Sitting of 26 May 1993

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

    CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Tuesday 8 June at Seven o'clock.

    EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

      WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
      Orders for Second Reading read.
      To be read a Second time on Thursday 10 June.

      BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)
      Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [8 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
      Debate to be resumed on Thursday 10 June.

    CROYDON TRAMLINK BILL [Lords] (By Order)

      LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords] (By Order)
      Orders for Second Reading read.
      To be read a Second time on Thursday 10 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Waste Repository (Sellafield)
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further consideration he has given to UK Nirex Ltd.'s work programme to establish a deep repository at Sellafield for the disposal of radioactive waste, following the publication of the annual report of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee.
    The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Maclean): It is for Nirex to bring forward its proposals in accordance with its timetable.
    Mr. Salmond: Is it not the case that the publication of the Government's own advisory committee's report has left their and Nirex's policy in disarray, and that the likelihood is that Sellafield will prove geologically unsuitable as a nuclear dump? Will the Minister advise Nirex not to look north again to Dounreay as an alternative site? Will he accept that there is no case, no support and ultimately no chance of the north of Scotland accepting a position as Europe's nuclear midden?
    Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman is jumping to far too many conclusions very far down a hypothetical route. It is entirely up to Nirex to decide to take into account the recommendations of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee. It is for Nirex to decide where it wants the deep disposal laboratory and to ask the regulatory authorities to ensure that it has taken into account all the appropriate safety considerations.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that many workers in Scotland regularly lobby his Department and the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure that we have plenty of jobs in the nuclear industry and that it is very divisive for hon. Members to suggest that nuclear waste should not be stored in one part of the United Kingdom as opposed to another?
    Mr. Maclean: Yes, it is a pity if the issue becomes a political football that the nationalists wish to kick around the court. It is entirely a matter for Nirex to advance its plans for a deep disposal repository, and it is entirely appropriate for an independent advisory body such as RoWMAC to comment on those proposals. They will all be taken into account by the appropriate regulatory authorities.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: But the Minister cannot abdicate his responsibility for these matters. Does he not realise that the great majority of people in Cumbria and, indeed, in his constituency, are wholly opposed to the nonsensical proposition?
    Mr. Maclean: First, I should prefer to speak for my own constituents, rather than have the hon. Gentleman pretend to do so.
    There is no question of the Government's abdicating their responsibilities. Our responsibilities are very clearly laid down in statute, and there is no question of Nirex or RoWMAC abdicating their responsibilities either. It is up to Nirex to make its proposals for a deep repository and

    905
    up to RoWMAC to comment on them. Of course, should there be an inquiry into the rock characterisation facility, those points could be made. The Government have promised a full public inquiry should the main disposal facility be advanced.

    Local Services (Leicestershire)
    Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to visit Leicestershire to meet representatives of the county council to discuss the provision of local services.
    The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. John Redwood): I have no present plans to do so.
    Mr. Marshall: I am disappointed by the Minister's response. Is he aware that at the recent local elections, Tory candidates did badly in Leicestershire, as in all the shire counties, but especially in my constituency where they received only 17 per cent. of the vote? Is he further aware that that derisory vote is a condemnation not only of national Government policy but of local Tory policies, especially the setting of a recent county council budget which condemned to closure the Beale Street nursery, the Goldhill adventure playground and the Highfield adventure playground, all in my constituency? If the new county council takes steps to reverse that decision, will the Minister guarantee that neither he nor his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will intervene?
    Mr. Redwood: It is, of course, up to each county council to make its own decisions on budgets and taxation, within the normal annual cycle and within the law. I hope that the county councillors in Leicestershire, and elsewhere, decide to get good value for money and to pursue the right policies, with common sense. That would be easier if there were more Conservatives on the authority, but I hope that the Labour councillors will take on board some of the messages from my hon. Friends and from Conservative county councillors around the country about how to get proper value for money and how to live easily within the budget limits set.

    Housing Associations
    Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses are forecast to be provided by housing associations over the next three years.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Howard): The Housing Corporation currently expects to provide grant towards about 170,000 homes over the next three years. In addition, local authorities will fund schemes, using local authority housing association grant.
    Mr. Moss: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on announcing a significant 11 per cent. increase in the number of new homes to be built, over and above our manifesto pledge of last year. Over the past year, local authorities in my constituency of Cambridgeshire, North-East have benefited substantially from housing association money. Will my right hon. and learned Friend also confirm that the announcement in the autumn statement that the rules on capital receipts were to be relaxed provided yet more opportunity for investment in new homes built for rent?
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I can certainly give him the confirmation that he seeks. We estimate that about £1 billion worth of capital receipts may be available for investment in housing, and local authorities can use them to support housing associations' new build. In 1992–93, about 6,000 new houses were built using local authority housing association grant, and the Housing Corporation's own programme for 1993–94 has been expanded by about £117 million in contributions from local authorities.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: When will the Secretary of State be able to tackle the problem that more housing associations face every day, whereby their need to balance the books means that they will soon be charging rents that will be extremely difficult for people who need low-cost housing to pay? Is not he aware that many councils gave assistance to housing associations, providing suitable sites at peppercorn rents, or selling them cheaply, on the assumption that low-cost housing would be provided, yet now they find that their own people are being priced out of the new housing associations?
    Mr. Howard: People who need low-cost housing get the help provided through housing benefit, which is an excellent example of a targeted benefit directed to people who need help.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. and learned Friend examine housing associations' practice of demanding land from local authorities for nothing, which is causing great resentment among local authorities that are obliged to give up land for housing to housing associations? Will he also re-examine the right to buy housing association properties?
    Mr. Howard: Housing associations are not in a position to demand what my hon. Friend says that they demand. We are encouraging them to work with local authorities and they are increasingly doing so. I will give careful consideration to my hon. Friend's suggestion concerning the right to buy.
    Mr. Battle: Is not it a fact that housing associations will still provide a mere 3 per cent. of the total housing stock, and that all the Government's piecemeal housing initiatives together will go nowhere near providing the 100,000 new homes for rent every year that the Institute of Housing and other bodies say are desperately needed by thousands of homeless people still sleeping out, and by the 147,000 people registered with local authorities as statutorily homeless? Will not the intention of the Secretary of State's right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to cut housing benefit later this year force even more people to lose their homes in the face of high and rising rents?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense, as he usually does. We are making substantial progress in addressing the housing problems which we face. It will not do at all for Labour party spokesmen to come to the Dispatch Box and reel off meaningless statistics, while claiming to be a party of financial probity, for one claim is totally inconsistent with the other.

    Social Housing (Rural Areas)
    Mr. Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to provide additional financial resources for the provision of low-cost social housing in rural areas; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): The Government provide support for low-cost rural housing through the Housing Corporation and local authority housing investment programme allocations. The Housing Corporation plans to approve 1,850 new housing association homes this year under its rural housing programme. That is in addition to the 5,500 homes for which the programme has provided funding since it began in 1989–90. Last year, the housing market package enabled housing associations to buy some 730 homes in villages with a population of 3,000 or fewer. Support for rural housing has also been provided through allocations for local authorities under the housing partnership fund.
    Mr. Hicks: The existing situation may appear to be encouraging, but is the Minister aware of the increasing anxiety about the future provision of adequate affordable social housing in rural areas, given the proposed changes in the level of grant support for housing associations? Does he recognise the implications that that will have for rents, particularly in low-income areas such as mine, and the implications of the poverty trap for the families involved?
    Mr. Baldry: This year, we were able to bring the grant rate down from 72 to 69 per cent. without any significant impact on rents whatever. However, we were able to ensure that we could build 3,300 more homes. I thought that my hon. Friend would have welcomed that, because many of the homes were able to go into rural areas.
    Mr. Winnick: Why does not the Minister admit that the supply of new housing association dwellings has not in any way been able to make up for the fact that, for 14 years, local authorities in rural areas, as well as elsewhere, have simply not been able to build? Although I am not a vindictive person, is the Minister aware that sometimes I wish that Ministers were in the position of constituents of mine and so many other hon. Members—suffering great housing hardship and misery because they cannot afford to buy and having no way of being rehoused either by a local authority or housing association? Why must such people suffer simply because of Tory dogma?
    Mr. Baldry: This year, we are investing through the Housing Corporation £2·3 billion in housing associations building a large number of new homes. Moreover, we are making significant sums available to local authorities such as Walsall to invest in improving their own housing stocks to ensure that every family in the country has a decent home in which to live.
    Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) said about the rents charged by some housing associations, especially when land has been given to them and the rent is nearly the market rent, which does little to help those in the west country who cannot afford that sort of rent when they are trying to find accommodation?
    Mr. Baldry: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said, we are seeking to ensure that the housing benefit is targeted at those who need help with their housing costs. Of course, we want to ensure that there is affordable housing in rural areas, as elsewhere, and we are investing substantial sums. In addition to the money that is being made available to local authorities in Devon and elsewhere through the housing investment programme, local authorities will be able to spend their capital receipts this year. Money is also available through the housing partnership fund. Some £30 million is available nationwide and £5 million is being allocated to the south-west. Under the Housing Corporation's rural programme, 2,500 new homes have been allocated to rural areas. All that demonstrates a substantial investment in rural housing in my right hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere.

    Eco-labels
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on what further progress has been made on eco-labels.
    Mr. Maclean: The criteria for washing machines and dish washers, prepared by the United Kingdom, have been agreed by the EC regulatory committee and will be published shortly. Proposed criteria for light bulbs, toilet paper and kitchen paper will be considered by the regulatory committee in June. The launch of the scheme is planned for late June.
    Mr. Bennett: Can the Minister tell us how soon we will get some products with the labels on in shops? Can he confirm that for three years the Government have been stalling the idea of a United Kingdom scheme on the basis that we would get an EC-wide system and that, even with the products to which he referred, such a system will apply only in a third of the countries in the EC and some of our partners have done nothing at all to introduce eco-labels?
    Mr. Maclean: I can confirm the last part of the hon. Gentleman's statement. However, I got the impression from the first part that he was taking his ire out on the United Kingdom by accusing us of stalling. We have pressed the Commission time and again. Indeed, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State was President of the European Community he pressed the Commission to make urgent proposals to get the eco-labelling scheme up and running. I even threatened at the Dispatch Box to run our own scheme unless progress was made. Due to our pressure, the Commission has listened and the products to which I referred are coming to the launch pad. I hope to see some of the first products in the shops by September. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we will keep up the pressure for other countries to do their share of eco-labelling, because we think that it is a rather good scheme.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: I welcome the good technical work that is being done on product groups and the robust view that the United Kingdom Government are taking at European level. However, as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said, other countries are not playing their part. They are backsliding. Is it not time that we applied pressure to the European Commission to take

    909
    those countries to the European Court for failing in their undertakings and specifically for failing to designate national competent bodies?
    Mr. Maclean: It is true that about half a dozen other countries in the EC have not yet designated competent bodies. The Commission has written to those countries urging them to do so. I hope that they will comply with the Commission's request as soon as possible, because it is in the interests of all our consumers in the EC who wish to do their bit to help the environment and to have the choice of selecting the most environmentally sound products. I assure my hon. Friend that we will keep up our constant pressure on the Commission for others to pull their full weight, just as we are doing.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister agree that it would be better not to have double standards and that if we are to have eco-labelling, it is not much good if the customer does not pay any attention to what is written on the label? In that context, as the Government have labelled Twyford down and Oxleas wood as environmentally important, will he have urgent discussions with his colleagues in the Department of Transport—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to put one over. We are dealing with eco-labelling. If the hon. Gentleman remains with eco-labelling, he may finish his question.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister make sure that once we label things as important, we follow what we say that we should do with them?
    Mr. Maclean: It would be fascinating to take a lecture on double standards from a representative of the party that has 651 standards—one for every constituency in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Should not that great success be followed by pushing eco-labelling in to other areas? The Labour party supported allowing water boards to maintain their policing role, which resulted in some of the most polluted beaches in Europe. It also supported the burning of dirty high-sulphur coal over clean gas. In short, as it is the party which puts vested interests before the environment, should not there be a special grubby eco-label for the Labour party?
    Mr. Maclean: I think that the Labour party and its characteristics are well known to the electorate. They do not need to be specifically labelled.
    Mr. Chris Smith: The Minister will agree that a eco-labelling scheme will be fully effective only if it goes hand in hand with a strengthening of the Trades Description Act to ensure that companies cannot make bogus environmental claims for the products that they sell. The Government said in 1990 that they would introduce legislation to strengthen the Act. They repeated that pledge to the Select Committee in 1991. That legislation would have the full support of the Opposition. Why do not the Government do it now?
    Mr. Maclean: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, because this is the first time, when I have been opposite him, that he has come to the Dispatch Box with a point that is correct. We wish to amend the Trades Description Act. It is important that we do so in order that there can be no bogus claims on eco-labelling, as there are in other
    910
    areas. We are giving urgent consideration to the matter and we will introduce suitable proposals as soon as parliamentary time permits us to do so.

    Council Tax
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average council tax for a band C house in Wandsworth and for a band C house in Lambeth.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robin Squire): The average headline band C council tax for two adults in Wandsworth is £399, whereas in Lambeth it is £560.
    Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. I wonder whether he could take matters one stage further by discerning any particular pattern between high-spending councils that make iniquitous demands and any particular political party in control of them.
    Mr. Squire: It is a fact that the 10 highest council taxes have been set by Labour councils. My hon. Friend will also be aware that, across the country, the average band C tax payer pays less under Conservative-controlled councils than he or she does under Labour ones.
    Mr. Fraser: Will the Minister confirm that the transitional relief for band C occupiers in Wandsworth is substantially higher than that for band C occupiers in Lambeth? Will he give a typical comparison between the two boroughs?
    Mr. Squire: The hon. Member must surely be aware that transitional relief is a national scheme designed to go to those households that face the largest increase in bills with the change of system. It is, of course, the case that it will go rather more to those high-value property areas that had lower community charge bills. Lambeth is a relatively high-value property area, but, by golly, it is a very high community charge and council tax area.
    Mr. Pickles: Does my hon. Friend believe that the level of charging in Lambeth has anything to do with the way in which that council is run? Does he agree that the way in which an authority responds to allegations of maladministration and corruption is an indication of how it is run? Has my hon. Friend seen the recent report of the district auditor and has he noticed, in particular, that the officers of the council who were found guilty of fraud are still employed by it and that the direct labour organisation, having been set standards by the council to fulfil, failed to meet them but has still had its contract extended?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not making a speech, he is asking a direct question to the Minister. This is not speech time, it is Question Time.
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The news that Lambeth council had been guilty of mismanagement did not exactly burst on the world with all the surprise of the sun rising in the east. The fact of the matter is that the sorry catalogue of mismanagement, shortfalls and fiddles is probably unrivalled by any other local authority. That reflects on the officers and councillors, past and present. The people who pay the bill, are, of course, the poor people who paid the bill under rates, the community charge and now under the council tax, the residents of Lambeth.
    Mr. Straw: Since the Minister is so keen on facts, has he forgotten the fact that the average household council tax under Labour is £14 less than under the Conservatives? Has he forgotten the second fact that people believed us and not them? Has he forgotten the third fact that the Conservatives had the biggest drubbing that they have had this century in the shire county elections and the fourth fact that Labour, as a result of the confidence shown by the electors in its councils, has never had a better base in the county councils than now?
    Why does not the Minister admit that the reason why the council tax in Wandsworth is so low is that it has taken £30 million, one eleventh of the entire nation's transitional relief, unto itself? Does not the United-Secretary understand that that kind of blatant vote-buying in Wandsworth by Ministers sets a poor example for the standards of public life that they should be setting across the country?
    Mr. Squire: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman continues to peddle the long-discredited line about Labour councils being cheaper, when the House knows that that is an artificial and false calculation. As for what I took to be the hon. Gentleman's central point, I remind him that the total external support per head going to Wandsworth amounts to £842 and to Lambeth, £1,118. Those are massive figures and show the difference in support. They underline what my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) said—the abuse of money by Lambeth is at the heart of the problem.

