and allows our

1613
producers, whom we regard as the best, to compete on equal terms with their counterparts on the Continent. The regime is likely to come before the May Council for a decision. Of course, I cannot prejudge the outcome. Some member states still believe that a regime is not needed while others wish to see a heavier regime in the classic mould, with market support and intervention buying. Clearly, we wish to avoid such a heavy regime. In that we have the support of the Commission and the majority of other member states.
We agree with the committee that the primary objective of the regime should be the prevention of national schemes which distort the Community market. That answers one of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. It is important to realise in this connection that various support measures, some more informal than others, operate elsewhere in the Community. However, nowhere else are there quota restrictions such as operate in Great Britain. All these arrangements would fall with the introduction of the common organisation of the market, thus achieving our long stated objective of—I shall not say a level playing field—a level seed bed for our producers.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. It is an extremely important point and the House will be grateful that he has brought it up to date. Is the Minister saying that if the Council of Ministers decides to adopt a regime such as that proposed by the European Parliament in which intervention is allowed we shall have to do away with ours and allow other countries to keep theirs if they wish?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I think it highly unlikely that the Council will agree to the proposals of the European Parliament in that respect. As I said, in the context of a single market it makes no sense to have national schemes; it is simply a contradiction in terms.
Another theme which ran through our debates on the Agriculture Bill was the dire effects which several noble Lords believed would follow the ending of our scheme, in particular the destabilisation of the market. That issue was raised by several noble Lords today. I tried to reassure your Lordships—I am not sure to what effect—that the prophets of doom were not necessarily right. Therefore, I am glad to see that the committee, having examined the matter in considerable detail and taken evidence from all sides of the industry, has reached the conclusion that the prophets of doom are wrong. The committee certainly appreciates the need for stability in the market but it is of the view that the potato marketing scheme has not achieved any greater degree of stability than occurs in other member states. Rather, it has meant that prices in Great Britain have fluctuated around a higher level than in other comparable member states. The Government agree with that analysis. most important indicator of the effects of the scheme in our view is the fact that the UK industry's share of the high added-value growth market in processed products far from being stable is in steady decline.
Your Lordships' committee is of the opinion that the abolition of the potato marketing scheme would
1614
lead to the UK industry becoming more competitive and reversing the trends of growing imports and declining exports. The Government share the committee's concern for the long-term future of the industry. The Government hope that more liberal arrangements will enable our growers, with all their advantages of expertise and technological advancement, to produce what the increasingly sophisticated market wants. We regard the freeing up of the market as a much-needed opportunity for us to repatriate the hectarage of potatoes which has been lost to the processing industry on the Continent, particularly in Holland.
The committee also concludes that a successor body to the Potato Marketing Board will be needed to carry out functions such as research and development, market promotion and the collection and supply of statistics. As your Lordships will be aware from our previous debates, the Government are also keen that those activities should continue. The Agriculture Bill now in another place provides specifically for the establishment of a successor body to carry out those activities if that is what growers want.
Those are the principal conclusions of the committee. Perhaps I should comment also on some of the other points which it made. As regards quality standards, the committee believes that those would be difficult to agree on and impossible to enforce. It suggests that a free market will dictate its own standards. The Government are not quite as pessimistic as the committee since they believe that, so long as such standards are restricted to the minimum necessary to ensure that growers' and consumers' interests are protected and applied only to fresh potatoes for direct consumption, they could be applied throughout the Community with advantage. I am happy to tell your Lordships that the majority of member states agree with that approach and it seems likely that provisions along those lines will be included in the eventual regulation.
The committee would prefer the Commission to evolve a common language of potato quality, although it recognises that that has been attempted unsuccessfully in the past. While the Government agree with the principle behind that idea, we consider that to be more a commercial matter between the producer and the customer, although under a common regime it is highly likely that such a language will evolve in any case.
I note that the committee believes that the proposals for grant-aid for the setting up of new producer groups may bring more coherence to planting and marketing strategies in some parts of the Community. The Government's view, which we expressed to the committee, is that those proposals will not directly affect the UK. The kind of group envisaged is not typical here and would not fit well with our marketing structure.
The committee supports the proposed system of import licensing which is intended to afford some measure of protection from disruption by third country imports. In general the Government do not welcome the principle of import licensing and agree with the committee that the practical problems of

1615
transporting fresh potatoes, together with the restrictions of the common customs tariff, already afford some considerable protection. It is likely that disruption would occur only as regards premium products such as early potatoes. There are well-established patterns of trade in such potatoes under tariff concessions and the Government hope that any measures would not be used to influence that traditional trade. We shall also seek further clarification on the financial implications of setting up a licensing system.
I now turn to some of the points raised in the debate. Your Lordships will forgive me if I do not cover all the points raised. I shall endeavour to write to noble Lords on the substantive points which I fail to cover now. I turn first to the noble Lord, Lord Carter. He became rather exercised about the MAFF evidence to the committee and thereupon proceeded to cast aspersions on its conclusions based on that evidence. He said that one part of the MAFF evidence was statistically meaningless. I disagree with him about that particular example.
Lord Carter: My Lords, why?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am coming to that. The noble Lord drew to our attention table I on page 14 which contains a list of comparative prices which refers to ecu per kilogram. It should have referred to ecu per 100 kilograms. That mistake—and it is a mistake—makes no difference to the central tenet of the argument.
Lord Carter: My Lords, that is not what I was saying was statistically meaningless. The use of Eurostat prices takes no account of the various differences in grades and qualities and the way in which the potatoes are measured. Moreover, the value of ecus changes all the time for reasons completely unconnected with potatoes. That makes the statistics meaningless. I was not referring to the mistake to which the noble Earl referred, although I agree that it caused confusion. What is statistically meaningless is the use of the Eurostat prices and their multiplication by ecus.
Earl Howe: My Lords, we must agree to differ on that because I believe that that table presents a very revealing picture of the differences in prices between member states.
My noble friend Lord Stanley made various allegations against the evidence given to the committee by MAFF and, indeed, against the committee report itself. I find it difficult to respond in a way in which he would like me to because I agree with hardly a word of what he said. He spoke of serious errors in the export figures. There is only one figure involved which is an error in so far as it is a provisional figure which has now been updated. More fresh potatoes were exported last year, but that does not alter the inexorable rise in processed potato imports.
My noble friend went on to comment on the factual accuracy of MAFF officials' evidence. I agree that
1616
there are some mistakes in it, partly because of printers' errors which are difficult to legislate for and partly for other reasons.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, what printers' errors?
Earl Howe: My Lords, for example, the printers' error that I mentioned in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, when I mentioned the question of ecus, I took exactly the same view as the noble Lord, Lord Carter. It was an incidental error. I merely said that it cast a reflection on the accuracy and carefulness of the MAFF evidence. I fully understand that mistake and am not worried about it.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend does himself and his case a disservice by concentrating on minutiae. The committee took a more statesmanlike view and clearly considered that the evidence given by MAFF carried some weight.