    Empty Council Homes
    Mr. Hargreaves: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list the 20 local authorities with the highest number of empty council homes.
    The Minister for Housing, Planning and Construction (Sir George Young): At the risk of spoiling a game that I know the House enjoys playing, I shall say in advance that the 20 local authorities with the highest number of properties empty for management reasons at 1 April 1992—whose names I shall shortly read out quickly—are, with two exceptions, controlled not by the Conservative party or the Liberal Democrats, but by the Labour party. They are: Manchester, Hackney, Sheffield, Southwark, Newcastle upon Tyne, Liverpool, Lambeth, Birmingham, Leeds, Tower Hamlets, Salford, Wolverhampton, Walsall, Brent, Bradford, Kirklees, Nottingham, Bristol, Camden and Islington.
    Mr. Hargreaves: My hon. Friend said that the authorities were predominantly Labour controlled. Does he agree that the list shows that the problem is one of mismanagement, once again? One way to correct the management would be for local authorities not to use direct labour organisations to carry out their repairs.
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. Those figures relate to properties that are empty for management reasons and exclude properties that have been empty for other reasons. There are ways in which local authorities can make progress. The. Housing and Urban Development Bill, which is now before the House, will oblige local authorities to put housing management out to compulsory
    912
    competitive tendering, which will benefit tenants by providing higher standards of service than many of them have to put up with at present.
    Mr. Betts: Is it not time that the Minister stopped using spurious and bogus figures? Should he not use figures to show the percentage of vacant properties, not absolute figures which do not take into account the size of the housing stock? Should he not use figures that do not include properties to be demolished or to undergo major refurbishment? Is the Minister aware that Sheffield has 1,800 vacant properties, of which 500 are due for demolition and 300 are due for major refurbishment? Once those are taken out of account, it means that 1·4 per cent. of the authority's properties are vacant—less than the 2 per cent. Government target figure. Is it not time that the Minister praised authorities such as Sheffield instead of condemning them as he does?
    Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman was not listening to the answer that I gave. The figures that I have given relate to properties that are empty for management reasons and exclude properties that are about to be demolished. I shall answer questions that are tabled. The question tabled today asked me to list the local authorities with the highest number of empty council houses, and I answered that question. If the hon. Gentleman wants to ask for percentages, he should do so—then he will receive the answer.
    Sir Anthony Durant: I note that Lambeth once again appeared on that list—what can the Government do about the council? I am a resident there and the council has railed to collect £173 million in taxes. Is it not time to put in commissioners to sort the place out?
    Sir George Young: I hope that my hon. Friend will join me and other Conservative Members when, in less than 12 months' time, we go around the streets of Lambeth to bring home to the residents exactly what the present administration is costing them and persuade them to vote for Conservative councillors who will run Lambeth extremely well, as they did from 1968 to 1971.
    Mr. Soley: The Minister says that the problem is due to incompetence. What does he say to the Conservative Government, 13 per cent. of whose properties are empty? When I first drew attention to the matter several years ago, 16 per cent. were empty. Of the empty properties, 18 per cent. belong to the Department of the Environment—the Minister's own Department. In Biggin Hill, boarded-up houses belonging to the Government are up for sale, so depressing the housing market, while Conservative Bromley council has forced taxpayers to put their hands in their pockets in order to keep people in unsatisfactory temporary accommodation. Why do all of us have to pay for the most incompetent landlord of all—the Government—13 per cent. of whose properties are empty? The Government make homeless people and taxpayers pay for the disgrace of homelessness.
    Sir George Young: The Department of the Environment has 20 empty properties. The hon. Gentleman cannot seek an alibi for the incompetence of Labour-controlled local authorities by sheltering behind the Ministry of Defence, which owns properties for the use of service men and their families and which, for operational reasons, must keep a number of vacancies.

    913
    Local authorities build houses for people in housing need and they have no operational excuse for the high number of voids to which I just referred.
    Dr. Spink: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the top 10 councils have 11,000 empty properties between them? That is more than double the number of homeless people in London and the south-east of England. What pressure will my hon. Friend put on councils to bring those properties back into use?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend makes the valid point that 7,500 families could be taken out of bed-and-breakfast accommodation if more local authorities were to act responsibly and efficiently and manage their homes more effectively. The subsidy system does, indeed, put pressure on local authorities to reduce the number of voids. If one looks at the progress that has been made over the past three or four years, one sees that the pressure is now working and that the number of voids is coming down.
    Mr. Straw: Is the Minister aware that, with regard to the proportion of homes available to let, or available to let after minor repairs, five of the worst 10 authorities are Conservative controlled? They include the London borough of Redbridge. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about appalling housing management in central Government—let us for a moment forget about the Ministry of Defence—let him consider the Department of Health's 14,000 homes that are empty, 15 per cent. of the total, and the Department of Transport's 666 homes that are vacant, 20 per cent. of the total.
    The hon. Gentleman likes to lecture local authorities. When will he lecture Conservative Ealing, in his constituency, which has a higher proportion of empty homes available to let than have Blackburn, Sheffield, Coventry, Salford, Manchester and 330 other councils? The Minister ought to put his own house in order before lecturing others.
    Sir George Young: Of all the spurious statistics I have ever seen, the list that the hon. Gentleman published this morning takes the biscuit. I am surprised that he was able to keep a straight face while asking that question. Of his top five worst councils, four have transferred their stock to housing associations, and four, between them, have 13 empty houses. According to the hon. Gentleman's twisted logic, those four authorities are worse performers than Lambeth, which has 1,000 voids. The hon. Gentleman tests the credulity of the House and of the country if he seeks to persuade us that Suffolk, Coastal is less efficient than Hackney or Lambeth.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend note that Hackney, Lambeth and Liverpool councils, all of which are on his list, are examples of extreme corruption? Is not it high time for a royal commission to investigate corruption in local government under socialism?
    Sir George Young: The remit of any such commission would be far wider than the humble responsibilities of the Minister with responsibility for housing. However, I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion.

    TUPE Regulations
    Ms Glenda Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has held on the operation in local government of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the acquired rights directive.
    Mr. Redwood: My right hon. and learned Friend has had a number of discussions about this matter. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment set out the Government's position on 11 March.
    Ms Jackson: Have not the Government failed to honour their obligation, under the acquired rights directive, to protect the rights of workers? Indeed, they face an action on this very issue in the European Court. Can the Minister give the House a guarantee that his Department will ensure that the transfer of undertakings provisions are no longer used to force workers to accept pay reductions and a worsening of their conditions of employment or get the sack? Or is he determined that his Department will play its full part in the Government's plans to turn this country into the sweat shop of Europe?
    Mr. Redwood: What an absurd question. The hon. Lady knows well that the Government will obey the law—the European directive and the British law as approved by the House of Commons. Will the hon. Lady and her party agree that competive tendering in local government gives value for money and better quality service? Is the Labour party aware that the auditor for Lambeth pointed out that, had it been competitively tendered, £20 million of work would have saved the taxpayers of Lambeth £5 million? Is the Labour party saying that the people of Lambeth and elsewhere should be denied that money because councils do not follow the rule of law?
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that the application of TUPE varies from case to case and that, contrary to the misleading impression which may have been created, unless there is a substantial transfer of personnel and premises, there are no transfers of undertakings as a result of the entirely appropriate policy of compulsory competive tendering?
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right; we need to look at matters case by case. He is also right to infer that many hundreds of successful competitive tenders have been organised in local government without the regulations being deemed to aply. As a result, many taxpayers have a better deal, many better quality services are provided and in some cases people have more rewarding jobs as well.
    Mr. Henderson: If the Minister wants to save public money through competitive tendering, is he aware that much public money is not being saved because of the confusion that is apparent in Government Departments? Is he aware that the civil service has been told by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that the acquired rights directive, which can protect conditions of employment, should apply to contracted-out jobs, yet his Department gives the opposite advice and says that the directive need not apply? Does the Minister accept that he is rapidly becoming marooned on a dated and

    915
    objectionable policy? Will he tell the House today that all Government Departments, including his own, will apply the rule of law?
    Mr. Redwood: I have already told the House that we intend to apply the rule of law, as we have been doing. Had the hon. Gentleman listened to my answer, he would have heard me say that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment have worked together on the guidance and advice. On 11 March, they issued guidance and advice that represent the Government's position. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would read it. It is clear, good advice which can provide value for money for central and local taxpayers.

    London Boroughs (Grant)
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the respective levels of central Government grant per household to the London boroughs of (a) Hackney and (b) Wandsworth.
    Mr. Robin Squire: The amount of external support—that is, revenue support grant plus non-domestic rates plus inner-London education grant—per household is £3,159 for Hackney and £1,984 for Wandsworth.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures show yet again that poor quality of service and high costs, such as apply in the Labour borough of Hackney, have nothing to do with the level of Government grant and everything to do with the failure to improve services and efficiency? If local authorities want to emulate Conservative boroughs such as Wandsworth, they should bring in efficiency savings, cut out fraud and stop Labour councillors claiming expenses at the rate of £300 a week, or £15,000 a head a year, money which would be better spent on people in need in their areas.
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend, who is very knowledgeable on these matters, made a number of telling points. He might also have pointed out that local authorities could also emulate the example of Wandsworth council in its collection record for the community charge. Hackney, in particular, has a poor collection performance: in the past two years, it was 53 per cent. and 57 per cent.; in the current year, it expects to collect only 91 per cent.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister accept that although he and his hon. Friends may wish to concentrate on a few examples of local authorities in London, the people who are informed about local government and councillors of all persuasions in urban areas of England outside London are convinced that the Government's disregard for unemployment and economic reality in their calculation of grants to local authorities is little better than corrupt?
    Mr. Squire: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman spoilt his question in the last part of it. As he knows, the Government are carefully reviewing the standard spending assessments and we are receiving submissions from councils of all political parties. We are carefully considering those submissions and meeting councillors as well. There is no question of the current system being corrupt. It is trying to do what is arguably absolutely impossible, which is to deliver a distribution mechanism that is approved by all local authorities. We seek to make
    916
    it recapture the inevitable expense faced by authorities. The system does that at present, and if it can do it even better in future, I shall be very pleased.

    Construction Industry
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the results of the current review of his Department's role as sponsoring Department for the construction industry.
    Mr. Howard: The review is due to be completed next month and I expect to announce the results shortly thereafter.
    Mr. Winterton: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that trade associations and the many hon. Members who support the objectives of the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance look to his Department not just to regulate the construction industry but to encourage it? Does he accept that his Department could act positively by removing administrative burdens, abolishing the archaic stamp duty on the sale of new houses and investing substantially in the improvement and modernisation of our housing stock and in major development projects?
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his characteristically modest shopping list. I entirely accept that part of my Department's duty is to encourage the construction industry. We are certainly doing that and I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming today's extremely encouraging news that total construction orders in the first quarter of this year were 22 per cent. up on the previous quarter.
    Mr. Morley: If the Minister wants to support the construction industry, why has he not removed the completely insane rules that prevent local councils from spending capital receipts from council house sales on building and renovating much-needed homes? In Glanford and Scunthorpe, which are not regarded as high-stress areas, investment by housing associations is very low. Both those councils, one of them Tory controlled, could advantageously use their capital receipts to provide decent homes and building jobs and provide support for the construction industry.
    Mr. Howard: I am astonished by the hon. Gentleman's question because, of course, from this year councils can use all their capital receipts for the purposes to which he referred. The councils that complained most in the past about their inability to spend capital receipts almost always did not take advantage, of the extent to which they were permitted, even under the old rules, to spend those receipts. The hon. Gentleman should have had regard to the facts before he put his question.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is important that local construction and building companies in areas such as mine should have a fair opportunity to compete for council work? I welcome the Department's current review of Canterbury city council and nine others to discover why their direct labour organisations are making such enormous losses. I refer my right hon. and learned Friend to the fact that 15 of the last 19 major contracts were given to the DLO, although in not one of them did the DLO offer the best tender.
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to these matters. We are reviewing them and shall do so carefully to make sure that the people of Canterbury do not lose as a consequence of any failure by the city council to follow the rules.

    Housing Estates
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to provide local authorities with additional resources for the refurbishment and redesign of housing estates.
    Mr. Baldry: We provide substantial resources to local authorities every year for capital spending on housing. The housing investment programme for this year is £1·75 billion, and a further £356 million is provided for the estate action programme and £87 million for housing action trusts. Local authorities may also draw on almost all capital receipts generated before the end of this year, which provides them with a major opportunity for additional spending on housing projects.
    Mr. Michael: Will the Minister admit that he is involved in the ridiculous business of giving with one hand and taking away with the other? An excellent local authority that I visited recently had a scheme to develop an estate, not least with a view to preventing crime, for which some money for phase 1 has been obtained from the Government. A cut in the authority's capital budget brought about by the Department meant that it has lost even more than it had gained from the grant. What would the Minister say to that authority? Is not that a ridiculous Government recycling operation that constrains councils and prevents them from doing what is needed in their communities?
    Mr. Baldry: What the hon. Gentleman says does not accord with the facts. This year, 167 new estate action schemes will be started. There are 225 existing schemes, many of which involve extensive estate refurbishment over a number of years. The regeneration of those estates will cost millions of pounds. We are investing in many of the worst run-down estates in the country. We are determined to ensure that every housing estate is brought up to a very good standard.
    Sir Donald Thompson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the estate action schemes that he has initiated in my constituency—in Brighouse, Elland and Todmorden. Many of those initiatives will stop estates from declining to the stage that has been reached in other parts of the country.
    Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Estate action schemes also enable tenants to become much more involved in the running of their estates. The means and the resources that we are providing ensure that tenants have a much greater influence over the homes and the areas in which they live.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister not accept that the reality is that many excellent estate action schemes have been put in jeopardy because insufficient capital resources have been provided to enable local authority grant applications to be met in full? In many cases, central Government assumptions about anticipated capital receipts led to grants being made that were far below what local
    918
    authorities had hoped to get. In housing partnership schemes, bids totalled £142 million, but grants amounted to only 20·71 per cent. of that total. Does the Minister not accept that estate action schemes cannot be carried out if local authorities do not have the money?
    Mr. Baldry: Last year, Burnley had an estate action scheme for the Bardon estate. This year, Burnley has had money for an estate action scheme for the Trafalgar Gardens estate. The reality is that this year 167 new estate action schemes will be started and we are investing £356 million in those schemes. About £1 billion has been invested in recent years in estate action, which has enabled estate action schemes to be carried out on no fewer than 1,000 estates.

    Local Authorities (Powers)
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to meet representatives of the Association of County Councils to discuss the powers of local authorities.
    Mr. Howard: The ACC has not asked for such a discussion. The next of my regular informal two-monthly meetings with the chairmen of the three local authority associations will take place on 7 June, and the ACC is at liberty to raise this or any other issue it wishes at that meeting.
    Mr. Jones: Have not the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his Government set out deliberately to undermine county government? Why did the Government not listen to the warnings from the counties that the poll tax—the right hon. and learned Gentleman's biggest mistake—would end in tears? Why does he not take this opportunity—his last appearance at the Dispatch Box as Secretary of State for the Environment—to acknowledge that he was wrong on the poll tax? As a Llanelli boy, born and bred, would he not say that he is in some small danger of exchanging his present post with that of the Secretary of State for Wales?
    Mr. Howard: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has to go back to the community charge because he finds so little in contemporary policies of which he can complain. When the Opposition go back to the community charge, we know that they are absolutely bereft of contemporary issues that they can raise.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: When considering the powers of local authorities, will my right hon. and learned Friend give some thought to the needs of people who live in areas such as Hackney and Lambeth, which are bywords for inefficiency and incompetence and, often, for corruption? Given the fact that Lambeth—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not in order. If he relates his question to the Association of County Councils and the powers of local authorities, he must be heard, but questions must be in order.
    Mr. Coombs: When discussing the matter with the Association of County Councils, will my right hon. and learned Friend place much stronger emphasis on the possibility of bringing in special commissioners to deal with councils where the ratepayer is not properly protected from the depredations of councils such as Lambeth and Hackney?
    Mr. Howard: As my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Planning and Construction pointed out a few moments ago, voters in the areas to which my hon. Friend has referred will have their opportunity within months to make it clear at the ballot box that they want no more of the disreputable government from which they suffered at Labour's hands.
    Mr. Vaz: The Secretary of State may be about to lose his voice, but I hope that he has not lost his memory. Does he not remember what happened on 6 May? Does he not agree that Labour's stunning success in the recent county council elections and the humiliating defeat of the Conservatives represent a powerful message from the electors of Britain, who do not want local government to be kicked around by the present Administration?
    Will the Secretary of State give the House an undertaking in regard to the Government's crude attempt to undermine local democracy and weaken the process of local accountability? He knows that, since 1979, 145 Acts of Parliament have been passed to curtail the powers of democratically elected local councils. Is not the true message of 6 May that power must be handed back to the people and taken away from the bureaucracy of central Government?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that, far from undermining local government, we have given it new powers and responsibilities. Far from imposing new controls on local government, one of the first things that the Government did in 1980 was sweep away 300 detailed controls on local government. Things may be different in Leicester, but I have never heard this issue raised on the doorstep.
    Mr. Gallie: When considering the affairs of local authorities with the Association of County Councils, will my right hon. and learned Friend ascertain whether it has ever discussed local authorities' input with regard to security in prisons in their areas? Is he aware that yesterday five prisoners—serious offenders—escaped from Saughton prison—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House is obviously demob-happy; it had better pull itself together. Let us move on to a question from another Scot.

    Ozone Layer
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps Her Majesty's Government proposes to take to combat the depletion of the ozone layer; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maclean: These Scots get everywhere.
    The Government are committed to phasing out ozone-depleting substances as quickly as possible. I will be arguing strongly for tighter controls of hydrochlorofluorocarbons and methyl bromide within the European Community than those in the Montreal protocol.
    Mr. Kirkwood: What the Government have done today is, of course, welcome. Is the Minister aware, however, that, despite the diplomatic and political moves that have been made, the scientific community is still extremely concerned about whether we are moving far and fast enough to deal with the degradation of the ozone layer? Will he consider working with his opposite numbers at the
    920
    Department of Trade and Industry in trying to take practical steps, such as encouraging the manufacture of propane refrigerators in this country? Many such refrigerators are manufactured in Germany, and they will be imported in great numbers if we do not wake up to the opportunities available in this country.
    Mr. Maclean: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about our diplomatic and ministerial progress in negotiations. The Copenhagen agreement, which we reached last November, had a phase-out date of 2030 for HCFCs; I shall be arguing for an ultimate phase-out date of 2015, at the latest.
    The hon. Gentleman is right: we should urge manufacturers to look at the size of the green market. The DTI and the Department of the Environment have jointly set up JEMU—the joint environmental markets unit. The unit, which is staffed by civil servants from the two Departments, is looking for market opportunities for a new green technology, both overseas and in this country.
    I am well aware of the existence of German propane refrigerators and, in speeches, I have taken every opportunity to urge our manufacturers to beware of the threat of such technology and to beat our competitors.
    Sir Giles Shaw: Will my hon. Friend note that in many other countries—for example, the United States and Japan—legislation is passed to create markets that industrialists can then follow, such as catalytic converters for cars, in which Johnson Matthey had a world lead? Britain has nothing so persuasive as the legislation in the United States or Japan; if it did, that would help to increase our domestic technology.
    Mr. Maclean: I accept that in certain circumstances creating a high target or objective, or even introducing regulation, can lead the market in a particular direction. However, I am much more concerned to point out to British industry that we expect the size of the global market in environmental goods and technology to rise to $300 billion by the turn of the century. That is larger than the world's global aerospace market.
    The opportunities are immense and I should prefer British industry to get there through persuasion. From the conferences I have attended and the discussions that I have had with representatives of British industry, I believe that they recognise the size of that market. It is better to liberate industry to capture that market than to smother it in regulation.
    Ms Short: Will the Minister confirm that depletion of the ozone layer led to a 40 per cent. increase in skin cancer in Britain between 1979 and 1991? Are not there now 28,000 cases a year, with the numbers rising? As well as supporting the most stringent conditions in the forthcoming EC directive, will the hon. Gentleman institute a programme of public education so that the public are aware of the need to protect themselves and their children from the growing risk of skin cancer caused by depletion of the ozone layer?
    Mr. Maclean: I am glad that someone has raised the shibboleth of skin cancer in the northern hemisphere as a consequence of depletion of the ozone layer. The fact is that depletion of the ozone layer in the northern hemisphere occurs only in winter and spring—February, March and into April. Because at that time of the year the

    921
    angle of the sun is so low on the horizon, there is very little extra ultraviolet radiation coming through. The danger arises for those who take holidays in very sunny climates.
    I have researched a statistic which I think the House will appreciate and which we can all understand. To get the
    922
    same dose of radiation and sunburn, a person would need to spend only one hour around the pool on the Costa Brava, while in Britain in February that person would need to spend 10 hours nude sunbathing in Birmingham.

Science, Engineering and Technology
3.32 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about Government policy on science, engineering and technology.
Following the debate in this House last June, I launched a consultation exercise about the future of science and technology in this country. That produced more than 800 responses. Many were of high quality, not least those submitted by the Science and Technology Committee in another place and the new Science and Technology Committee of this House, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw).
Very many of the responses I received from industry affirmed the quality of Britain's scientists and engineers. I believe that I speak for the whole House in saying that I agree with that judgment. I hope that I will also speak for the whole House when add to that my belief that on those scientists and engineers rests a very large part of our hopes for the future of our country. They represent one of our fundamental national assets. The Government now wish to build on that national strength by developing a closer and more systematic partnership between the scientific and engineering communities, industry and commerce, and Government. The purpose of that new partnership will be the strengthening of the contribution of science and engineering to wealth creation and the quality of life. That is the focus for the White Paper, "Realising Our Potential, a Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology", which we are publishing today. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
The principal themes that emerged from the consultation exercise were as follows. First, there was a widely perceived contrast between our continued excellence in science, engineering and technology and our relative weakness in exploiting it, especially to economic advantage. Secondly, many felt the absence of a clear statement of national strategy in that area. Thirdly, many felt that there was a need to manage the Government's investment in science and technology better.
The proposals in the White Paper address those themes and some others that are complementary to them. First, we have decided to provide a clear, annually updated, statement of the Government's strategy for science and technology, to be known as "The Forward Look". That will give an assessment of the balance and content of our science and technology programmes over the medium and longer term.
"The Forward Look" will draw on the results of our second innovation—a new technology foresight exercise, to be jointly conducted by industry, the science and engineering communities and Government Departments. The aims of the exercise—which reflects best practice in our leading companies and in other advanced countries—are to gain early notice of emerging key technologies and to provide a systematic process for the exchange of ideas, people and know-how. It will be steered by a group chaired by the chief scientific adviser and will aim to bring together working scientists and engineers with those in industry and commerce who are close to markets. Reflecting that and the other increased responsibilities laid
924
upon him by the White Paper, I should tell the House that the Government's chief scientific adviser will in future be paid at the grade 1A level.
Thirdly, we have decided to establish a new council for science and technology—which I shall chair on behalf of the Prime Minister—to provide the Government with independent and expert advice at the highest level on research spending priorities. That will replace the present ACOST. We shall also look to the newly established National Academies Policy Advisory Group as an authoritative source of independent advice.
The Government believe that we need to clarify what we expect from scientists and engineers in universities and research council institutes in relation to the creation of wealth and improvement of our quality of life. Therefore, we intend to restructure the research councils, to reformulate their missions and strengthen their links with those who use their research, and to improve their management arrangements.
In particular, the Government wish to build on the steps taken by the present Science and Engineering Research Council to develop structures more clearly related to the needs of users of research. I have therefore decided that the Science and Engineering Research Council should be divided into two new councils: an Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, which will underpin key industries based on engineering and the physical sciences, and a Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council. The Agricultural and Food Research Council will be modified into a Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, reflecting the increasing importance of the life sciences. The coverage of the Natural Environment Research Council, the Medical Research Council and the Economic and Social Research Council will remain broadly as it is now.
Reflecting advice given in the consultation process, the functions of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils will be absorbed within the Office of Science and Technology.
Next, the Government's arrangements for the promotion of innovation, for technology transfer and the spread of best practice will be substantially strengthened, taking account of the Faraday principles on the interchange of ideas, know-how and skills. Access to technology will be improved, irrespective of its source, for firms of all sizes. The secretariat of the LINK programme will be transferred from the DTI to my Department to emphasise the importance of its role in bringing the science base and industry together.
The Government have reviewed the dual support mechanism under which funding for research in universities is provided through both the higher education funding councils and the research councils. We have concluded that uncertainty about its future should be ended. Funding for teaching and general research should continue to flow together. We have therefore decided that the present dual funding arrangements should be retained. Arrangements for co-ordination with the science and engineering base will be strengthened to ensure that the funding councils and the research councils establish close co-ordination.
The Government wish the research councils and universities to develop research training more closely related to the needs of potential employers and designed to encourage young people to see science and engineering careers as worth while and attractive. That will involve

925
further development of the content of postgraduate courses and changes in the balance of the support provided by the research councils, with a masters course becoming the normal initial postgraduate degree in science, engineering and technology. More care should be taken to manage the careers of those postgraduates who go on to do academic research.
During the past 20 years the Rothschild customer-contractor principle has been successfully applied in the management of Departments' spending on the research and development that is directly related to the support of their policies. The Government now wish further to strengthen the role of Departments as customers for research and development and to create a fully open market for the provision of research and development to Departments, so that all competent contractors can compete for work. Further work is therefore being set in hand on the best ownership and organisational arrangements for civil research establishments in the public sector.
The Government also recognise that science and technology must now be seen in a global perspective. Co-operation with other countries is essential and the United Kingdom will play its full role while aiming to improve our take-up of research carried out overseas.
Our future depends on the effective exploitation of science and technology. That is not just a question of producing excellently educated and trained scientists, engineers and technicians at all levels, crucial though that is. We need also to ensure that our society as a whole appreciates the role and importance of mathematics, science, engineering and technology. The Government intend to raise the profile of the work presently done to improve public understanding of science. We will do this by extending our partnership with the charities and other bodies which are already doing much good work in the schools and elsewhere. I shall be committing additional funds from my budget to that purpose.
The White Paper sets out the framework within which we can better develop and exploit the work of our many excellent scientists and engineers in industry, the academic community and Government. It represents the beginning of a process of change, not the end. I am confident that we shall have the backing of British industry and of those who work in our science and engineering base in building the stronger partnership that is crucial to Britain's success. It is a strategy that is indeed designed to realise our potential, and I commend it to the House.
Dr. Lewis Moonie: A year ago, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster promised us the White Paper, which he has finally seen fit to present to the House today; a further year of wasted opportunity, dithering and delay; a further year of recession, rising unemployment and contraction of our manufacturing base. The White Paper fails to meet expectations on almost every key issue facing British science and engineering today.
We welcome the right hon. Gentleman's commitment to an annual assessment of Government strategy, but there are no new resources available to meet even the limited objectives laid out in the White Paper. There is no new system for underpinning technology transfer and near-market research, and there is no hope for the
926
thousands of young scientists existing on a pittance while studying for their higher degrees, and no solution for the slightly older men and women who are stuck on the research ladder with short-term contracts and no prospect of a permanent position. Without those key commitments, the right hon. Gentleman has no chance of success; he is building castles in the air.
We welcome the few positive measures within the White Paper. Unification of the science advisory councils makes sense, but why has the Advisory Board for Research Councils' function been merely internalised? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether, in keeping with his supposed commitment to open government, all advisory papers and recommendations will be made public?
The right hon. Gentleman intends to reorganise the research councils on the most dubious of premises, but finds no room for a research council for the humanities, despite the advice that he has had on the subject. Why not?
We welcome the introduction of an MSc as a standard step on the road to a research doctorate. Will that new degree be fully funded and, if not, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there will be a consequent reduction in the number of PhD awards? Does he accept that that is no substitute for a full review of career prospects in research?
We have argued for the separation of international subscriptions from the research council budget and therefore support the right hon. Gentleman's proposal to do so, as we also support his new responsibilities for teaching company and LINK schemes. Does he accept that that still leaves four fifths of Government spending on research and development outwith his control, which weakens his position?
We welcome his belated acceptance of the need for Government support for near-market research. Will he explain how he proposes to achieve that using a departmental committee, without new resources, without any semblance of a regional policy and without any infrastructure of support for technology transfer?
Why will he not agree to consider the creation of intermediate research centres or Faraday institutes? What is the point of merely talking about a Faraday concept? Why has he not considered awarding tax credits for additional research and development, which are proven to have a beneficial effect? Where is there any commitment to increase Government spending on research and development?
Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that promises of support for technology and research foresight will be ill received while his colleague, the President of the Board of Trade, proceeds with the closure of the Warren Spring laboratory? Does he accept that he in turn will cause dismay in other research establishments by his allusion to further market testing?
We have waited a long time for the White Paper, and its lack of concrete proposals is all the more telling for that. The right hon. Gentleman has shown that, although he may be a good listener, he is not prepared to take the advice offered. In the context of our present economic plight, the White Paper is a complete failure. In the eyes of the science community, it will be a bitter disappointment, and to the country at large just what it has come to accept as normal from this useless Government.
The truth is that the Government still have no science policy. We need a Government with a commitment to science, technology transfer and better trained and better