I agree with my noble friend that there are now special, if limited, arrangements for exports, but the House may like to note that those arrangements were introduced last year when the joint consultative committee decided to allow just short of 300 hectares, out of a total of 156,000 hectares, for export. It is not difficult to imagine what our Dutch competitors thought of that.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, has the noble Earl seen a figure reaching a total of nearly 4,700 hectares allowed for various purposes, including manufacture?
Earl Howe: No, my Lords, I have not seen that figure but I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing it to my attention.
My noble friend Lord Stanley and the noble Earl, Lord Perth, referred to subsidies given by other member states and asked whether the UK would undertake to match them. The whole point is that there should be no such aids or subsidies once there is an EC regime of the kind which is currently envisaged. It is by means of such a regime that fair competition is ensured. The way to achieve a level playing field is to stop other countries supporting their producers. If there is no EC regime, there cannot be a level playing field.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, this is a vital point. Is the noble Earl saying that the Government would not accept any European regime if there was not total satisfaction that there should be no intervention by any nations in whatever form that may take?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government have said repeatedly that they are committed to seeing a level playing field for potato producers within Europe. That means achieving fair competition for our own producers. We are backing our own producers. We shall not see them disadvantaged in whatever regime is agreed to. We shall fight for our own producers in Brussels.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend again, but I have a helpful point to make. If what he just said is in fact the case, obviously the Government do not support paragraph 51, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter. That is a very vital point.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I shall need to look at paragraph 51 again to remind myself of its contents. I think that I had better write to the noble Lord on that point.
Conversely, if we have a single market, as we now do, it is absolutely crazy to run a protectionist regime when one has no protection oneself. As I said, we must allow our industry to compete on level terms. If I may say so, what my noble friend Lord Stanley failed to do was to address himself to the two central conclusions of the committee: first, that the potato marketing scheme is disadvantageous to Great Britain as opposed to potato producers; and, secondly, that an EC lightweight regime without the potato marketing scheme in Great Britain would be in our best interests. In particular, my noble friend did not explain why he felt that it would be a good thing if all the producers in other member states were allowed to produce as many potatoes as they liked, while only producers in Great Britain were prevented from so doing. My noble friend Lord Marlesford made that point very tellingly.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, advocated a gradual period of transition if we have to make a change. The EC proposal provides for transitional measures. We have written to the chairman of the PMB and others asking for their views on what sort of transition would be appropriate. We shall take account of views once they are received.
My noble friend Lord Lyell spoke about the evidence given by MAFF that potato prices had fluctuated around a higher mean than in other member states. There is no doubt that prices, as a whole, fluctuate around a higher mean. However, where potatoes for specific purposes are in short supply, they will command a premium. Dutch high-quality potatoes for processing attract high prices. This year, for example, UK processors are hoping to buy in Holland even when thousands of tonnes of UK potatoes are being bought into intervention.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, asked why anyone should doubt that prices fluctuating around a higher mean benefited producers. I do not doubt that fact in a narrow sense. No doubt producers are delighted to have a higher price for their crop. But is that advantageous for the country? I do not think that that question has been answered. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned the PMB poll, in which 71 per cent. of those polled favoured the continuation of the scheme. The amazing thing about that poll is that 29 per cent. of producers who, by his argument, have an interest in the status quo do not favour a continuation of the scheme.
My noble friend Lord Monk Bretton said that fluctuations in production lead to a reduction in investment. We already have fluctuations in production. There is no reason why gearing production more
1618
closely to market demand should lead to greater fluctuations or less investment. Various speakers mentioned the report prepared by Nottingham University. When I saw the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on the study, I must confess that my ears pricked up. I know him to be someone who thinks matters through in a sane and sensible manner. However, even Homer nods. I am afraid that what we have here is a report which pulls together several different pieces of work, without realising or acknowledging their inconsistency with one another. The analysis of the British potato marketing system and the economics of the processing industry in the paper is, I believe, flawed. In particular, its conclusion that a lower UK price would lead to increased imports confounds normal economic wisdom.
Conventional economic analysis indicates that the removal of the quota system would increase domestic production and the lower price brought about by the increased domestic production would reduce imports, so that more of GB demand would be met by domestic production. The argument that removing a quota which restricts production in Great Britain would lead to a worsening trade gap, is not well founded. There is already free access to the UK market and prices are determined by supply and demand. A fall in price would be brought about by an increase in UK supply, but that in turn would lead to foreign exporters sending less rather than more to the UK market. I cannot, therefore, accept that removing constraints from UK industry would lead to a worsening of the trade gap.
As I said, the Government welcome the committee's report, which recognises—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the noble Lord proceeds to his peroration, I wonder whether he would be good enough to comment on the central point of my argument—namely, that the gap created by the increase in consumption of processed potatoes in this country was not the fault of the growers. It could not have been foreseen by them; it should have been foreseen by the industry.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the gap in processed consumption is as much down to the growers as to anyone else. They are simply not growing what the market demands and they are not growing the quality demanded by the market. That is why the processors are buying in Holland. It is not that there is no quantity in Great Britain; indeed, we all know that there is. The quality and standard of potatoes is not good enough. Once producers are not cushioned by a scheme of the kind that we have at present, I suggest that it will concentrate their minds wonderfully to produce what the market actually needs and wants. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Earl in due course and explain the economics of my paper. However, he cannot simultaneously argue that British producers are not producing what the market wants and then say that, by subjecting them to a more

1619
ruthless and competitive regime, they will actually do even better. That is about as absurd an argument as I have ever heard.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not know about a more ruthless and competitive regime—
Lord Peston: I am sorry my Lords; I should not have joined in at this point. I shall write to the noble Earl on the matter.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am advocating that the shackles that the industry now has to contend with should be removed, thus enabling it to compete and to grow as many potatoes as it feels that the market will take.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the noble Earl has not answered my point. Why do they not offer contracts for the whole of the production that they need from this country? They are already getting the quality for half, so why do they not offer it for the lot?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I agree that that question should be directed at the processors. Perhaps that is a productive avenue to follow. However, I note that the report prepared by Nottingham University contained no contribution whatever from the processors.
Lord Carter: My Lords, they were invited.
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I said, the Government welcome the committee's report, which recognises the significance of the challenges and opportunities which an EC regime will offer both to our growers and to the rest of the industry which they supply. I hope that the prophets of doom whom I mentioned earlier will be convinced by it. The committee has shown a clear concern for increased competitiveness and market awareness, which the Government applaud. I believe that the direction being determined by the Council of Ministers, together with the provision in the Agriculture Bill, will deliver the opportunity for our growers to compete more effectively than ever before. As I said before, I am absolutely sure that those growers, whose expertise is second to none in the world, will make the most of that opportunity when it arrives.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, there is one extremely important point that I should like to make. I must apologise for not speaking earlier when the noble Earl reached the point in his speech. It is the matter that was raised by him and by other speakers and which is also mentioned in the report. If we keep a quota and other countries do not have a quota scheme—and the noble Earl said that there is no other country in Europe with such a scheme—then the imports will flood in. That is the argument. Why then have they halved the tonnage during the past five years from 230,000 tonnes to 116,000 tonnes while we have had the quota scheme and no other country in the Community has?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the imports have flooded in in terms of processed product as some speakers have
1620
said. That is the growth area of the market. It is the area where there is high added value and where our own processors are potentially losing out.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it is clear that, if we had a quota scheme and no one else did, the imports would flood in. During the past five years of the scheme's operation, imports of main crop potatoes have halved.