927
paid scientists. Instead, the statement condemns us to hobble into the future with an underfunded science base and fewer scientists, because of the Government's failure to invest in our future.
Mr. Waldegrave: I was going to, and will still, congratulate the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) on his first appearance on the Front Bench to reply to a statement. However, I shall not congratulate him on the fact that he has the tone and content completely wrong. I was hoping not to have to respond to the type of cheap party points that the hon. Gentleman has made but, as he wants to play it at that level, let me tell him that a representative of the Save British Science campaign told my office that he thought that the Labour party's document—the hon. Gentleman's document—was "pathetic". That is fair.
Before the hon. Gentleman's colleagues start talking about money, let me remind him that the document's opening sally is the immensely patronising remark:
"Too many organisations simply stated the case for more money."
That is the Labour party's response to every issue. It is a poor document, and the best thing to do with it is put it aside. The hon. Gentleman may not have read it—perhaps he did not write it—because it recommends the internalisation of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the four fifths of Government spending which is outside my Department. Is he recommending a centralised department to control the whole spend of Government on science and technology and applied R and D? I do not think that there is such a department anywhere in the world, and it would be a very foolish Government who set one up. It is a weak and odd argument.
The hon. Gentleman did not refer to the research foresight exercise—perhaps he does not know what it is. We recently published a paper produced by the science policy research unit at Sussex university, which I commend to him. It will show him how we are now joining the majority of countries in carrying out a proper critical technology foresight exercise.
As for intermediate institutes, I recommend the hon. Gentleman to make a short journey down the road to Imperial college to see the interdisciplinary research centre. We have intermediate institutes, and it is not sensible to add to the institutional structure when we should be trying to bring the whole of our capacity for science and engineering closer to industry. That is the purpose of the White Paper, which I believe he will find is widely welcomed in the community. In the weeks ahead, he will find that he has misjudged the opinion of those whom he should have consulted. If that document is all that he could produce at the end of 12 months, he should read more accurately what we have produced. The purpose of the White Paper is to give a lead and a focus to our national strategy for science and engineering. That is what it will do, and I believe that it will be widely welcomed by others wiser than the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Exchanges between the two Front Benches have taken about 20 minutes, and many hon. Members are seeking to ask questions. I therefore look for brief questions and answers.
Sir Giles Shaw: Unlike the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the publication of his White Paper. I congratulate him, too, on the fact that my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Education have been with him on the Front Bench, which reflects the crucial nature of the decision that he has made.
I welcome the White Paper both for its broad scope and for its focus on priorities. In questioning my right hon. Friend on what he has said at this juncture, may I ask that the partnership that he seeks might include the House, too, and the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which I have the honour to chair?
Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to ensure that, when the annual "Foward Look" is debated in the House, we shall be able to see not only what the priorities are but where the funding will flow to ensure that those priorities are achieved, so that the forward look that he seeks to implement will be fully costed and fully accepted as part of the policy that he has engendered?
Finally, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the mechanism for the assessment, as between the chief scientific adviser and his other colleagues in the operating Departments, will indeed lead to a joint commitment to joint objectives that represent the priorities for science?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right; our purpose is indeed to meet his third point. On his first point, my hon. Friend has noticed the fundamental fact that we shall now have a proper opportunity in the House for annual debate and analysis of the science and engineering strategy of the country, on the basis of the forward look. I believe that the two Select Committees will be major contributors.
My hon. Friend mentioned the fact that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Education and the President of the Board of Trade are here—as, indeed, is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, the home of many formidable scientific and engineering institutions. My right hon. Friends' presence here represents the Government's commitment, and the building of a new strategy of partnership between industry and the science base.
Mr. Don Foster: Does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster accept that, notwithstanding one or two welcome parts of it, his statement promised a great deal but delivered very little? Does he not accept that, in two crucial areas, the statement was most disappointing? First, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he has ducked the issue of funding? Is he not concerned that, with the exception of Turkey, this country is the only OECD country in which research and development funding has declined as a percentage of GDP? Does he not agree with his right hon. Friend who is now the President of the Board of Trade, who in 1989 wrote in his book that that trend must be reversed?
Secondly, does the Chancellor of the Duchy not accept that the issue of innovation, which it was promised would be the crucial part of the statement, has fared badly? After all, innovation is the key to Britain's future. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why it has not had the high status that it deserves? Is it because, yet again, he has failed to get his act together with the Department of Trade and Industry?
Mr. Waldegrave: If the hon. Gentleman read my statement through, and read the White Paper too, he would find that my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry are indeed raising the profile of innovation work. The President of the Board of Trade will today issue plans that will concentrate the innovation work where it should be concentrated, in small to medium-sized firms, which is where market failure can take place. When the hon. Gentleman considers such matters at rather more leisure, he will find that we have clear plans for improving innovation and the transfer of technology between the science base and industry.
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, or should know, that there is an annual cycle for funding, and we do not announce funding decisions ad hoc in White Papers. Over the past 14 years, the Government have protected the science base in real terms—which, incidentally, is more than the Labour party did all those decades ago. Our commitment to funding these policies properly is set out clearly in the White Paper.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend accept a welcome for his statement? We look forward to reading the White Paper. In the meantime, can he explain a little further how he will liaise with such bodies as the Royal Society for Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, which had such a good seminar on this subject, the Academy of Engineering and well established engineering schools such as that at Sussex university to which he referred and whose science policy research unit has already had input?
Mr. Waldegrave: I pay tribute to the science policy research unit, because I made considerable use of its advice in the writing of this White Paper. We commissioned a specific paper from the unit as part of the background. Many hon. Members will agree that the RSA has been one of the most useful national forces, perhaps especially for the meeting of the sciences and the humanities, and I welcome that.
Today, I shall emphasise the importance that we attach to the initiative taken by the other royal society, the Royal, the Academy of Engineering and the royal colleges, which are setting up for the first time in the United Kingdom a combined policy advisory group—if you like, the academy of academies based on the American model. It will give us the capacity to have united advice that is truly independent from outside, and I welcome that. We shall work with it and listen closely to its advice.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: While the Chancellor has been making some minor administrative arrangements in his office, has he done anything for the role of science and technology in British industry, which is so necessary? The President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Education are here, but where is the Secretary of State for Defence? Has the Chancellor won any battles with them? Where is the Met Office? Where is its essential contribution to global climate research? Why is Britain the only country in the world that has left its Met Office in the hands of the Ministry of Defence?
In terms of the research councils, why has he abolished the ABRC, only to internalise it in his Department, so that the advice of scientists will be buried instead of published? Why has he not provided for a regular review of all departmental expenditure on science in the annual public expenditure review? That procedure existed before he took
930
office, but he seems to have abandoned it. Is he aware that he has not so much rearranged the deckchairs on the Titanic as allowed them to collapse?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman drafted his question some time ago. He may not have read, as many others have not, the Labour party's statement on this. It provides good arguments for bringing the ABRC into my Department, as do the Royal Society and many others who gave us advice.
There will be a gain in openness because, for the first time, "The Forward Look" will contain proper strategic advice and predictions about the looking forward policy. That does not mean that we will in any way abandon the backward-looking account that is published at present—we will continue to publish it. As the hon. Gentleman may know, that looks backwards. The point is that no strategic document that looks forward is published at present, and the innovation will be welcomed.
I did not arrange for the director of the Met Office to be here, and I apologise for that. The Met Office is extremely effective, and there is no overwhelming evidence to change the arrangements with regard to it. It is the source of worldwide admiration.
As for defence, we have relatively recently established the Defence Research Agency, which will not only improve the arrangements in that Department in terms of the scientific advice, the technological advice and the purchasing that is available to the Ministry, but turn out to be a formidable agent for the interaction of technology and the transfer of defence technology to the civil base. That will be a good thing.
Sir Trevor Skeet: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his good statement, and, indeed, on upgrading the engineer in the eyes of the United Kingdom. Can I ask him about biotechnology, which is divided between four departments at present and is to be transferred to the AFRC? Is it wise to take it away from the chemical funding that it has received in past years under SERC?
Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. Engineers will welcome the establishment of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. Industry will also welcome it, because we now have a research council dedicated to the underpinning of those central engineering, electronic and other industries. We have not had that so specifically in the past.
I have listened carefully to the advice about the relocation of the biotechnological and biological sciences. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the industries are split three, if not four, ways at present. I shall shift most of what is presently with SERC to the AFRC and the new BBRC. I have asked Sir David Phillips to preside over a committee that will look at the exact allocations of the transfers in the next few months. There will be close consultation with the experts about them.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: One of the most crucial subjects contained in the White Paper is that of innovation, as several of my hon. Friends have remarked. One of the ways in which Germany has ensured its success in that area is by funding generously a network of Fraunhofer institutes, which carry out that function successfully. Does the Minister feel that that is a good model on which to base the transfer of technology in this

931
country, and, if so, do the Government have any intention to fund such institutes as generously as the German Government fund theirs?
Mr. Waldegrave: We have studied the Fraunhofer institutes closely, and Sir David Phillips has led a team to look at them. The House of Lords Select Committee, as the hon. Lady no doubt knows, also studied the subject, and it came down against setting up similar institutes. On balance, the Government took the view that the noble Lords were right in that decision.
It is not true that all the German Fraunhofer institutes are successful. There is a wide variation among them. Some are, some are not. Our view was that, rather than doing the characteristically British thing of inventing new institutions, we should do the more difficult but far more important thing and get our science and engineering capacity more closely related to industry. We can do that.
Mr. Simon Coombs: My right hon. Friend will be aware that four of the five research councils are headquartered in my constituency. Can he give an assurance to the staff of the research councils that the changes that he has adumbrated this afternoon will not affect them in terms of job losses or relocation to other parts of the United Kingdom? Will the creation of a new research council for particle physics and astronomy be matched by a recognition of the importance of big science internationally, and therefore the need to fund it to cope with the depredations of currency changes such as we have seen in recent years?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is an extremely effective representative of the interests of the research councils based in his constituency. He will not expect me to say that we shall never seek further efficiency gains in the bureaucracy necessary for the distribution of money. It would be wrong of me to do so. If we can do it better, we should. However, nothing inherent in the plans that I have announced today should worry my hon. Friend's constituents.
I pay tribute to Sir Mark Richmond, the chairman of the present SERC, who has worked closely with us in developing this next step. United Kingdom particle physicists and astronomers—we have some extremely good people in both categories, and I name just one at random: Sir Martin Rees of Cambridge—will welcome the proposal that they should have their own base in Britain where they can argue properly the claims of big science openly.
Physicists and astronomers will not have to fight out their claims with the non-comparable smaller sciences within the bigger SERC. They will also see a gain in the fact that such currency fluctuations as affect them—currency fluctuations affect subscriptions, for example, of CERN from time to time—will be shared by the whole science base, which is more than £1 billion, rather than being borne only by CERN. That will give them greater stability.
Mr. Andrew Miller: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster seems to have forgotten the objectives of some of his research part of the way through. Will he answer the observation by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) about Warren Spring? It is an important observation, which puts things into context.
932
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what discussions he has had with the Treasury about protection of international projects such as CERN against fluctuations in exchange rates? I congratulate the Chancellor on spelling "Faraday" correctly, unlike his colleague the Prime Minister, who spelt it incorrectly in the press briefing last week. Would the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to explain to the House precisely what is meant by "taking into account" the Faraday principles on the interchange of ideas, know-how and so on? That was not terribly clear from his statement, and the House deserves an explanation.
Mr. Waldegrave: On Warren Spring, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has not taken any final decision. From time to time, it is necessary to change the administrative structures, but what matters above all is the maintenance of the science and technology capacity that we need in this country.
I answered the point about CERN when I replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs). When the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) considers the matter, he will find that there is a considerable advantage, in terms of the exchange rate fluctuations, in spreading the risk, as well as the gain, which sometimes happens, over a wider base.
I know that the hon. Gentleman knows very well what the Faraday principles are, as I do. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales led a high-grade group which produced a report recommending those principles. As I told the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), we endorse those principles, but we do not believe that they should be confined to special institutions. They should be part of the policy steering the entire science and engineering base. That is the point.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend accept that anyone interested in science will now be absolutely convinced that we have a Government who take science seriously? If there is need of proof of that, it is found in the very fact that we are now to upgrade our chief scientific adviser, so that he will be one of the highest paid civil servants.
Will my right hon. Friend tell me exactly where the new type of research into the scientific aspects necessary for the destruction of nuclear weapons will take place? There is a great need for that work to continue and to assist the Russians in their work in that regard.
Mr. Waldegrave: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. He is right: the White Paper represents the Government's central commitment to these subjects. My right hon. Friend's second point is also a fair one. Professor Stewart, who is known to many in this House, and is one of the most distinguished people in science, deserves the ranking that goes with his higher pay, because he will be carrying out more extensive duties.
Work is going on in the Ministry of Defence and the Department of the Environment on the destruction of nuclear weapons. Last week, I visited the British Geological Survey, which is the type of high-quality institution whose basic and applied work lies behind the safe disposal of radioactive waste. We should be proud of its capacity to give us professional advice on that matter—advice which it gives around the world.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Why is it that Japanese industry registered 350,000 patents last year, one third of the world total, while the United Kingdom registered a seventh of that number? Why is that, when we have the inventive skills? In this century, we have won 61 Nobel prizes, while Japan has won just four.
How will the White Paper prevent a repeat of the disaster of British technology when one of the five best British inventions of the past 20 years, the transputer, was lost to this country? It was invented in the Chancellor's constituency and mine. If the recommendations in the White Paper had been in place two years ago, would that have prevented the transputer from being stolen from this country to be manufactured in France and Italy?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman should not be too pessimistic. He should remember that we export a higher percentage of our GDP than does Japan. I agree with his fundamental point that we can learn from Japan and other countries. The fundamental approach that Japan has used, ever since the second world war, is based on a systematic survey of the technological advances made in other countries and in its laboratories. That is the very technique which we are borrowing and placing at the centre of our approach. The hon. Gentleman should welcome that—we would not be introducing our plans if there were not improvements to be made.
Everyone in this country knows that we have to bridge the gap between our inventiveness in the laboratory and our effectiveness as marketers of good ideas. That is why we believe that, if we bring people close together at an early stage—as is done in the United States, France, Germany and Japan—we are likely to, indeed we will, gain.
Mr. Michael Shersby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that applied research is vital for the regeneration of our manufacturing base? Why does applied research receive only one tenth the funding of pure research? Will he end the policy whereby the spend on astronomy and nuclear physics is 35 per cent. of all funding, while expenditure on engineering is only 26 per cent? What assurance can he give me and my constituents at Brunel university that engineering will be given the priority that it needs if Britain's industry is to be regenerated?
Mr. Waldegrave: One thing that I have learnt during the extensive consultation that we have had with successful science-based industries in this country is that those industries do not want us to abandon good basic research. When asked, Dr. Richard Sykes, the chief operating officer of Glaxo, replies that what he wants from the country in which he invests—he is free to move his investment anywhere—is well-trained people and good basic research.
I agree with my hon. Friend and with Sir John Fairclough's recent remarks that we took an oversimplified view that we should automatically withdraw Government support from near-market research. We should judge matters on a pragmatic basis, and first consider where the market is failing. We should adopt the approach—set out in the White Paper—of asking whether there is a market failure that matters to this country, then decide whether the Government should act to remedy it within the available resources. We should not withdraw
934
from basic research sectors, where the Government's role is fundamental because industry does not usually play an important part.
Mr. Sam Galbraith: I congratulate the Minister on his statements on basic science. Does he agree that the most difficult part of research is the generation of ideas, without which there can be no other research, no matter what other organisations we have? What does the White Paper contain to assist in the generation of ideas, bearing in mind the fact that that requires time and security? Is not the shift towards masters' degrees a retrograde step? Will the masters' degrees be in addition to doctorates or will the number of doctorates available be reduced?
Mr. Waldegrave: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is right on that matter. I take the same view as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie)—the Labour party document makes the same recommendation. I believe that a better and perhaps wider basis for the beginning of postgraduate training is sensible. Many people start their PhDs without knowing what the postgraduate world is like and sometimes find that they are not in the right place.
Slightly clearer guidance and steerage at the beginning of post-graduate life would be good for those people, some of whom will find that they do not want to go on to obtain a PhD. They will have gained an additional postgraduate qualification, which will be useful to them when they seek jobs in industry.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there were 800 responses to the White Paper? Bearing in mind the strongly held views of Opposition Members, expressed at considerable length by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), will my right hon. Friend state whether the official Opposition made any submission during the consultation period on the White Paper?
Mr. Waldegrave: It slipped their notice, and I do not think they did—I certainly do not remember it. The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), who regularly sends me advice, may have sent a submission, but I do not remember receiving one from the Opposition Front Bench team.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: What does the White Paper contain that is likely to lead to the unification of the engineering profession, which consists of more than 40 different institutions—a direct cause of the lack of esteem and protection of function within engineering and industry? Surely the White Paper must contain something that will put an end to the chaos. Surely it should have addressed the issue of legal protection, with regard to function and title, for the engineering profession. That is the only way in which industry and boardrooms will ever take the profession seriously.
Mr. Waldegrave: I happen to agree with the hon. Gentleman, but it must be for the engineering profession itself to organise its institutions. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Sir John Fairclough is now taking some steps in that direction. It would be wrong for the Government to lay down the law in respect of these matters.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that among Conservative

935
Members there is strong support not only for his statement, but also for the very pertinent point that has just been made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), with which I heartily agree? Will my right hon. Friend look again at this matter to see whether the Government might exert some influence? The maintenance of dual funding is absolutely essential, for the reasons that he has given—reasons connected with the science base—and will be widely welcomed in the university world.
Mr. Waldegrave: I certainly hear my hon. Friend. Bearing in mind the 100 years, or more, of background to the attempts to unify the engineering industry, as well as the fact that the profession itself now seems to be moving in that direction, it is much better that it should lead.
On the question of dual funding, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It would have been a bad signal to the universities if we had shown that we wanted to divorce teaching and research. The universities have a specific role, not only in teaching and in the creation of a research environment and the transmission of knowledge, but also in picking up original ideas and backing them to the point where the research councils can support them with mission-oriented research funds. Those two roles have been well founded in this country over the years.
Mr. John Gunnell: The Secretary of State has referred twice to protection of science funding against exchange rate fluctuations. On each occasion, he has said that the scientific community will bear the risk and, possibly, take the gain. Could not the right hon. Gentleman devise a mechanism whereby the Government bore the risk? With exchange rates as they are at present, that would be a safer option for the scientific community.
Mr. Waldegrave: In the end, it is taxpayers' money that has to be spent, and I should think that it is bound to be included in the science budget. I shall not repeat a point that I made earlier, but I shall say that the new arrangements will be better than the existing ones. Ultimately, whether to subscribe to a big international organisation, which might involve us in certain risks, is a judgment to be made by people with science policy responsibilities.
Miss Emma Nicholson: As the parliamentary member of the Medical Research Council, I welcome the White Paper. My right hon. Friend was good enough to meet a delegation, including myself, from the MRC. I thank him warmly for recognising that the chairmanship and managerial structure of the council are so good that it should be identified for replication. I thank him also for recognising that the concordat between the Medical Research Council and the Department of Health is unique and for suggesting that it too should be replicated by other research councils.
Has he given careful consideration to ways in which European Community research might be furthered and disseminated most effectively? I put that question because I know that Dr. Dai Rees and Dr. David Evered, the Nos. 1 and 2 in the Medical Research Council, as well as the council's chairman, Sir David Plaistow, regard this as a matter of great importance.
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend, to whom I pay tribute for her work on the Medical Research Council, has
936
made two perfectly fair points. The Medical Research Council has been a success story. I have sought to replicate elsewhere both the council's structures and the relationship that it has established over the years with pure scientists working in its area and with the industrial base. If industry could achieve relationships such as have been achieved by the purist laboratories under MRC aegis—for example, the laboratory of molecular biology in Cambridge—we should do very well across the frontier.
On the concordats, I agree with my hon. Friend that the clarity of relationship between MRC and the Department of Health is a useful model. Within the constraints of the slightly different relationships with some other research councils, it could be replicated.
On the very important subject of European Community research, I should like to put on record my belief that, although the administration has not always been as good as we should like, the Community has begun seriously to contribute to the welfare of people in Europe. There are good programmes under the third framework programme. I am proud that, proportionately, British scientists win a greater share than those from other countries. We are coming to the negotiation of the fourth framework programme, and we will make a full contribution to the development of strategy under it.
Mr. Donald Anderson: The Minister will be aware of the dictum of Lord Porter of Luddenham, a former president both of the Royal Society and of the Royal Society of Chemistry, that
"All chemistry is either applied or not yet applied."
So he will perhaps understand the scepticism about a possible artificial distinction, given the continuum between applied science and the core. Given that, in relation to the splitting of SERC, can the Minister assure the House that the chemistry committee of SERC will remain in its present form?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman's question gives me an opportunity, which I welcome, to clarify an important point. In everything I am doing, I am seeking to avoid the establishment of artificial divisions between applied and basic. I do not believe that those so-called Frascati definitions are necessarily helpful. We had advice, for example from the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology, that we should completely separate the funding of the two. I believe that that would be wrong.
What I am seeking to do, and what I believe we will achieve under the framework that I have set out, is to bring the whole science base, running from the purest through to the applied work, closer to industrial and user decision-taking, because that will benefit both sides.
The benefit to the chemist and the other, in shorthand, small sciences that will come from the division of the research councils will be great. SERC had to make judgments between chalk and cheese, or astronomers and chemists, that were too difficult for it. I see no reason why the chemistry board of SERC should not continue, although it will be for the new chairman and the director of the new Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council to make their own disposition.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: We must move on.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I will take the point of order of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell); it appears to be a point of frustration.
Mr. Dalyell: It is a point of frustration. This is a very important issue. Many of us have spent a great deal of our parliamentary lives on the subject. To cut the contributions is very rough going. Some of my hon. Friends have spent much time on the issue, yet they cannot put questions.
Madam Speaker: It is too large a subject to be left; I am sure that the House will come back to it. I must make the point, reluctantly, that the hon. Gentleman was not in his place in the Chamber for the Minister's statement.
Mr. Dalyell: Yes, I was.
Madam Speaker: Order. He came into the Chamber when the Minister was responding to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As a matter of record, I was in the Chamber for the statement. Then I went out to get the White Paper so that my colleagues and I could check what it said.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I watch very carefully to see that hon. Members who wish to put questions on a statement remain in their places. I have always made that clear.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Spaker: Are there other points of order on that matter?
Dr. Robert Spink: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I stayed right through the statement and the questions on it. Can you advise me when I may have an opportunity to comment in the House on the White Paper?
Madam Speaker: I am sure that the business manager for the Government will give some indication on that. It is not for the Speaker, but no doubt we shall return to the matter. If hon. Members had heeded my earlier caution about brief questions and answers, I might have been able to help all hon. Members who were rising.

Points of Order
3.14 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is genuine, specific and urgent, and is relevant to you, as the authorities of the House are accountable to you for the discharge of their duties.
May I refer you to page 292 of "Erskine May", which sets out the matters on which Ministers will refuse to answer questions? They are detailed on that page and include discussions between Ministers, discussions between Ministers and advisers, proceedings in Cabinet, or the security and secret services. It is the practice of the Clerks of the House to refuse to accept for tabling questions that fall within those categories or that Ministers have refused to answer. There is no authority for that in Standing Order No. 17, but it has become the practice of the House.
May I put to you, Madam Speaker, the difficulty that the House and, to be fair to them, the Clerks now find themselves in as a result of the consistent decision of Ministers to refuse to answer questions relating to matters that are before the Scott inquiry? This is a new and unwelcome development. The Scott inquiry is not sub judice, and it is not part of the parliamentary process, as is a Select Committee. It is a departmental inquiry that will report to the President of the Board of Trade.
On previous occasions, the Table Office has accepted questions relating to matters that are before departmental inquiries, and Ministers have answered them. I have here a printout of more than 25 questions relating to the BCCI inquiry, which is precisely analogous to the Scott inquiry, in that it was a departmental inquiry chaired by Lord Justice Bingham.
What makes the decision to block questions in the Scott departmental inquiry particularly objectionable is that Lord Justice Scott has taken the welcome step of holding his hearings in public. As a result of that decision, counsel can ask questions and journalists can report questions and answers on the very subjects on which hon. Members are being debarred from asking questions. I cannot think of a distinction more likely to encourage Parliament to fall into desuetude and disrespect.
Yesterday, I sought to table a specific question of detail on which there was clear ministerial responsibility. I am mindful of the convention that it is not customary to read out questions that have been debarred, and I shall not do so, but for the guidance of the House I must say that that question did not turn on any issue of interpretation or subjectivity: it was a clear, precise question with clear, precise ministerial accountability. The Table Office yesterday refused to print that question. I suggest that that decision does a disservice to the House.
I appreciate that the House authorities cannot compel Ministers to answer questions, but nor do I think it right that they should protect Ministers from being seen to refuse questions for which there is no valid reason for not answering.
The House has a duty to scrutinise and challenge the Executive. The authorities should assist us in that role, and it would be most regrettable if the role of the authorities came to be seen as protecting Ministers from questions that are specific, urgent and within their ministerial responsibility.
Mr. Jim Cousins rose—
Madam Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to speak to the point of order?
Mr. Cousins: No.
Madam Speaker: I shall reply to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) before I take another point of order.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, he cannot seek by way of a point of order to refer to a question that has been refused. As the House knows, "Erskine May" makes it quite clear that an hon. Member who wishes to make representations to me should do so privately and not on the Floor of the House. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will do that.
Mr. Robin Cook: Further to my point of order, Madam Speaker. I shall be most satisfied to take the matter up with you privately, but I reserve the right to make any point of order that arises when we return from the recess.
Madam Speaker: I am sure that I will not debar the hon. Gentleman from raising a point of order.
Mr. Chris Smith: On a separate point of order., Madam Speaker. Yesterday afternoon, I received a reply to a question that I had tabled to the Secretary of State for the Environment. My question related to what plans the Government have to introduce legislation to create an environmental protection agency, to change the administrative arrangements for national parks, or to implement the provisions of the European Community habitats directive. The answer that I received was that the Government were working
"for the early creation of the Environment Agency and … legislation will be introduced as soon as the necessary parliamentary time can be found."
The answer clearly indicated a sense of urgency and rapid action by the Government, yet we know that for the last two weeks the Government have been briefing journalists that no legislation of any kind will appear before this House in the forthcoming parliamentary Session. Surely the Government are guilty of saying one thing in an answer to the House and another to the world outside.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must understand that I am not responsible for ministerial answers to questions. He must find other methods to pursue what is not in fact a point of order for me.
Dr. John Gilbert: May I raise with you, Madam Speaker, another point that relates to the Scott inquiry. As a former member of the Trade and Industry Select Committee in the last Parliament—I have refreshed my memory of these matters by looking at videos this week—I can state that evidence given to the inquiry by Sir Hal Miller, a former Member of this House and deputy chairman of the Conservative party, while seeking to protect a member of the public, a former senior executive of the Walter Somers company, in a constituency next door to mine, unambiguously convicts that gentleman of telling an untruth to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry.
I emphasise that the point I raise has nothing whatever to do with the conduct of Ministers. It relates to what a witness said to the Select Committee about whether or not
940
certain tubes for export to Iraq were or were not intended for military purposes. I realise that, when it comes to questions of privilege, I have to write to you, Madam Speaker, but I hope that you will give me an assurance that you will inform yourself of these matters. The character of an important member of the public from Dudley borough is impugned by the evidence given by Sir Hal Miller to the Scott inquiry.
Madam Speaker: Let me make it clear—I hope the House will understand this—that, as the guardian of the interests of the House and of its reputation, I take a close interest in anything that relates to those responsibilities. I do not underestimate in any way the significance of what is being said to the Scott inquiry, but the House must trust me. It must trust me, in the exercise of my discretion, to use my best judgment as to whether, or when, it would be appropriate for me to grant any applications that are made to me. These are not matters on which I should be pressed to change my mind across the Floor of the House.
Mr. Jim Cousins: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have been kind enough to respond to my letter to you, and I understand the contents of your reply. You ask me to wait until the Scott inquiry is completed, when I understand that I may write to you again on the matter. My point is that your decision in that respect should not inhibit in any way any Select Committee from taking up matters of fact or record that may come out of the Scott inquiry.
Madam Speaker: Select Committees are in charge of their own proceedings. It is not for the Speaker of this House to inhibit them. Select Committees have automony and are in charge of their own proceedings.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received any application, from either the Secretary of State for Defence or the Foreign Secretary, to come to the House to make a statement about the coup in Guatemala? Before this House reassembles, British troops will be withdrawn, in some measure, plus units of the RAF, from Belize, which is on the border with Guatemala. Guatemala has now ceased to be a democracy, yet that was the basis upon which all these assumptions were being carried forward.
Madam Speaker: I have not had a request from a Minister to make such a statement, but the Ministers on the Treasury Bench have no doubt heard what the hon. Lady said.
Mr. George Foulkes: I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has just said, Madam Speaker, but mine is a different point of order.
As you know, since last night I have been trying to get one of the Fisheries Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement about the tie-up rule, following the understandable protest by the Girvan fishermen in blockading Girvan harbour because of their frustration and anger about the tie-up rule. They were told that they could have only 80 days at sea. Some of them have already been at sea for 80 days. They are facing ruin and the collapse of their income as a result of this rule. Before the recess, surely there is some way of getting one of the Fisheries Ministers to the Dispatch Box to make an urgent statement?
Madam Spaker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given yesterday evening by one of my deputies: I have not had any request for a Minister to make any such statement.
Mr. Bob Cryer rose—
Madam Speaker: Mr.—
Mr. Cryer: Cryer.
Madam Speaker: Mr. Cryer.
Mr. Cryer: I take it from your response, Madam Speaker, that this is one of only a few occasions on which I have risen to make a point of order.
Reverting to the question of White Papers and their availability, it would certainly help Back Benchers—who at present have to leave the Chamber to obtain White Papers and other documents—if Ministers were to provide them for the House. Some Ministers helpfully provide them; others do not.
I know, Madam Speaker, that you prefer Ministers to provide statements for Back Benchers rather than just Front Benchers of all parties. It might help if White Papers were actually tabled—placed on the Table of the House—so that hon. Members could collect them without having to leave the Chamber. Then there would not be any confusion about whether Members were hearing statements in the Chamber or were elsewhere.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made a useful point. It is up to the Minister whether he makes a White Paper available before his statement.
Mr. Cryer: But you would have no objection, Madam Speaker, if they were placed on the Table and we could get them from there?
Madam Speaker: I may well have a great objection to that. We have an office for the distribution of such papers. I want this Chamber kept neat and tidy.
Mr. Donald Anderson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I appeal for your support, because it is strongly suggested that, in the next day of so, the Government will announce the setting up of a committee to monitor the intelligence services—a committee
942
composed only of Privy Councillors. If that were to be the case, would you seek to protect the House by ensuring that, if it is done during the recess, there will be an early opportunity for the House to debate it?
Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. We should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) for raising this matter. As you know, it has not been possible to put down questions regarding the security services; that has been the position for many years, under successive Speakers.
There have been repeated rumours about what the Government intend to do. Many of us would strongly object to a committee on which only Privy Councillors would be allowed to sit. It would be a form of apartheid which would be opposed by many hon. Members on both sides of the House.
In those circumstances, Madam Speaker, would you use whatever influence you have in these matters to ensure that no statement is made until Parliament returns from the recess? Surely it would be a contempt for such a committee to be set up where we would not be able to question Ministers. It would be a continuation of what has happened over the years—our inability to table questions about the security services in any form whatsoever.
Madam Speaker: I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said. I can only act on fact, not on conjecture and rumour.

BILL PRESENTED
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
  Mr. Secretary Rifkind, supported by Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Secretary Clarke, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mr. Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mr. Archie Hamilton and Mr. Jonathan Aitken, presented a Bill to secure that members of the regular army who, except for the purposes of training, are required to serve only in Northern Ireland are not regarded as members of the forces for the purposes of the Representation of the People Act 1983: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 202.]