Earl Howe: My Lords, we could probably carry on arguing about this point all night. However, I shall take note of the noble Lord's comments and of his entire speech. I shall write to him on those points that I have failed to cover properly.
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, this has been a highly controversial debate and we were never in any doubt that it would be anything other than that. As many noble Lords have been at pains to point out, our report is highly controversial. I believe I am the only person who has detected one or two common themes emanating from all corners of the House. I believe we have agreed that it is not satisfactory to be in a position where one member state can distort the market to the disadvantage of another member state. I therefore entirely agree with the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Perth. We must ensure that we reach a situation where, if we cannot achieve a level playing field—that is clearly always impossible—we can at least stop the present abuse. That abuse was mentioned in the excellent report of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and Nottingham University. The report referred to export rebates and other measures that are being provided in some member states who are exporting within the Community. That position is totally unsatisfactory.
The Select Committee addressed the issue of whether we need a common regulation for potatoes. We decided that we did need such a regulation. Noble Lords clearly hold widely divergent views on whether the present potato marketing scheme is good or bad. I believe something will have to give. As has been suggested in the European Parliament, one can write in a provision to the new order to suggest that some present scheme should be allowed to continue, or one can decide to move into a freer market for better or for worse.
It is not surprising that views have been so widely divergent in your Lordships' House this evening when one realises that producers themselves appear to hold widely divergent views. I believe we were told that about 70 per cent. of producers were in favour of the board and about 30 per cent. were against it. I find that statistic rather surprising. We have also heard about the processors. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referred to them in terms of the deep blue sea. I fear consumers did not receive quite as good a hearing as I would have liked. The written evidence we received suggested consumers did not favour the retention of the potato marketing scheme. However, we received much conflicting evidence. I drew up a chart as we were taking evidence to see which side was winning. However, the sides were fairly even.

1621
Noble Lords have a great deal of expertise in the matter of potatoes and they have displayed it fully today. At the end of the day neither I nor anyone else can persuade noble Lords to change their views on the potato marketing scheme. Noble Lords will have to decide that for themselves. However, Britain has many natural advantages as regards growing potatoes. We have economies of scale. My noble friend Lord Stanley reminded us quite correctly that we have a distinct market sheltered by the Channel and that we consume a great quantity of potatoes. We prefer to have a wide range of potatoes. All those factors are a strong base from which to produce potatoes. If, bearing all those factors in mind, we lose market share then something is wrong. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I prefer to look at a longer timescale than five years. I become impatient with fiddling around with the minutiae of figures. Ultimately, we should be considering the import tendencies of processed potatoes. Some noble Lords will feel that the Potato Marketing Board has alleviated what is clearly an unsatisfactory situation. However, some Members of the Committee felt it did not have an impressive record and that perhaps we should try something else.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Distance Selling: ECC Report
8.34 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Distance Selling [16th Report, H.L. Paper 51].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I think perhaps there might be more unanimity in the debate on the report we are now about to consider. Sub-committee C of the European Communities Committee, under my chairmanship, carried out a short inquiry at the end of 1992 into the proposal for a Council directive on the protection of consumers in respect of contracts negotiated at a distance.
The Commission's draft directive proposes a general framework for such protection and an accompanying recommendation provides for this to be supplemented by self-regulatory measures. The Select Committee's 16th report on distance selling was published in February of this year and the Government's response to this report, for which I must thank the Minister, was received last month.
Distance selling is a relatively new term. It is being used to cover all situations where a contract is concluded without the simultaneous physical presence of buyer and seller. Mail order selling is the most familiar example of distance selling but new developments prompted the Commission's proposal for a directive in this area. These new developments are, first, the completion of the internal market and, secondly, the development and increasing availability to consumers of simple electronic means of communication.
Distance selling, or distance purchasing, typically takes place within the consumer's own home. I doubt
1622
whether many noble Lords do much of their shopping by means of telephone, television, fax and home computer. However, these new forms of distance selling are already a reality for a few and there is potential here for rapid growth. Already, according to the Commission's explanatory memorandum, it is estimated that in Germany, France and Great Britain between four and five per cent. of all non-food trade takes place through the traditional mail order system.
The fourth Community programme on consumer protection—the three-year action plan for 1990 to 1992—included the proposal for a directive on distance selling. That plan said that cross-frontier solicitation using television and new communications technology would stimulate demand for cross-frontier purchasing and that the full benefit of the internal market would be achieved only if its citizens were prepared to purchase goods and services available anywhere in the Community.
In carrying out our inquiry the committee kept clearly in mind the traditional benefits of freedom to contract. We were aware that over-regulation can, by stifling enterprise, damage the interests of the consumer as well as those of the supplier. But in a Community-wide market where information, organisation and economic muscle are so unevenly distributed between the supplier and the consumer, the committee believes that some balancing mechanisms are required. The committee also kept in mind the proper application of the principle of subsidiarity in relation to consumer protection. We were therefore looking for the minimum Community action consistent with giving the consumer essential protection and promoting the confidence of consumers to shop across borders.
Evidence was received from 20 organisations which are listed in Appendix 2 at page 17. In this evidence there was wide support for the principles of consumer protection underlying the proposed directive. There can be little doubt that consumers, when they are solicited to make a purchase, need to be given information about the service or the product that is adequate in quality, quantity and timeliness. Equally, there can be little argument that in order to safeguard the consumer from undue pressure from the buyer, and from impulse buying, there needs to be a cooling off period. Again, I think there can be little argument that where the consumer suffers from non-performance of a contract, redress needs to be readily available. Further, the increasing use of payment by credit card, where the number of the credit card is given but the card itself is not presented, is easily open to abuse and requires particular consideration.
In addition, important questions of privacy arise from some distance selling techniques. Automatic telephone calling and what is called cold faxing—unsolicited material coming in on one's own fax and one's own paper—are particularly intrusive and, we believe, objectionable. Inertia selling is another technique which needs to be carefully controlled and against which the consumer requires legal protection. In virtually all member states there is some legislation against this. Nevertheless, according to the Commission, inertia selling practices continue to exist.
On all those issues availability of effective redress for the consumer and adequate means of enforcement of the contract were matters which we were anxious to see provided and our views are expressed largely in paragraphs 46 to 54, to which I shall refer later. It is easy enough to set out desirable principles such as those I have mentioned. It is more difficult to apply those principles to particular situations and to make precise rules which strike the proper balance between necessary consumer protection and excessive regulation. The ideal would be a regulatory framework which is not over-prescriptive or a costly burden on traders but a simple, flexible system with a generally light regulatory touch combined with effective sanctions and a means of redress.
The committee was also anxious that there should be no levelling down of the standards of consumer protection already available in this country as a result of the adoption of the proposed directive. We believe that the directive should provide a minimum framework of protection and that each member state should have the right to set higher levels of protection if it so wishes.
Another desirable feature of the situation in this country at present is the extent to which the traditional forms of distance selling, such as mail order, are well controlled by self-regulatory bodies such as the Advertising Standards Authority and others. We were very anxious that that situation should continue and be built upon in the newer areas of distance selling.
In paragraph 46 of our report we make some recommendations about the extent of information to be provided to the consumer and say that there should be no duplication of provision which would be an unnecessary burden on the provider.
Concerning privacy, in paragraph 47 we are opposed to the consumer having to be the unwilling recipient of mail shots, telephone canvassing or cold faxing. As to the cooling-off period, in paragraph 49 we say that where practical all forms of distance selling should be subject to a cooling-off period of a minimum of seven days from the receipt by the customer of the goods or from the beginning of performance of an essential part of the service.
We believe that inertia selling is an unwarranted imposition on the consumer which should be prohibited. However, we recommend in paragraph 51 that the proposed directive should be amended so as to permit the common and convenient practice of supplying on approval at no extra cost to the consumer a close substitute in place of an ordered article.
We strongly support the intention of Article 12 to protect the consumer from misuse of the credit card. However, we believe that the drafting is so loose as to invite possible fraud by the customer. We suggest that tighter drafting is required to maintain a just balance between the card holder and the supplier.
As to the security of advance payments, we say in paragraph 53 that we see it as critical for the development of distance selling markets across the Community that the consumer should have confidence that any advance payment will not be lost if the
1624
ordered item or service is not received. We believe that schemes similar to the mail order protection scheme should be generally available and that it is right that the trades concerned rather than the Government should be expected to put suitable arrangements in place. We therefore welcome the fact that the Commission has addressed the issue in the non-mandatory recommendations rather than in the proposed mandatory directive. However, we believe that those voluntary arrangements are of such importance that we recommend that the Commission should review the situation in three years' time.
On the question of redress and enforcement we believe that it is often the case in this country now that an individual consumer lacks the information, resources and, perhaps, perseverance to pursue a complaint about distance selling to the point of obtaining adequate redress. We believe that there are considerable additional obstacles to be overcome where a cross-border transaction is involved. We also believe that there is an obligation on the individual trader and on trading associations as well as on statutorily backed enforcement agencies to respond to those needs.
However, we did not go so far as some of our witnesses would have liked in supporting the right of consumer organisations to initiate representative action for redress. The committee took the view that consistent standards of enforcement and the avoidance of needless litigation would be best served if only those bodies required to act in the public interest were able to bring actions on behalf of the consumer. We suggest that in this country the Office of Fair Trading seems well placed to carry out that function. We attach great importance to publicity being given to all available means to those operating the system of enforcement.
I am encouraged by the generally positive response of the Government to the report on distance selling. However, there is one matter on which I should like to press the Minister to think again; namely, whether financial services, including investment, banking and insurance services, should remain within the scope of the directive.
In the evidence we received from the Commission's representative it was stressed that the requirements of the directive were the essential minimum that should apply to all sectors of distance selling, including financial services. The point was made that many of the requirements of the directive were already adopted as good practice by the most reputable firms and were embodied in codes of practice by the best trade organisations. The Commission considered that the great potential for the increased cross-border selling of financial services would be realised only if consumers had confidence to buy outside their own country's jurisdiction. We suggest that that confidence would be lacking if financial services were excluded from the scope of the directive.
That general line of argument for the inclusion of financial services within the scope of the directive was supported by consumer groups as well as by the

1625
Director General of Fair Trading. He saw advantage in a simple horizontal measure which would apply across the board to all sectors of distance selling.
On the other hand, from the banking and financial organisations we heard the argument that the directive's provisions were inappropriate or unworkable or risked confusion with other legislation if financial services were to remain within the directive's scope. I have to say that the committee was not persuaded by those arguments which, we believe, take insufficient account of the intentions underlying the drafting of the directive.
Article 15 expressly provides that other Community legislation specific to particular situations, including financial services, will be unaffected by the directive. We believe that the drafting of Article 11(4) is intended to disapply the cooling off provisions where the peculiar circumstances of financial markets make them inappropriate. We accept that clarification and refinement of the text of those provisions and others which impact on financial services is required. However, the committee was firmly of the view that all forms of distance selling should remain within the scope of the directive.
I ask the Minister therefore, when she replies to the debate, whether she could not go rather further than she did in her formal response to the committee when she said that although no final decision on the matter had yet been reached by the Government she remained inclined to the view that financial services should be excluded.
Finally, I should like to thank all members of Sub-committee C for their help and support during the inquiry. On behalf of all the members, I wish to extend our thanks to our clerk, Mr. John Goddard, for the application and support he gave to the members of the committee during the inquiry. I also pay tribute to the co-operation we received from those who gave evidence to the committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Distance Selling [16th Report, H.L. Paper 51].—(Baroness Lockwood.)
8.52 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, the committee of which I was privileged to be a member was indeed lucky to have the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, as chairman. She guided the committee with her usual kindness and skill. I agree with the committee in its opinions and report on distance selling. It would seem that now is the time to have a body set up with the resources to ensure that justice is done both to the consumer and the trader.
In a world where technology is increasing so rapidly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood., said, there are at present many means of distance selling across borders such as telephone, television, fax and home computers, among other electronic methods. The new technology for distance selling is different from the mail order purchase. With the latter one can study a catalogue and decide whether or not to
1626
purchase a particular item. But if an order is made by electronic means, the purchaser may not be fully aware of what the purchase is like.
In its written evidence the Consumers' Association does not consider that the prior consent, which appeared in earlier drafts of the directive, is necessary for most current forms of distance selling. However, it believes that prior consent is appropriate for any forms of distance selling which cost the consumer money. One instance could be cold faxing to a recipient who has not asked for information but who has to bear the cost of the paper.
Paragraph 23 of Part 2 of the report suggests that the consumer should have the right not to receive certain types of solicitation such as automatic telephone calls or faxes. The Commission's explanatory memorandum suggested that that could be assured either by an opt-in or opt-out regime. Opting in would require prior consent from the consumer; opting out would allow the consumer to refuse certain types of solicitation. How would the consumer have the opportunity to refuse a cold fax if he were unaware of the cold fax being sent until he has received it? The Consumers' Association regarded an opting-in requirement as unnecessary except where the costs would fall on the consumer as in the practice of cold faxing. It therefore suggests that Article 4 should be amended to add after consumer's privacy, "and economic interests". Perhaps that would be one way of safeguarding consumers, not only from probably unwanted goods but also those which cost them unnecessary money.
Article 8 of the directive on inertia selling does not consider it necessary to prohibit companies from sending unsolicited goods or services to consumers. However, it does recommend that it should be made clear to consumers that they do not have to return or pay for unsolicited goods and that that right should be written into the material accompanying the product. That is fine for products considered under Article 8 of the directive. However, as I have already mentioned, faxing of unsolicited information where the recipient has to pay the costs of the paper is not covered under Article 8 as worded. Perhaps it would be covered under Article 4 if it were amended as suggested by the Consumers' Association.