Closure of Footpaths
4.38 pm
Mr. Charles Hendry: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to permit highway authorities to close footpaths during periods of severe fire risk.
It is appropriate that I should present this Bill today, because it was over the Whitsun weekend a year ago that three fires destroyed several hundred acres of moorland in my constituency. How they started will never be known; perhaps it was arson, or possibly they were caused by a discarded piece of glass or a carelessly dropped cigarette end. What we do know for certain is that the heather on the moors was tinder-dry, after weeks of very hot dry weather, and that hikers still had open access to the moors despite the danger.
We also have no illusions about the consequences of those fires. The hundreds of acres of heather that were destroyed will take at least five years, perhaps 10 years or more, to grow back. Countless animals and birds were killed as the fires raced across the moors at dozens of feet per minute. For several days, more than 70 firefighters, many of them volunteers—to whom I pay tribute—put themselves in danger to bring the fires under control, in the wretched knowledge that they could spring to life again at any moment, having smouldered for days or even weeks before bursting back into life.
Since the fires, much has been done to improve the way in which closure of the moors can be agreed. We have had to recognise that the old system did not work effectively. Its only achievement was to unite everyone in their dissatisfaction and anger at the inadequacies of the system.
Certainly, before last year's fires, those who own and work on the moors had called for closure for several days, and closure was discussed endlessly by the Peak district national park authorities. Some of its members said yes, some said no; in the end they could not agree. Even after the fires, no ready agreement could be reached on whether the moors should be closed, because there was no set formula for deciding when the risk of fire outweighed the right of access.
Since then, and over the past year, there have been considerable strides towards an automatic formula for closing moors in times of high fire risk based on the dryness of the ground—the so-called soil moisture deficit. The formula is acceptable to all parties, including the owners and the national park, as well as the sporting and rambling interests. I understand that there may soon be full agreement that, when the soil moisture deficit and the so-called stress factor of the ground reach a certain point, closure will be automatic. That is greatly to be welcomed.
Even more welcome are the steps being taken by the Peak park and the owners of the moors to set up a joint fund to ensure that helicopter support is available to fight the fires when they occur. The House will appreciate that the often remote location of fires and their intensity mean that water bombing is the only effective way to put them out.
However, all that progress will be wasted if we do not clarify the law on the closure of footpaths. An automatic procedure can be found for closing general access to the moors, which removes people's right to wander at will, but the footpaths will remain open. It is nothing short of lunacy to decide that the moors are too dry to allow people
944
to walk over them, but then to keep open the footpaths so that tens of thousands of walkers can tramp along them, across those self-same moors, on any hot bank holiday weekend.
The Peak park attracts some 22 million visitors a year—more than any other national park in the world outside of Mount Fuji. That will be distressing news to my colleagues from Blackpool and Scarborough, who argue endlessly about the merits of their resorts, which are minor in comparison. However, there comes a time when the long-term interests of the moors and the wildlife that they support, together with the immediate short-term safety of the visitors, are such that some of those visitors need to be disappointed and refused access.
The nub of the issue is the lack of clarity in the current law. If there is a fire, footpaths—as public highways—can be closed, but there must be actual danger. If there is a risk of fire—a perceived rather than an actual danger—the law on closure becomes much more vague, absurdly increasing the risk of a fire starting.
During recent weeks, I have learnt that people in Derbyshire and Cheshire still talk with some anguish and pain about the horrendous rollicking that they once received from the Government for closing footpaths because of the fire risk. That was 17 years ago in 1976, after 81 fires had destroyed 2,500 acres of moorland. Despite that threat, the local authorities were left in no doubt that the closure of footpaths in such circumstances was simply not acceptable. It is not surprising that they have never dared to take such action again.
Since that time, the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 has been introduced. It moves us forward, but still leaves us confused. It states that a footpath can be closed if there is
"a likelihood of danger to the public."
When does a risk become a likelihood? In the words of one official at the Department of the Environment:
"Fire doesn't have to be licking at the path."
Those words suggest that a fire needs to have started, rather than relying on the expert advice that there is a high and genuine risk of one starting.
Even my colleagues on the Front Bench, usually the epitome of clarity and sensible thinking, seem to be somewhat at odds on this matter. One letter that I received states that the use of footpaths
"may be restricted or even prohibited by permanent or temporary traffic regulation orders. These are used mainly to regulate vehicular traffic, but occasionally apply to footpaths and bridleways, for example to forbid horse riding or cycling at particular times, but their scope does not extend to fire risk in the surrounding area."
A further letter states:
"these powers are very flexible and can be used to deal with a whole range of circumstances, including the risk of fire."
The objective of my Bill is to remove that confusion and to make it clear that, by law, highway authorities have the power to close footpaths during times of high fire risk. It is a modest step that I hope the House will support.
A sensible further step would be to allow the national park authorities, once they had established closure procedures, to close the moors and the footpaths across them at the same time, rather than operating two separate decision-making processes. In particular, it would be sensible to allow the authorities to erect closure signs on behalf of the highway authorities.
In 1976, Derbyshire county council, which was not too familiar with the task, managed to put closure signs at

945
what they thought were the ends of footpaths, which in fact did not exist and had never existed. My colleagues will not be too surprised to learn that that council operated at that time with the customary competence and accuracy whichwe still expect of it and which makes it so beloved across the county.
While I have inevitably concentrated on the needs of my constituency, the issue is anything but local. It affects thousands of acres of national park, thousands of miles of coastal walks and popular tourist destinations across the country. It is a national issue, which is why the law should be amended.
Moreover, it is most definitely not an anti-rambler device. The moorland owners remain committed to the concept of open access, even though they run the risk of a careless minority leaving their gates open, breaking down their carefully built and maintained dry-stone walls, or cutting off their power by crashing into the overhead electricity cables in their hang gliders.
Perhaps I should declare an interest at this point as someone who has tried hang gliding. My centre of gravity made it more akin to a Flymo hovering above the ground than a bird soaring in the skies. It brought a new meaning to the idea of a Member of Parliament dropping in on his constituents.
Any closure of footpaths would be short-term—for just as long as the expert authorities considered that the risk of fire merited such closure. Fires do enormous damage to wildlife and flora, which take years to restore, if they ever can be restored. They destroy the very environment that visitors seek to enjoy. Those who own and work on the moors invest endless amounts of time and money in creating and conserving some of the most beautiful parts, not only of this country, but of our continent.
The House owes it to them and to the generations to come who want to enjoy that unique inheritance to make this small change in the law to reduce, as far as is possible, the risk of unnecessary fires and the untold damage that they bring.
4.47 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I oppose the Bill—not because I do not appreciate the fire risks, but because the Bill is misguided. With the holiday weekend almost upon us, I congratulate the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) on drawing attention to the fire risks. Anyone going into the countryside should be careful.
The Bill will do nothing to improve the current position. It deals only with footpaths, yet two of the worst fires on the top of the Pennines during the past few years occurred very close to roads. It was almost certainly the carelessness of car drivers throwing cigarettes out of their windows that caused some of those big fires, which continued to burn for many months. They were extremely difficult to extinguish, that being achieved only with the arrival of the cold and wet of winter. Therefore, it is wrong solely to pick out footpaths for legislation.
There is a need for much more public awareness of the risks, and I have already commended the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to that. There is also a need for Government action. The Peak district national park authority has submitted a set of new bylaws for control of the access land, but I understand that the Home Office is
946
not being as speedy as it could be in dealing with them. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should extend his efforts to speeding up those bylaws rather than trying to introduce a Bill that, at this stage of the parliamentary year, has no chance of progressing.
Many people already believe that there are sufficient powers to do what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve through his Bill. A highway authority has power, under section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as amended by schedule I of the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Act 1991, to prohibit the use of footpaths and bridleways temporarily because of the likelihood of danger to the public or serious damage to the footpath. In both those categories, if there is a fire, there is a risk to the individual crossing it and certainly danger to the footpath.
Probably my strongest reason for objecting to the Bill—certainly the reason why both the Ramblers Association and the Peak and Northern Footpaths Association object to it—is that, as a result of arguments across the Chamber about footpath measures over the years, the Rights of Way Review Committee was established in 1979. The committee has always been chaired by a Conservative Member, first by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) and then by the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst). The chair is now held by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning).
The committee represents the Ramblers Association, the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association, the local authorities, Government Departments and the Countryside Commission, and has always been a forum for trying to achieve agreed measures. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman chose to ignore it and not to present it with his proposals, because there could have been a rational discussion. I am sure, if there really is a problem, that a proposal that had everybody's acceptance could have been agreed on. Insisting on unilateral legislation will not solve the problem.
I do not accept that walking creates more of a fire hazard than any other use of the land. There is no evidence that walkers have caused dangers by crossing land. In fact, there is some evidence that, on occasions, walkers have reported a small fire—not caused by them—and that that speedy action by walkers has led to getting the fire put out. Excluding people is not necessarily the way to cut down the risk. What is most important is to stress to walkers, farm workers, water board workers, gamekeepers and others the high danger of smoking while they have access to land, and the danger of leaving glass behind, as that can cause fires.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to have second thoughts about his proposals. Instead of proceeding with the Bill, which will cause controversy, he should refer the matter to the Rights of Way Review Committee for proper discussions. He should try to persuade the Home Office to speed up byelaws concerning access to land in the peak district. He has reminded us all that we must look carefully at protecting the countryside.
The last thing that anyone going out walking should want to do is cause damage. I hope that the House will leave the Bill where it stands and not give it permission to be introduced.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 44, Noes 82.

Division No. 285]

[4.52 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Kilfedder, Sir James

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Beggs, Roy

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Lidington, David

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Maginnis, Ken

Budgen, Nicholas

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Powell, William (Corby)

Coe, Sebastian

Robathan, Andrew

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

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Duncan, Alan

Spink, Dr Robert

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Spring, Richard

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Sproat, Iain

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Sweeney, Walter

Foster, Don (Bath)

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Gillan, Cheryl

Whittingdale, John

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Hannam, Sir John

Tellers for the Ayes:

Harris, David

Mr. Michael Fabricant and Mr. David Faber.

Hendry, Charles

NOES

Ainger, Nick

Dalyell, Tam

Allen, Graham

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Alton, David

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

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Denham, John

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Dixon, Don

Austin-Walker, John

Eastham, Ken

Barnes, Harry

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Battle, John

Garrett, John

Bayley, Hugh

Gordon, Mildred

Berth, Rt Hon A. J.

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Bermingham, Gerald

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Boyce, Jimmy

Hall, Mike

Bradley, Keith

Hanson, David

Burden, Richard

Hardy, Peter

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hood, Jimmy

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Canavan, Dennis

Hoyle, Doug

Chisholm, Malcolm

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Coffey, Ann

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Cousins, Jim

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Cox, Tom

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Dafis, Cynog

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

948

Jowell, Tessa

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Khabra, Piara S.

Salmond, Alex

Leighton, Ron

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Lewis, Terry

Simpson, Alan

Livingstone, Ken

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Spearing, Nigel

Macdonald, Calum

Spellar, John

Mackinlay, Andrew

Stern, Michael

McMaster, Gordon

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Mahon, Alice

Straw, Jack

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Watson, Mike

Maxton, John

Wicks, Malcolm

Morley, Elliot

Wigley, Dafydd

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Pendry, Tom

Winnick, David

Pike, Peter L.

Wise, Audrey

Prescott, John

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Radice, Giles

Raynsford, Nick

Tellers for the Noes:

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Paul Flynn.

Rooker, Jeff

Question accordingly negatived.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point of order concerns the way in which the Secretary of State for National Heritage has chosen to make a statement on the adequacy of fire protection measures for the royal palaces. It has taken several months for the report on that matter to appear. It appeared surreptitiously on the Letter Board and has been in the Press Gallery for the past five hours, yet the official Opposition have neither been notified of it nor told that there was a copy on the Letter Board.
We should have a statement on the matter, which is causing considerable concern to British taxpayers because the lack of adequate fire protection measures at Windsor castle has meant that the taxpayer is having to fork out tens of millions of pounds. We have a right to a statement in the House from the Secretary of State for National Heritage on this important matter.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The hon. Lady will be aware that it is not for the Chair to decide on an application for a statement, but her views will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench.

Orders of the Day

  Welsh Language Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.4 pm
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  It gives me great pleasure to open the debate. The Bill is an important step forward for the Welsh language. In Wales, we are proud of our culture and tradition. But underpinning our priceless heritage is the Welsh language. Twenty-six years ago, introducing the previous Welsh Language Bill, Mr. Elystan Morgan, the then Member for Cardigan, said:
  "It is right and proper to regard such a priceless and irreplaceable thing as a language exactly as the greatest treasures of art which have come from the hands of the painter or the sculptor."—[Official Report, 17 July 1967; Vol. 750, c. 1478.]
  I could not agree more with those words. Since then, the unique position of the Welsh language has been increasingly recognised.
  In the past few years, there has been something of a renaissance. The census figures for 1991 show that the decline in the total number of Welsh speakers has, at last, been halted. There are now more than half a million Welsh speakers—18·7 per cent. of the population of Wales. Most importantly, statistics show that, in the all-important younger age groups—people aged between three and 15—the percentage of Welsh speakers has increased from 18 to 24 per cent. of the population over the past 10 years. I welcome those figures.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Does the Secretary of State agree that the most important group of all is those aged 15 to 25 years? Pupils in Welsh-medium schools will correctly fill in the census form to say that they can speak Welsh, but it is what happens after such pupils have left school that makes the difference. Only when we see an increase in the number of those who can speak Welsh in the 15 to 25 age group shall we be able to say that we have turned the corner.
  Mr. Hunt: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is vital to ensure that the number of Welsh speakers in the three to 15 age group continues to increase. That increase will feed through. I equally recognise that, particularly as the number of Welsh speakers is increasing—the result, I believe, of policies pioneered by many people, including my right hon. Friend the Minister of State—it is important to ensure that children leaving school have just as great an opportunity to use the Welsh language that they have learnt there.
  Policies that encourage the use of the Welsh language have made substantial progress, but only because they are founded and based on consensus, which is critical. If our policies in support of the Welsh language are to succeed, they must have the support of the people in the rest of the United Kingdom, as well as those in Wales. I very much hope that there will be considerable consensus in the debate and in subsequent discussions.
  Until recently, the 20th century had seen a decline in the number of Welsh speakers. It has been very much a century of decline for the Welsh language. In many ways,
  950
  it is a century in which the language has had to come to terms with the enormous social and economic changes that are taking place in Wales. Those changes are still taking place, but, as I said, there are signs that the decline has been halted. The key to the resurgence in the use of the Welsh language can be found in education and, in particular, the growth in Welsh-medium education outside the traditional Welsh-speaking areas.
  In 1967, there was but one Welsh-medium secondary school, containing fewer than 500 pupils, serving the whole of south Wales. Today, there are eight such schools, containing more than 5,500 pupils, and a further 63 primary schools. In Wales as a whole, Welsh-medium schools constitute more than a quarter of the total.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to pay tribute to the pioneering work of the old Labour Glamorgan county council which led the way and Mid Glamorgan which continues the tradition? If he is convinced of the value of education as a way of increasing the number of people in Wales who speak Welsh, does he agree that he should provide extra funds in places such as Bridgend which desperately need a Welsh-medium secondary school but do not have sufficient capital to build one at present?
  Mr. Hunt: I pay tribute to the majority of local authorities in Wales which have pioneered many important policies. It is for a local education authority to determine its own priorities within the overall spending programme which we announce each year. However, I recognise that some local authorities have played an especially important part in the process.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the Secretary of State satisfied with the fact that there is no dedicated Welsh-medium secondary school in Powys? Will he explain why the Bill does not enshrine the right for parents to have their children educated through the medium of Welsh? Surely a Welsh Language Bill, which appears so rarely, should enshrine that right for the people in Wales who wish to take advantage of it.
  Mr. Hunt: It has traditionally been left to local education authorities to determine their priorities in that respect. Of course, the hon. and learned Gentleman should make Powys county council aware of the views that he has expressed so strongly, but, at the end of the day, it is for Powys county council to determine the provision of education under existing policies. The vast majority of education authorities in Wales have shown a positive attitude to expanding Welsh-medium education. The Government have introduced a larger element of parental choice in education.
  Mr. Paul Murphy: Gwent has not traditionally taught Welsh as a compulsory subject. Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a great need for extra resources to train teachers already employed in Gwent, and to employ more teachers, to teach Welsh? Does he accept that there is a major disagreement between his Department and Gwent about proper resourcing for the teaching of the Welsh language?
  Mr. Hunt: We have provided additional resources to increase the number of teachers available for the teaching of Welsh, but it is for local authorities to determine their spending priorities in this and other spheres.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: My right hon. Friend should be aware that there is widespread concern in Powys about the provision of Welsh-medium education, but the observations made in another place, which I understand are part of Government policy, have provided assurances that the schemes that are to be put to the new Welsh Language Board created under the Bill will include the requirement for local authorities to examine the provision of Welsh-medium education.
  Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I shall refer to it when I deal with the powers of the Welsh Language Board. As my hon. Friend rightly says, the Bill establishes a Welsh Language Board as a statutory body. Education and schemes for the provision of education will be included in its overall jurisdiction.
  I was talking about Welsh-medium schools. The Welsh nursery schools movement, Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin, did not exist in 1967. Today, it sponsors some 1,000 Welsh-medium nursery schools in Wales and is part of a thriving Welsh language voluntary sector. That reflects, in part, the growth in Government support, but the sheer commitment of the people involved has been the main motivation and driving force.
  Welsh language television broadcasting was in its infancy in 1967. It was a relatively new adventure in which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State was one of the heroes. He was heavily involved. Today, S4C broadcasts in Welsh during peak hours and is a model for broadcasting in a minority language. I pay tribute to all those involved.
  The Welsh Language Act 1967 was an important step. It confirmed the position of spoken Welsh in the courts and led to a significant expansion in its use in public administration. However, it was legislation for its time. Times have now changed; hence, the need for the Bill.
  The most important change that has taken place is the fact that the language is now surrounded by what is best described as an aura of confidence. It is increasingly used in all aspects of people's lives, and that is in no small measure due to the consistent support of Governments in the past two decades. I am especially pleased that the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) is to wind up for the Opposition. I recall the steps that he took to give financial assistance to the National Eisteddfod. He was responsible for introducing the powers to fund bilingual education projects which the in-coming Conservative Government accepted and were happy to enact in the Education Act 1980. I pay tribute to him for what, in historical terms, is seen as an important step.
  I remember the major policy speech made at Llanrwst by my noble Friend Lord Crickhowell. No doubt the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) also remembers it well. The language's status has been reinforced in various Acts. An especially historic step was that taken by my immediate predecessor, now Lord Walker. He made Welsh a foundation subject in the national curriculum and a core subject in Welsh-medium schools.
  The future of the language will, of course, depend on far more than Government action alone.
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: The right hon. Gentleman has made great play of Government initiatives and the Government's willingness to respond to representations, but will he pay tribute to those who have for decades exerted considerable pressure
  952
  on Governments, national and local, by way of vigorous campaigning and at no small cost? It is fair to say that we would not have got even as far as we have today but for their enormous commitment to the Welsh language and their willingness to act.
  Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated what I was about to say. As he rose, I was saying that the future of the language will depend on far more than Government action alone. Many people have been prepared, within the law, to demonstrate their strong support for the Welsh language. At times, it has been difficult to maintain that posture against some of the extremists, but I pay great tribute to the dedicated people who, within the law, have helped us to ensure that one of Europe's oldest languages survives as a living language. However, the Government have a role to play. The reports submitted to me by the Welsh Language Board argue cogently about what role legislation could play, and the Bill represents the Government's response to the board's recommendations.
  Wales is a bilingual society. The opportunities for people to choose which language they wish to use should therefore be as wide as possible. I want to see a level playing field for English and Welsh, and the Bill recognises that, because Welsh speakers are a minority of the total population of Wales, the language requires some assistance if that choice is to be exercised as widely as possible. Much has already been done to facilitate the use of the language, and the Bill seeks to build on that.
  The Welsh language is already widely used for official purposes; it is the language of public administration in many parts of Wales, but the Bill is founded on a recognition that sometimes there can be obstacles to the use of Welsh. Some of the obstacles can be removed by statute, and the Bill tackles those directly. Others are susceptible to removal by administrative means, and the Bill establishes a framework that allows the practical obstacles to be tackled by the preparation of Welsh language schemes.
  Before referring to the challenge that faces the new statutory Welsh Language Board, I shall mention the work of the current board under its existing chairman
  John Elfed Jones. I believe that the consensus about the sort of general principles that should govern policy on the language—principles now reflected in the Bill—is largely a result of the sensitive, reasonable, but always tenacious way in which the board has conducted itself over the past five years. On Second Reading, it is appropriate for me to pay my personal tribute to John Elfed Jones for his leadership and his enthusiasm for our language, and to the members of the board and its officers for the dedication that they have shown to the furtherance of the Welsh language.
  It is fitting, therefore, that clause 1 establishes the statutory Welsh Language Board. The work of the current board has shown the advantages to be gained from having a body able to promote and facilitate the language whenever it is used.
  Clause 2 concerns the board's membership. It was amended during the Bill's consideration in the House of Lords to underline the breadth of expertise that the membership will need to reflect if the board is effectively to carry out its extremely wide remit.