I wish to speak on one other matter: payment by credit card. It seems to me that that form of payment can be open to abuse in all sorts of ways, and witnesses were certainly varied in their approach to the question. In my mind the key question is whether that form of payment is being abused, in what way and by whom. One would need very clear indications of wrong doing before considering how to counter it. That is the matter which both the Government and the Community should watch until or unless action becomes necessary. The committee believed that tighter drafting was needed in Article 12 to achieve the desired effect while maintaining a just balance between the card holder and the supplier. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say when she replies.
8.56 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for chairing our committee most ably and for introducing the debate today. On these occasions one always wonders what is left to be said after a comprehensive explanation such as we have just had. Perhaps the role of the other members of the committee—I am one—is to underline and emphasise certain points that the chairman has made and to say about which particular aspects one feels strongly oneself.
There is no doubt about the need for such a directive in the light of the fast-changing world of new technology and the clear evidence which already exists that there is abuse and mischief. I much enjoy the use of the word "mischief" which apparently seems the right word to use in this context. It is interesting to see for how long there has been pressure for the directive. In fact it was in 1972 that the Commission decided to institute a specific policy for consumer protection. There seems to have been strong pressure since 1987 to take legislative action. That was the year that TV shopping arrived in Europe. It was also in that year that the notion of distance selling appeared for the first time in member states' texts.
Most states have produced some laws to deal with the situation and to protect the consumer and the trader. There has certainly been a good deal of self regulation. That has been conspicuously successful in many areas in this country. But it is not enough when there is bound to be a huge increase in cross-border trading with the single market. There must be adequate protection for both the buyer and the seller of goods and services.
In their response to the report, the Government stated that they would have preferred to rely on the self regulatory regime but accept that with the coming of the single market, the industry may see an increase in trans-border sales which it may be appropriate to regulate at the Community level. I am sure that that is right. The Government agree, as we recommend, that there should be a review within five years of the adoption of the directive. That seems eminently sensible when the future is uncertain.
I believe that it is accepted that the Commission intends the directive to be a minimum measure and that member states will be allowed to introduce and make certain more stringent legislation if they so wish. The Government wish that to be explicitly stated in the directive so that the existing levels of protection in the UK will remain. Article 15, which states,
"Nothing in this directive shall preclude the application of provisions specific to techniques, products, or services under other Community instruments",
could be extended, I imagine, to cover that position.
The question of whether financial services should be included or excluded from the scope of the directive has to be discussed. The opinion of the committee—and certainly I support the committee strongly in it—is that they should be included. The Consumers' Association thought that the financial services sector generated a considerable volume of complaint. I considered the evidence of those supporting the inclusion of financial services, particularly the Office
1628
of Fair Trading, a good deal more convincing than that of the Securities and Investments Board which was not in favour. Sir Bryan Carsberg, the director general of OFT said in evidence:
"I think that financial services and indeed other kinds of services may particularly lend themselves to selling at a distance and are often the sort of selling that cause more problems than transactions in goods".
Again, he said:
"There are gaps at the moment in the provisions that apply to services".
Later, there is the sentence to which the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has already referred.
"It makes sense to have a single, horizontal measure like this which offers a bare minimum of consumer protection … which can be applied across the board".
I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister still holds the view taken in the response that these services should be excluded.
Inertia selling (paragraphs 27 and 28 of the report) will, I am sure, be spoken of by a good many people. It is to me an intolerable practice. Although there are specific provisions in nearly all member states, inertia selling goes on. There are sales practices which proceed on the basis of failure to reply implying consent. I find that intolerable. I am glad that both the Minister and the Commission took the view that it was a serious imposition on the consumer and saw merit in widening the scope of the current domestic legislation along the lines suggested in the directive.
The Consumers' Association thought outright prohibition unnecessary. I would he tougher. It is an absolute intrusion on privacy, to say nothing of the waste of paper and packaging. It surely should be possible, as my noble friend Lady Lockwood said, to devise a law which would not prevent the supplying of a close substitute in place of a requested article, on approval, returnable at the consumer's option and at the supplier's expense.
Another point closely linked to the last point is the right to privacy. The Government said in their response that the question of an individual's right to privacy is an issue which should be dealt with elsewhere and not in the directive, although they agree that the consumer should not be an unwilling recipient of mail shots, telephone canvassing or cold faxing. I would favour, as the explanatory memorandum suggested, the consumer's right not to receive certain types of solicitation, such as automatic telephone calls or faxes, by either an "opt-in" or an "opt-out" regime. Opting in, as has already been said, would require prior consent by the consumer to the particular form of solicitation. Opting out would allow the consumer to refuse to receive certain types of solicitation.
At the risk of a slight digression, having expressed my objection to being approached by telephone, etc., I have sympathy for those people who have to do the telephoning and have to ask people to buy. I wish to ask the Minister what assurances she can give us that the terms of employment for those engaged in such activities achieve two ends: first, that they comply with European employment directives; and secondly, that they satisfy the requirement, on which the UK should insist, for the protection of vulnerable workers who are in the main casual or part-time.

1629
A final word on credit cards. Their use by people, both in person and on the telephone, is increasing all the time and there should be safeguards, particularly where a card itself is not presented at any stage of the transaction. But it is right that we should point out that the drafting of Article 12 is so loose as to invite fraud by the consumer and that tighter drafting is required. Here, both we and the Minister are as one. I look forward very much to hearing what she has to say.
9.4 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness and my noble friend on the Front Bench will permit me to intervene for two minutes, above all to express my appreciation for the clear, interesting report which has been presented tonight by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. We thank her for all the hard, detailed work and the evidence that the committee heard, as well as the conclusions that it came to.
I wish to draw noble Lords' attention to two paragraphs on page 13 in the opinion of the committee and two points which came to my notice and particularly impressed me. That is the "well-conducted self-regulation"—in the phrase of the committee—of the Mail Order Traders' Association, carefully watched over by the Advertising Standards Association and, as a backstop, the Office of Fair Trading. It seems that the voluntary regulation which was presented by the mail order traders and the mail order protection scheme which was outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, backed by the Office of Fair Trading was "an essential backstop" which exemplified that desirable arrangement.
In the limited amount of trade which I have carried out, now known in "Eurospeak"—at least north of the Border—as "distance selling", I have never encountered any problem. Indeed, I am startled at the terms of credit that one is able to obtain, quite apart from the range of goods that are presented.
I was impressed also by paragraph 39 in the opinion of the committee, which allows each member state to set and enforce its own consumer protection arrangements. I strongly support that thrust by the committee. Page 31 of the evidence, paragraph 147, quotes Mr. Tamlin's evidence of the mail order traders. He points out that the code of practice which he launched jointly with the Office of Fair Trading in November 1978 has proved to be the standard for all codes of practice and arrangements that have been stressed throughout the report. It seems to me to be a perfect example of our own consumer protection being the standard which we hope the other member states will be able to reach. With that said, I commend the report and congratulate the noble Baroness. I wait to hear whether my noble friend has any comments. If not, perhaps he will write to me.
9.8 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and myself were the first Members of this House to speak who were not themselves
1630
members of the sub-committee. I should like to join with the noble Lord in paying tribute to the quality of the report that has been produced. It was a unanimous report.
I am bound to say to the Minister that I am a little disappointed by the slightly lukewarm tone of the submission from her department and of some of her evidence. Perhaps this debate will help to encourage her in her enthusiasm for this particular proposal from the Commission.
I suppose that I should declare some sort of past interest as a former chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority, and indeed of the IBA in its role as a regulator of television advertising. I read their evidence with particular personal interest. My goodness, how the tide of technology has surged forward over the past few years. I was fascinated by the evidence from Mr. Prendergast, the director of consumer policy service at the European Commission. He talked about "some Terry Wogan of France trying to sell his wife diamond rings on the television". Presumably the same thing could be done with selling unit trusts.
One has been aware over some years that some people have been going on about the possibility of a brave new world of armchair shopping; of housewives doing all their shopping by sitting at home pressing the buttons on their modem. I am pretty sceptical about all that. I think that the new telecommunications forms of distance selling will undoubtedly grow. But I rather suspect that most of us go shopping not only in order to buy things but because we rather prefer the hurly-burly of the market-place and the shopping street to the somewhat sterile situation of sitting at home watching a television screen. Nevertheless, the case is made out that with these new developments—and above all with the advent of the single market—we need some kind of proper broad framework of Community regulation.
The directive raises in vivid form the problem of how far the Community should go in harmonising consumer protection. That is perhaps the background of the noble Baroness's limited enthusiasm for the new developments. I agree with her to the extent that, in the past, in my experience the enthusiasts—I would almost say zealots—in the European Commission and the European Parliament have tended to go too far in terms of harmonisation in the field of consumer protection, and indeed in other fields. In my time the classic case was the directive on motor lawn-mower noise. I was then the commissioner for regional development in the Community. I was conscious that in Greenland, of course, no igloo was complete without a motor lawn-mower. And in Sicily, at the other end of my parish, one needed a motor lawn-mower on the golden sands. But my goodness, there was enthusiasm for a directive on motor lawn-mower noise. It was very easy to take the mickey out of that enthusiasm, but when one looked more closely one discovered that there was a certain vested interest in a directive from certain manufacturers—in Germany, for example—as a disguised form of protection for a national industry. To complete that bit of anecdotage, the legend went around the

1631
Commission at that time that there was an extremely zealous official who wanted to extend the draft directive on motor lawn-mower noise to have harmonisation of the hours at which anybody throughout the whole Community could use a motor lawn-mower. One of my colleagues, on asking him about the matter, said: "Do you happen to have a next-door neighbour who gets up early on a Sunday morning?". He said, "How on earth did you find that out?".
There is a problem of getting the balance right. For my part, I am greatly encouraged by the evidence of this draft directive—I hope that I do not put too much weight on its proposals—that the Commission is now concerned to make something of a reality of that dreadful word "subsidiarity". In this case, the Commission, and indeed your Lordships' committee, have got the balance about right with, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has explained, some characteristically sensible and constructive suggestions for improving the proposal. On those suggestions, we on these Benches strongly agree with the proposal of the committee that financial services should be included. They are a peculiarly sensitive area, where the dangers of impulse buying are quite considerable once one gets into the field of telecommunications.
I agreed also with the committee when it went to the other side in terms of consumer interest and suggested that, as it stands, the proposal on credit cards invites fraud by the consumer and needs modification. It was right in its remarks about the importance of Article 13 and the long-stop role of the Office of Fair Trading in these matters in the United Kingdom. I felt that it was right also in saying that these technologies are changing fast and that business activities associated with them are changing so fast that it may be right to write in the need for a review after perhaps five years.
The basic formula endorsed by the committee is a wise one. I urge the Government to welcome it more positively than they have done so far. It seems to be about right for the new and still limited but growing problem of distance selling and would be the right approach for a whole range of harmonisation issues. I hope it is evidence that the Commission is now taking subsidiarity seriously. It may even manage to invent an even more civilised word for it.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it is an excellent report. It is sensible and informative. It tells us a great deal about problems and therefore I found it extremely useful. The point of departure seems to be paragraph 15 of the report where the committee tells us that we must look to the future on matters of this sort. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, used the word "technology" in his remarks. Technology is now changing so rapidly that one can hardly keep up with the possibilities.
To take one of my favourite subjects, a great deal of buying computer hardware and software nowadays is done by distance selling. It is an area where some of the problems addressed by the committee emerge very strongly. But it will not be long—indeed it is already
1632
happening—before one will simply buy computer software on a network which will be downloaded in exchange for one's credit card number. In other words, there will not be any physical activity in the sense of a product actually arriving. There will be a great deal more of that type of buying occurring and the committee was right to ask us to look to the future. It was right also to remind many people in retailing and so forth that some of the cosy world which they have been used to will be changing rapidly, not only because of the single market but also because of what the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, drew to our attention; namely, changes in technology.
I was pleased with the committee's report in relation to my second point. There was a danger that there would be opposition to distance selling. My view is that the reverse is true; in fact it is a good thing. I hope that nothing happens in the way of intervention by government that prevents welcome developments in distance selling. My favourite anecdote in that regard is that at least one of my friends is extremely keen on distance selling. He is an insomniac and stays just about this side of bankruptcy by spending all night ringing up any number he can find and ordering this or that product. I do not quite go that far. However, in many areas I find distance selling to be a boon.
That takes me on to the point raised by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, and others in relation to credit card payment. I agree that there can be problems. My experience, and I am sure that of most other consumers, is that the ability to quote a credit card number down a phone in order to buy various items is useful. We do not want to see any intervention either by the Community or our own Government that would seriously limit that. It happens to be an extremely useful device.
I should like to make two points more broadly on the European experience. One is that it is varied. In discussing different parts of the Community we must bear in mind the scale of distance selling, which differs considerably both with respect to goods and sales. It occurs much less in some countries than others. I shall come on to financial services but there are considerable differences on financial services and distance selling in different countries in the Community.
But it is up to the individual countries as to whether or not they like the service. Here again I agree with the committee and noble Lords who have spoken that, for once, the Community seems to have the balance about right. I speak as a supporter of the Community but not an uncritical one. Its bias has been too much in favour of having a directive rather than not. On this occasion it is just about right in terms of saying, "Let us level up to a good standard but do nothing to stop countries having a better standard if they so wish".
That leads me to two matters. I forgot to give the noble Baroness notice of this question. I take it that where a country under its laws limits trade in particular goods or services it will not be possible to break that by distance selling. The example I have in mind is one of the better bits of the Education Reform Act 1988 which prohibits the sale of bogus degrees in

1633
this country—we were becoming the bogus degree centre of the world. The single market does not expose us to that problem, but I take it that our legislation on bogus degrees will apply to distance selling so that we do not get into a situation of "Give me your credit card number and you can be a PhD of the university of you-name-it by return". I should like to have some reassurance on that point.