  953
  Clause 3 defines that remit as promoting and facilitating the use of the Welsh language, as well as advising the Secretary of State for Wales on all aspects of its use.
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: Will the Secretary of State ensure that appointments to the board will be made only from people on the list kept in the Welsh Office, that the forms will have to be correctly filled in in good time, and that no one will be appointed who has not been on that list for at least a year?
  Mr. Hunt: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to place an obstacle in the way of promoting and appointing the best people. I am never attracted by the bureaucratic response that says to someone of considerable ability, "Sorry, you cannot be appointed because you have not been on the list for a year." I shall genuinely reflect on the importance on the hon. Gentleman's arguments, but without undertaking to be bound by them.
  The board's promotional powers are potentially wide ranging, and they include the power to pay grants in support of the Welsh language. Our intention is that the board should assume responsibility for grant aiding all but the major Welsh language organisations as soon as possible.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: May I return for a moment to the Secretary of State's justified tribute to the board? Many of us agree that the board has done an excellent job, so will the right hon. Gentleman explain during his speech why he is not presenting to the House the Bill drafted by the board?
  Mr. Hunt: We have discussed with the board at all stages the Bill that should be presented. I believe that it is generally accepted that the board's draft could not be immediately translated into the proposed legislation. No doubt in Committee, as we go through the Bill clause by clause, hon. Members from all parties will propose amendments to reflect the issues that they believe that the Bill does not contain. However, I believe that, subject to some amendments that the Government will introduce, the Bill largely reflects the way forward for the Welsh language.
  The Bill does not define—
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hunt: Just a moment. I shall finish what I was saying about clause 3.
  The Bill does not define the promotional function in great detail, because it will be for the board to decide how the functions should be exercised. The board should establish itself as an acknowledged centre of excellence and expertise on all matters to do with the language, and I believe that it must do so independent of day-to-day interference of the Government, whichever Government may be in power.
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Secretary of State will acknowledge that the Bill should set out a framework within which the language can flourish, and that the board considered that the framework needed a statement of principle. The statement of principle that the board believed should be enhrined in the Bill was that of equal
  954
  status for the language. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he and his colleagues in government would be prepared to consider any form of amendment that would include such a statement on the face of the Bill?
  Mr. Hunt: I believe that the phrase put to me at the time was "equal validity" rather than "equal status". Whichever phrase is used, I am advised that the most appropriate way forward is to say that a basis of equality between Welsh and English is needed. No doubt we can examine such matters in Committee.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The actual wording in the Bill is "official language". I believe that that means status. [Interruption.] That is the board's wording.
  Mr. Hunt: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the board's draft Bill.
  Mr. Llwyd: Yes.
  Mr. Hunt: I realise that those are important issues which will have to be tackled in Committee, as we seek to ensure that the words that become part of an Act of Parliament are correct. As a lawyer, the hon. Gentleman will understand that it was subsequently discovered that the words used in the original Welsh Language Act 1967 had a different effect from that which the Ministers who introduced the Bill expected. One of the reasons why the present Bill is required is to amend the original Act. I do not want to leave to my successors—[Interruption]—in many years' time— [Interruption] —the need to pass amending legislation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Time to go."] I had felt there was a tendency to somnolence on the Opposition Benches, and I am pleased to have woken up some hon. Members.
  I want the Bill to establish as flexible as possible a framework. For example, I believe that most people would accept that the Government's policy of an arm's-length involvement with the creative arts, as embodied in the relationship between the Arts Council and the Government, is now well established. The creation of the Welsh Language Board provides us with an opportunity to establish a similar principle for the Welsh language. As with the arts, there will always be some matters—such as the total public resources made available, and the broad strategic priorities—on which the Government will have to take a view. However, other matters will be best left to the board.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: Before the Secretary of State leaves, will he advise us? The issue of equal status and equal validity was debated at some length on a series of amendments in another place. Are we to take it from what the right hon. Gentleman is saying now that he is sympathetic and open-minded towards the idea of accepting amendments that were rejected in another place?
  Mr. Hunt: I understand that the hon. Gentleman was talking about my leaving that specific point in my speech. We espouse the principle of equal status and equal validity, but we seek to translate that in the most effective way that we are told is necessary in the Bill that we are presenting to the House. If the hon. Gentleman has a formula which we are told is more effective, we shall listen with some degree of surprise to him, but with some interest as well.

  955
  It may be helpful to the House if I explain the Government's view of the broad strategic priorities that the board will need to address. I hope that there will be substantial agreement about them. The first is preparing and consulting on the guidelines on the form and content of Welsh language schemes. The introduction of schemes for the major public sector bodies in Wales, including Government Departments, should also be a priority. We will expect the board to continue its work in an advisory capacity in the private sector in which its voluntary guidelines have achieved much already. It will also be important for the board to further the language through innovative and imaginative schemes, as it has with Menter Cwm Gwendraeth and its existing Welsh language software projects. Education will be another area in which the board will need to develop expertise and guidance in the way anticipated by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) earlier.
  I will expect the board to respond to the strategic priorities at the earliest possible opportunity after it is established. I expect there to be considerable interest in the early statement that will be published by the board setting out its policies and priorities. I hope that that will be a public document on which there can be widespread consultation.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: In that context, and with regard to the need to develop a comprehensive strategy—much of it impinges on legislation, but some parts of it go beyond language legislation into planning, housing and employment—is the right hon. Gentleman aware that "Strategaeth laith", which has been published by Fforwm Iaith Genedlaethol, laid down guidelines for such a strategy? Can he ensure that those elements are taken on board by the Welsh Office when it drafts new strategic guidelines with the new board?
  Mr. Hunt: The issues, some of which have been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, will need to be addressed and taken on board as we proceed in the way in which I have outlined.
  I hope that it will become immediately apparent to the House that the Welsh Language Board will be right at the heart of the changes that the Bill is intended to bring about. The fact that the Bill does not spell out in every last detail the way in which Parliament expects the board to go about its task only serves to emphasise the responsibiity that the House will place on the chairman of the board and its members. Therefore, the chairman will need to be a person of many talents, not the least of which is the ability to follow in the footsteps of so able a predecessor as John Elfed Jones.
  I am pleased to be able to announce to the House that the Prime Minister has agreed that Lord Dafydd Elis-Thomas will be the first chairman of the statutory board. [Interruption.] I am pleased at that response, and hope that the Official Report will show that approval for that announcement came from both sides of the House. Lord Elis-Thomas has accepted the offer of appointment and will assume the role formally if Parliament agrees to the passage of the Bill two months after Royal Assent. As chairman-elect, he will be involved closely in the detailed preparatory work that will be required.
  Lord Elis-Thomas is known to all the people in Wales as a life-long supporter of the Welsh language. Having heard his outstanding maiden speech in another place,
  956
  I know that he combines that support with a deep understanding of the issues affecting the future well-being of the language. I hope that the House will agree that we have secured the services of a dynamic and exciting chairman for the board and will join me in wishing Lord Elis-Thomas every possible success in this most important task.
  Mr. Morgan: We wish every success to the new chairman of the Welsh Language Board—as we would wish success to anyone who had been elected to that difficult appointment with such an enormous task in front of him; one could hardly not wish such success to anyone who is appointed. However, from the maiden speech and other speeches made in another place by Lord Elis-Thomas, we have noticed that he has traversed a great political difference since leaving this House. Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the appointment is not part of any written agreement with Plaid Cymru relating to the Maastricht treaty votes of which we have heard, though we have never seen the text?
  Mr. Hunt: The House should be used to the nonsense that comes, sadly, from the Labour Front Bench in the form of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). I hope that he will welcome my announcement today of the reappointment of Lord Brookes as deputy chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation and recognise that as another demonstration that we always appoint the best people to the tasks that lie ahead.
  Mr. Peter Hain: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hunt: I shall give way in a moment.
  Recently, there has been a growing awareness of the role of public bodies in ensuring that Welsh speakers are able to use Welsh to obtain the public services that are such a major part of people's everyday lives. That is a crucial development because, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West said in an earlier intervention, over the next few years there will be a growing number of young people leaving school who have had the opportunity to study Welsh throughout their school careers. The impact of Welsh in the national curriculum will be that much more powerful as Welsh is seen more as a prominent feature of the world in which our children grow up.
  The Bill aims to secure a general improvement in the level of Welsh language service that is provided across the public sector in Wales by requiring public bodies to prepare Welsh language schemes. Clauses 5 to 21 establish the legal framework governing the duty to prepare schemes and their subsequent operation. The board will be at the heart of that framework because it will influence the rate at which schemes will be introduced. It will have the task of approving schemes as well as any subsequent revisions to them and investigate complaints arising from their operation.
  The principle of equality, which is set out in clause 5, lies at the heart of the Bill and will be a powerful and flexible framework for the board to have at its disposal. Welsh has been the language of large areas of public administration over a long period. Its use in public business has expanded significantly over the past two decades. Establishing the principle of equality by means of