As far as redress is concerned, my view is that it should be as simple as possible. One cannot overcome the matter where caveat emptor has to be the right principle. I go back to my favourite example. I am a devotee of computer magazines. Some people buy a great deal of computer software and hardware from firms advertising in those magazines. Frequently, they do not get the product for which they have sent money because the companies concerned are, to say the least, perhaps trading with slightly more optimism than they ought to be. In such cases the sensible thing to do is always to pay by credit card and not cash. It is very hard to persuade consumers that they ought to be careful. If it looks as if you are getting something for nothing, you are almost certainly not. That is why we need the directive as well as the principle of caveat emptor. I hope that we will never go in the direction of saying to consumers that they take no risks themselves. Consumers have to realise that the world has a certain hardness in it.
That takes me to where I fear I disagree with the Government, as have other noble Lords. I read the evidence of the noble Baroness to the committee very carefully. I did not take her evidence to mean that she did not believe that consumer protection in the area of financial services was unimportant. Her view was that that could be provided in other ways. Like other noble Lords, I am bound to say that I disagree. I make two points about financial services. First, the decisions that one takes about life and endowment policies are very much bigger than if one buys a piece of software that does not work. In the latter case, if it does not work you may shrug. It has cost a few pounds, or perhaps even £100, but you can live with it. But if as a result of distance selling in particular—though it is not just distance selling—you make a mistake about a faulty life insurance policy, you are carrying a very heavy financial burden for a long time. That is why consumer protection is so important and why I and other noble Lords ask the Government to think about supporting the directive on the inclusion of this area rather than going against it.
My view of redress is that it should be as simple as possible. My idea is that it should be the same redress that one gets at Marks and Spencer. One buys something, takes it home and does not like it. One takes it back and they credit one's account—full stop. There is no argument about it. What we have here to provide redress is largely the small claims court. I like the small claims court, but even that involves a great deal of work and, for a lot of consumers, an effort that is beyond them. Therefore, I hope that on the subject of redress the Government are still thinking in this area and more generally that they should go for the
1634
simplest possible system that in the end amounts to, "I do not want it. Take it back and give me back my money".
To conclude, my purpose is two-fold: first, to support the committee and, secondly, to hope—and there is reason to think that I am right to do so—that the Government will respond positively and sympathetically; particularly in the financial services field in so far as the Government have given one word on this but that it will not be their last.
9.25 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, tonight's speeches have been most helpful and have matched the quality of the report produced by the committee. We in this House should be very proud that reports of such quality come from our committees. The chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and members of Sub-committee C are to be much congratulated. It comes as no surprise to hear members of the committee praise the noble Baroness's chairmanship. Certainly, from giving evidence, I would feel exactly the same way.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, should describe my reception as lukewarm. That is not something I am normally accused of, and I have no lack of enthusiasm for the value of the work that the committee has produced and the efforts that have gone into the report. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said, in many ways the report is in line with government thinking. Where it is not it has given us useful food for thought—and, I would suggest, food that is rather more digestible than we heard potatoes were.
I start with some background to the proposed directive, after which I shall outline the Government's current position on the proposal and try to answer most of the points raised in the debate. In bringing the proposal forward the Commission is anticipating the completion of the single market and the development of new distance selling techniques, particularly by electronic means. The Commission predicts that this will lead to a considerable expansion of the market for distance selling across borders within the Community. It considers that there will be a corresponding need for a Community framework of common minimum levels of consumer protection for such transactions. Several noble Lords mentioned the speed of change in this area and recognised that this was a rather less prescriptive directive than we have seen in many previous instances.
The Government are not entirely convinced that the Commission has proved its case for such a directive at the present time. There is much work to do on the directive, so the timescales, I suspect, will come together. That is not to say that there is no case for the directive. Cross-border distance selling is clearly an area with tremendous potential for growth. There may well already be unreported elements of consumer dissatisfaction. We also accept that self-regulation, though it may work well in the United Kingdom—I am always proud to quote the way in which it works

1635
here—may not be effective when it comes to cross-border transactions. Our consultation with industry indicates that certain sectors have considerable reservations about the proposal, in particular on financial services. So far as concerns the sale of goods, however, the proposal has received qualified approval. The Government are not opposing the proposal in principle and take the view that the right course is to negotiate constructively. I hope that is not too lukewarm. It is meant to be positive.
Our reservations stem primarily from the fact that the meaning of much of the directive, particularly in the area of definitions and exemptions, is uncertain and could prove extremely difficult to translate into satisfactory provisions in the United Kingdom law. There is considerable need for clarification. It is no benefit to the consumer to have an uncertain situation. In addition, it would appear that the directive was drafted with goods in mind. Its provisions do not in places read across readily into the field of services.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, asked that I look again at the views I gave to the committee on financial services. The Government remain of the view that financial services should be excluded from the scope of the directive. However, to pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that is not to say that we do not believe that there are issues there that should not be dealt with. As consumer affairs Minister, I am very concerned that in the area of financial services there should be adequate protection. That is most important. But we do not believe that this directive is the appropriate place.
Perhaps I may explain the reasons why we take that view. As I said, the proposal has been drafted with the simple sale of goods and the supply of services in mind. Services generally and financial services in particular do not fit well or easily into that framework. For instance, not only the cooling off period, which has been mentioned, but also the position of intermediaries in financial services do not fit in easily.
Further, there is no good consumer protection argument for including financial services within the scope of the directive. The financial services sector is already subject to detailed regulation at both national and Community levels. That includes a substantial body of consumer protection measures of the kind in the proposal but tailored to the specific needs of the sector.
The proposal is a broad, horizontal measure and not a suitable instrument with which to regulate financial services which present very particular problems. If financial services are to be further regulated to benefit the consumer—as I have said, I suggest that there may well be need—we believe that it would be better achieved by building on the vertical and service specific measures already in force or currently being developed.
I am pleased to say, however, that except on the issue of the inclusion of financial services, the opinions and recommendations of the committee are very much in line with the Government's own thinking. Perhaps I should say that the Government's own thinking is very much in line with the work, opinions and recommendations of the committee. We understand
1636
that the directive is intended to be a minimum one. That means that member states will be allowed to introduce and maintain more stringent legislation if they so wish. That will avoid any danger that some of the existing levels of protection afforded consumers in member states might have to be lowered when the directive is implemented. The current proposal for the directive does not explicitly state that, and in Brussels I shall be asking for the point to be clarified.
I agree that the information provided to the consumer should be given only once, although we have not come to a view on whether this should be limited to hard copies. Indeed, I am concerned that the provisions in Articles 6 and 10 of the proposal may be too onerous in that they could force the supplier to give some information twice. That is another point that we shall address in our negotiations.
We are doubtful about the inclusion of provisions regarding an individual's right to privacy. That again is an issue that 'could be better dealt with elsewhere and not in a proposal for distance selling. The Government agree with the committee that the consumer should not be an unwilling recipient of mail shots, telephone canvassing or unsolicited faxing. We would not go so far as to support a proposal that the consumer should have to give prior consent before being solicited, the one exception being where the consumer suffers economic loss because of solicitations such as unsolicited faxing. The noble Baroness, Lady Kinloss, rightly pointed out that we have moved from the original drafting in this area to a more satisfactory situation. We shall certainly give careful consideration to the question that this might be solved in Article 4. We shall bear that very much in mind in our negotiations.
The Government agree with the committee also in supporting the provisions for a seven-day cooling-off period and a 30-day time limit for performance where no time limit is stipulated. Similarly, we are in agreement with the committee's views on the provisions regulating unsolicited goods which threaten to prevent suppliers sending on trial goods similar to those ordered even though, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, pointed out, that practice is common and generally beneficial to the consumer.
The Government, the committee and noble Lords who have spoken this evening understand the need for safeguards against the abuse of credit cards, and everyone is concerned that the current provisions in the proposal are too heavily loaded in favour of the consumer. The Government consider that any need for safeguards in this area could be better dealt with elsewhere.
I note that the committee is content for the security of deposits and other advanced payments to be dealt with in the recommendation, but suggests that the situation should be reviewed within three years. The Government do not support compulsory protection for deposits, which would be onerous and expensive, but in practice I am pleased to say that a good deal of protection is provided by the existing self-regulatory regime. Most people have experienced good practice.
Although the Government are still considering the issue, we are inclined to agree with the committee that

1637
the right to bring representative actions should be restricted to bodies required to act in the public interest, as this will yield consistent standards of enforcement and reduce unnecessary multiplication of litigation. The issue raises difficult questions of jurisdiction and consumer redress which obviously need serious and further consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred to the simplicity of redress. I agree wholeheartedly that it has to be as simple as it can securely be for the consumer. There has been much improvement in the small claims court procedure. France has an arbitration system which is similar but less formal, and I understand that the practice in Ireland is also less formal. That may be something that we can examine, because, if there is no simple, straightforward redress, the benefit to the consumer is necessarily limited. I am pleased to assure the noble Lord that the normal rules of the Common Market regarding prohibitions on the sale of particular goods or services on the ground of public policy will apply in the case of distance selling, so there will not suddenly emerge a market for bogus degrees. That should reassure the noble Lord and his colleagues about the future.
I agree with the noble Lord, however, that there is a great need to strengthen the provisions governing the education and financial services area. I have increasing anxieties about people buying insurance policies because they get a free alarm clock. There is a need for "buyer beware" to be stressed in many cases.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, referred to the protection of workers. I should emphasise that what we are considering is a consumer protection and single market measure and that, although I am not necessarily disagreeing with the noble Baroness's point, I am not convinced that this is the place to address it. If it would be helpful, however, I shall certainly look at the issue and write to the noble Baroness about it.
We have all expressed dissatisfaction about inertia selling in all its forms in this area. I suspect that the whole of your Lordships' House will welcome the contribution made by my noble friend Lord Lyell. He rightly drew attention to the fact that there should be a safety net for consumers and said that this directive does not propose to lessen support for the consumer in our own country.
I was interested to learn of the Community experiences of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. I agree wholeheartedly that it is beneficial that the fashionable word now instead of "harmonisation" is "subsidiarity". It could be better said, however.
We talked about self-regulation and the advantage we enjoy in this country. Some cross-border arrangements already exist. For example, the European Advertising Standards Alliance has been set up. In the direct marketing field itself there is now a European Federation of Direct Marketing. It is early days yet, but I am pleased that the foundations for a cross-border system of self-regulation are beginning to be built. That is by far the most effective means of providing protection for the consumer. Legislation often means merely that the sharks know in which
1638
direction to swim to avoid it. If the industry can look after itself and have as its own priority the protection of the consumer, we can look forward to a much happier situation.
I apologise if I have missed some point. I shall read Hansard carefully and answer any points that I have not covered. It may be helpful if I give an update upon where we have reached in the negotiations in Brussels. The proposed directive has completed a first reading in the Council working party. However, there have been only two short working party meetings so far this year. Further meetings are unlikely under the Danish presidency. Many member states maintain study and consultation reservations on the proposal, and a few member states question the need for the directive. Others are more enthusiastic but, nevertheless, have expressed reservations about it to varying degrees. A number of member states are in favour of the exclusion of financial services. Currently, there is sufficient support for the formation of a blocking minority on that issue, should that ever be necessary.
The UK's negotiating priorities are to clarify uncertainties in the present drafting. There is much more work to be done, a point to which the committee drew attention, to ensure the exclusion, at least, of financial services. Provided that those anxieties can be met, we hope that a directive acceptable to the UK can be negotiated. There can be no doubt that the committee has contributed a valuable input into the whole subject. We appreciate that and express our gratitude to the committee for the work it has done. I am sure that the Commission too will appreciate the input that the committee brings to the discussions.
9.43 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, as I rather suspected, and said at the beginning of the debate, there has been wider agreement on the contents of the report in this debate than there was in the previous debate. I am grateful to all those who have taken part.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for his support. The whole question of self-regulation is a British import into the Community. There was considerable resistance at one time to the idea of self-regulation, but this is one of the areas where we have been successful in importing our system, and that is all to the good.
I had a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, who spoke of his amazement at finding someone selling diamonds by Minitel in France to someone in another country. Some members of the committee had a similar reaction. It may be a question of generation, with he and I being of the same generation. The younger generation takes quickly to the whole idea of electronic gadgets. I suppose that it will be natural to the younger generation. That is why it is so important to have a directive on the subject across the Community. I agree with my noble friend Lord Peston that it should be as simple as possible. That was part of the committee's concern and is behind many of our recommendations.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, was unable to agree with the committee as regards

1639
financial services. Indeed, in her speech she went further than she did in her official response when she stated that the matter was still open. However, in her speech she said that she remained of the view that financial services should be excluded. I am sorry about that. Perhaps, during the negotiations, comments may be made which will persuade her and some of the other countries which believe that financial services should not be included. The committee saw that as one form of distance selling. It does not matter whether one is selling goods or services, or whether the goods are financial or otherwise. The committee accepted that
1640
there is already a good deal of protection in the financial service sector which would not be affected by the draft directive.
There we are; there is a slight difference of opinion. I hope that as a result of the negotiations which the Minister mentioned, we shall emerge with a satisfactory directive which will protect both the seller and the purchaser.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before ten o'clock.

  HOME OFFICE C3 DIVISION: FUNCTIONS
  HOME OFFICE C3 DIVISION: FUNCTIONS
  HOME OFFICE C3 DIVISION: STAFFING
  HOME OFFICE C3 DIVISION: STAFFING
  HOME OFFICE C3 DIVISION: CASES PENDING
  HOME OFFICE C3 DIVISION: CASES PENDING
  HOME OFFICE C3 DIVISION: CASE PROCESSING PERIOD
  HOME OFFICE C3 DIVISION: CASE PROCESSING PERIOD
  MARKET TESTING: HIGH COURT RULING ON EC DIRECTIVE
  MARKET TESTING: HIGH COURT RULING ON EC DIRECTIVE
  PLUTONIUM SUPPLIES TO JAPAN
  PLUTONIUM SUPPLIES TO JAPAN
  NORTH KOREA: NUCLEAR REACTOR
  NORTH KOREA: NUCLEAR REACTOR
  POPULATION STATISTICS
  POPULATION STATISTICS
  ABORTION COSTS
  ABORTION COSTS
  ABORTION STATISTICS
  ABORTION STATISTICS
  ARMY PERSONNEL CENTRE
  ARMY PERSONNEL CENTRE