  957
  this legislation will, however, serve to remove any uncertainty that may have surrounded the use of Welsh for official purposes.
  The crucial feature of the Bill is that, at the same time as it establishes the principle of equality, it puts that principle into practice by requiring that the purpose of schemes should be to give effect to the principle that the English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality. The only qualification to that is that it must be appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable. Let me make it plain that it will not be open to public bodies to take a narrow view of what is appropriate and reasonably practicable. The test will need to be applied objectively in every case, the content of each organisation's scheme will need to be approved by the Welsh Language Board and every scheme must comply with the board's statutory guidelines.
  Welsh language schemes will be introduced for every public body serving Wales, including bodies based outside Wales but which provide a service that extends to Wales. However, the terms of clause 6 enable me, by order, to specify further bodies as public bodies for the purposes of the Bill. More generally, the Bill draws an important distinction between public and private sector organisations. The board will have the power to advise private bodies on their use of the language.
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: When Committees of the House that relate to Wales, such as the Welsh Grand Committee and the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, meet in Wales, will they be required to have facilities to allow the Welsh language to be used?
  Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is the Chairman of one of the most prestigious Select Committees. He will know that it is a matter for the House, not for me as a member of the Government, to lay down a particular policy. The matter ought to, and will, be decided within the House.
  Government Departments have been at the forefront of many of the most innovative and successful Welsh language policies introduced in recent years. Therefore, I am pleased to confirm today that all Government Departments and agencies will introduce such schemes. Although the Bill necessarily will have rather different provisions for Crown bodies, I assure the House that the schemes of such bodies will be subject to the same scrutiny by the Welsh Language Board as all other schemes. Just as with other public bodies, the board will be able to investigate complaints arising from the schemes of Crown bodies—although I hope that there will not be any complaints—and publish its findings.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: An evolution is taking place from the public to the private sector. When a body such as the Post Office moves from one regime to another and becomes a private limited company, will it carry with it the obligations that it had as a public body?
  Mr. Hunt: I hope that the Post Office will recognise the spirit of what I have said.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Answer.
  Mr. Hunt: The answer is that we have drawn a distinction in the Bill between public and private bodies.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: So the answer is no.
  Mr. Hunt: It is difficult to deal with sedentary interventions, especially when they may not be reflected in the record. To make it clear, the Bill introduces a distinction between public and private bodies. Those bodies that are at present public are well known, as are the bodies that are private.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Hunt: As I have dealt with the sedentary intervention, I shall now deal with a proper one.
  Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that clause 6(1)(o) says:
  "any person (whether or not a body corporate or unincorporate) who appears to the Secretary of State to be exercising functions of a public nature&by order made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this Part of the Act"
  can be brought into those provisions? If the Secretary of State is so minded and the board is so minded, the provisions that apply to the Post Office in the public sector could be made to apply to the Post Office in the private sector.
  Mr. Hunt: I do not wish to mislead the hon. Gentleman. If he reflects, he will realise that it is not possible for a body in those circumstances to make the transition from the public to the private sector and still be caught by the provisions of clause 6(1)(o) as he has described them. However, those are matters for Committee and we shall no doubt deliberate them.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: But it is a fundamental point.
  Mr. Hunt: Yes, it is a fundamental point. I have answered it by making it clear to the House that we do not believe that the provisions of the Bill, as they apply to public bodies, should be applied in equal measure to private sector bodies and organisations. I have one qualification. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) was right to refer to the power provided in the Bill to ensure that the private sector training and enterprise councils can be brought within the terms of the legislation.
  The aim of the Bill is to bring about a general improvement in the level of Welsh language services. If the Bill is to succeed, it will need to respond to the particular needs of the Welsh speakers who use those services. Therefore, there must be consultation on schemes. Schemes will need to be flexible. As my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) has said to me on several occasions, it would not be sensible to impose the same scheme uniformly on every public body in Wales. I suspect that for the foreseeable future the provision of Welsh language services will be more prominent in Pwllheli than in Pontypridd. The Bill reflects that.
  It will also be important that there is a common understanding of the general principles that constitute an effective Welsh language service and of how practical effect can be given to the principle of equality. Therefore, all public bodies will have to have regard to guidelines prepared by the board in drawing up their schemes.
  Mr. Hain: If Group 4 undertakes any agency work for the Government or any of their services, will it be expected to conform to the terms of the Bill? If Group 4's record in the prison service is anything to go by, surely that will give new meaning to freedom for Welsh speakers.
  Mr. Hunt: I do not think that I should respond to that sort of intervention in a serious debate.
  Education will feature prominently among the board's responsibilities. Welsh-medium education will be included in the Welsh language schemes prepared by local authorities. A similar duty will extend to the schools funding council for Wales, which I may establish under the provisions of the Education Bill currently being considered in another place.
  One of the issues that the Bill will not affect is the position of Welsh in the national curriculum and the content of the curriculum taught through the medium of Welsh. Those matters are already secured in separate legislation. Welsh is established as a foundation subject within the national curriculum and it is a core subject in Welsh medium schools. Schemes will not be able to alter that in any way.
  The advisory role of the Welsh Language Board will also extend to education. The board will assume the responsibility currently exercised by the Welsh Language Education Department Committee to take a broad overview of the Welsh language in all phases of education.
  If Welsh is to enjoy the status in the conduct of public business that we intend, the Bill needs to address not just the practical but the legislative obstacles that stand in the way of Welsh and English being dealt with on a basis of equality. Practical obstacles will be addressed by the schemes. Legal obstacles are dealt with in part III of the Bill.
  Clauses 22 to 24 re-enact the provisions in the Welsh Language Act 1967 on the use of Welsh in courts. I restate that we are committed to clarifying the position of written evidence in Welsh. That complex area is one on which I hope we shall be able to make progress in Committee.
  Clauses 25 to 29 extend the existing powers that enable the holder of the office of Secretary of State to prescribe Welsh versions of forms. I and my colleagues will in future be able to prescribe Welsh versions of forms of words and names of bodies and places currently prescribed in statute in English only.
  Perhaps one of the most important provisions is part III, which repeals the spent provisions of the Laws in Wales Acts of 1535 and 1542. The Laws in Wales Acts, commonly referred to as the Act of Union, have not stood in the way of the continued survival of the Welsh language or of its more recent renaissance. Their presence on the statute book has, however, cast a shadow over the status which the language enjoys and which will be consolidated and enhanced by the Bill.
  Mr. Dafis: I wish to return briefly to the subject of the board's functions. The Secretary of State has described a board that will have a broad remit, and will be in a position to make decisions of far-reaching import, particularly in relation to Welsh-medium education and the development of a strategy for the revival of the Welsh language. Some of us feel unhappy that that function should be given to an unelected body.
  Does the Secretary of State recognise that a board of this nature needs to have considerably more resources at its disposal than the £600,000 per annum mentioned in the preamble to the Bill? It is an enormously ambitious project and the board will need resources commensurate with that.
  Mr. Hunt: I am sad that the hon. Gentleman did not pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the
  960
  Minister of State, who has increased the level of grant to assist the Welsh language. That grant is now exceeding £7 million, and that money is additional to the amount spent through the revenue support grant to promote the Welsh language. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we are offering record levels of support for the Welsh language. I make no apology for that, because the Welsh language is a unique feature of our cultural heritage.
  We are determined to ensure that the Welsh language should continue to be supported by policies that promote its use in all aspects of life in Wales. The Bill represents an important consolidation and significant strengthening of that policy.
  Our intention is that the legislation should catch the spirit of the times. The Bill recognises the enormous reservoir of good will towards the Welsh language and seeks to build on it. It recognises the simple but crucial point that the more widespread the use of the Welsh language, the more its future will be safeguarded. The Bill will build on existing policies and successes. It will establish a flexible and lasting legal framework within which the language can prosper and flourish for many generations to come.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  Mr. Rod Richards: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Did you receive prior notification that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) had been replaced by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) as the shadow spokesman on Welsh affairs?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I do not think that that is a matter for the Chair.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Mae'n anrhydedd fawr i ddilyn o'r ochr hyn ar y mesur hyn.
  I should like to continue in Welsh, but that is not allowed under the rules of the House. I thought that it was appropriate to begin my speech in Welsh, however, as it is 26 years since the House debated the Welsh Language Act 1967. For the benefit of those who do not understand Welsh, I began by saying that it is a great honour to be asked to lead for the Opposition on the Bill. I feel that the word "anrhydedd" has a little more flavour than its English equivalent: honour.
  The Opposition welcome the opportunity to debate the Bill. We shall not vote against it, despite its imperfections and the inflexibility shown by the Government during its passage from the other place to its Second Reading in this House. We fear, however, that if the Bill is not amended and the Government do not listen more and act on what they are told by the people of Wales, the sore will still fester. People will not be satisfied that the Government or the House have made the most of this unique opportunity.
  We shall not legislate on this subject again this side of the millennium. We therefore feel that the Government must be sensitive to the demands from all corners of Wales and all those organisations which have taken an interest in the Bill and those on whom the duties contained in the Bill will fall. It is important to get things right before the Bill is set in concrete and another 26 years pass before the House considers the subject again. Indeed, I should like to think that it will be 56 years before we debate it again.

  961
  So far, the Government's performance has not been up to scratch and they have not shown sufficient sensitivity to people's requests. We discovered part of the reason for that earlier, when the Secretary of State let the cat out of the bag by displaying his keenness for a place in the sun in the Cabinet, in another job, if the reshuffle occurs. We must tell the right hon. Gentleman that it is the Prime Minister who makes any reshuffle—the right hon. Gentleman cannot reshuffle himself. Perhaps he was sending the same sort of message to the Prime Minister as that sent by Lord Elis-Thomas in another place about a job that would need to be filled and certain candidates who were pretty keen to fill it. There are certain means of sending such messages—people must read between the lines. I am sure that the Chief Whip and the Prime Minister will do the same with the remarks of the Secretary of State.
  The debate centres on how to restore the status of the Welsh language and repair the damage that was done to it. Without turning the clock back, we must attempt to repair the damage that was done to the language in the past millennium—perhaps that is a slight exaggeration—or certainly in the past 100 years or so, since universal primary education was introduced in Wales in the 1870s. The spent statutes to which the Secretary of State referred also inflicted earlier damage on the language.
  We must achieve a better understanding about what will revitalise the Welsh language. The Secretary of State said that the Welsh language is now surrounded by an aura of confidence. It almost sounded as if he was making a toothpaste advertisement. I fear that what the right hon. Gentleman really meant was that the Welsh language was surrounded by several blankets of Welsh flannel. He was being far to complacent when he said that the 1991 census suggested that the use of the Welsh language had turned the corner. We are not convinced. As I said earlier, we need to provide jobs for young Welsh people who attend Welsh-medium schools so that they can develop the use of that language, rather than lose everything that they were taught.
  Young people may be taught Welsh in an English school in a Welsh-speaking part of Wales or in a Welsh-medium school in an English-speaking part of Wales—for example, the south-east, where there has been a tremendous growth in Welsh-medium education. South Glamorgan and Mid Glamorgan have led the way in the provision of Welsh-medium education. The provision in Gwent is slightly poorer, while that in West Glamorgan is worse still. No doubt the Welsh Language Board will want to consider how to encourage some of the laggard counties to develop that provision. It is extremely important to discover why a county such as West Glamorgan, which is still home to a great number of native Welsh speakers, is more laggardly in its provision of Welsh language teaching than South Glamorgan or Mid Glamorgan, where the Welsh language has been almost lost as a means of local, authentic speech. Is it a general principle of human life that we value something only when we have almost lost it? I do not know, but we must try to ensure that those laggardly counties match the best practice of others.
  The Secretary of State is far too complacent when he suggests that the use of the Welsh language has turned the corner. I do not believe that he realises just what a difficult job the Welsh language has to do in competing with
  962
  English. The survival of the Welsh language is remarkable. Even today there are more people speaking Welsh than there were in 1801. In fact, there are more people speaking Welsh now than the entire Welsh population in 1801, which was no more than 500,000. In the 19th century, the Welsh-speaking population doubled to I million, but it has now halved again, which is extremely sad.
  The demise of the Welsh language is related to the strains imposed by the de-industrialisation of the 1930s and the 1980s. If there are no jobs, it is difficult to keep people in Wales. Most people speak Welsh provided that they do not migrate. If a person migrates to England, or even to another part of Wales, it is extremely unlikely that he will continue to speak Welsh. The supply of jobs and the economic development of Wales is an extremely important issue, but the Secretary of State did not devote sufficient time to it.
  The Opposition are keen to ensure that Welsh speakers should have jobs, because that means that the Welsh language is likely to survive. If the Welsh economy goes downhill, so will the use of the Welsh language.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: Surely jobs are required for people in Wales whether or not they speak Welsh. If the hon. Gentleman is advocating that specific arrangements should be made for Welsh speakers, I should remind him that pupils of Welsh-medium schools achieve far better examination results than those who attend English-speaking schools. If we are to direct our efforts towards a specific goal, we should direct them towards raising the standards in English schools.
  Mr. Morgan: I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman has totally misunderstood my point. The anthracite coal field was the prime source of employment in one of the strongest areas of Welsh-speaking Wales—from Maesteg, through the Neath, Swansea and Gwendraeth valleys down to Kidwelly. There is now virtually no anthracite coal mining. Almost the whole of the anthracite coal field in Wales was Welsh speaking. Now that there are no more pits, how can we ensure that the Welsh-speaking population of the anthracite coal field has a good reason to stay there and to speak Welsh? They have to be found alternative jobs.
  Original industrialisation led to the Welsh language surviving and the number of Welsh speakers doubled in the 19th century, but that industrial base largely disappeared in the 1930s and was in crisis in the 1980s. The underlying strength of the economy is vital to the continuation of Welsh speaking.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: I shall use a historical analogy to bring out the strength of my hon. Friend's argument. One reason why Welsh survived as one of the Celtic languages was the huge provision of jobs in Wales, compared with Ireland, as a result of the industrial revolution. That shows why a strong economy is vital to the survival of the Welsh language.
  Mr. Morgan: The argument advanced by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) illustrates the fears expressed by all Labour Members. There cannot be a future for the Welsh language if it is simply to become the first language in the history of the universe to be spoken exclusively by university graduates. If we do not understand the importance of the disappearance of the coal mines, the tin plate works and the slate quarries of

  963
  north Wales, and if we do not replace the jobs that originally sustained the Welsh economy, it will be difficult to see a bright future for the Welsh language. That will be true no matter what efforts are made to provide jobs for university graduates or students with O-levels who leave Welsh-language or Welsh-medium schools in English speaking areas of Wales such as the south-east and the north-east corners. That is the problem that the legislation has done little to solve, and the Secretary of State has not touched on it in his speech.
  The Secretary of State must understand how strongly the English language continues to penetrate life. The English language is a wonderfully flexible instrument of communication in technology, engineering and science. If we underestimate the strength and flexibility of the English language, we shall not make proper provision for the survival of the Welsh language. The English language is the only language that is half Germanic and hall Latin, which means that there are more than 1 billion people in the world for whom English is either their first language or an easy second language to learn.
  Some 300 million people in Europe speak English or another Germanic tongue which is a cousin of the easy, small words of the English language, and a further 300 million people speak a Latin-based language involving the longer words. In North America and South America, 300 million speak a Latin-based language. That makes a total of 1·2 billion people who speak English, compared with the 500,000 people who speak Welsh. That shows the extent of the problem and the measure of our task today.
  I am not saying that our task is hopeless, but it is difficult, and we must understand the measure of it or we shall end up believing, as many English people and English-speaking Americans do, that there is only space for one language in the world—English—and the sooner everybody speaks it, the better. I recall the words of a Texas senator when the question first arose as to whether Spanish should be taught in the primary schools of San Antonio, near the Mexican border. He said that if the English language was good enough for Jesus Christ it should be good enough for the Texas school board. English people sometimes have an Anglocentric world view. We have to explain that, while not wanting to live in a ghetto or on a reservation, or to penalise people who do not speak Welsh and are unlikely to learn it, we intend to ensure that the Welsh language continues to fight for its survival, even against a powerful competitor, in the minds of the people in Wales.
  The Bill is based on the board; it is based on whether Parliament can successfully delegate its functions to a board which is run under the chairmanship of someone whose identity we now know. The electricity industry now places enormous power in the hands of the regulator, OFFER; the gas industry places power in the hands of Ofgas; and there is also Oftel. In the same way, we are to have a sort of regulator for the Welsh language—it could be called Offiaith—which will be given enormous powers. It will be based on a fundamental theory of British government with which we do not agree: the good chap theory of government.
  The theory is that if the right chaps are appointed, the job can be left to them, Parliament need not worry about the issue, which can be put to sleep so that it need not return to the House. One is then faced with the problem of who should appoint the good chaps. Who are they, and are they representative of the people of Wales? Will we be
  964
  satisfied with setting up another quango and saying, "Goodbye quango—we have set you up, we are paying your wages, now do the job that we have instructed you to do, come back and see the Public Accounts Committee every three years and the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs every year." Will we then be content to think that Parliament has done its job by sub-contracting a quango?
  Lord Rothschild said that the good chap theory of government in England was based on picking people who were 53, white, male, residents of the south-east of England and members of the Reform club. As I was 53 myself a few months ago I have started to warm to the theory of how to run British government, although I do not think that I am a candidate. If applied in Wales, the theory would be based on picking people who were white, male, resident in the south-east of Wales, owning a farm in the Vale of Usk, being frequent dinner guests of Lord and Lady Crickhowell and possibly supporters of the Welsh National Opera. Those attributes would probably qualify someone to be on the good chaps quango.
  Approval of such an approach depends on whether the board is seen to be representative and sensitive to the needs of Wales and accountable to Parliament, the people of Wales or other democratically elected organisations in Wales such as the local authorities. It depends on whether it is seen to have good contacts with people in non-Welsh-speaking areas as well as Welsh-speaking areas of Wales. If the board is set up as a normal Welsh Office quango, it will be heading for disaster. If the Secretary of State can tell us a bit more about how he intends to ensure that the board will not be a conventional Government quango, we may be able to accept the policy of sub-contracting a board to do the job.
  Such a quango would not have to be based on conventional quangos. It is possible to set up quangos that are partly democratically accountable. The Welsh Joint Education Committee was a sort of quango, but it consisted largely of local authority representatives who were accountable to democratically elected councillors whose backsides could be kicked by the people every three or four years, and who could be removed if they were not doing the job that the people wanted them to do.
  Appointments could be made to the quango so that at least the chairman, and possibly other members, had to appear before the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs before their appointments were confirmed. That is the process in the United States, where there are confirmatory hearings in the Senate. The Select Committee could ask potential members how they intended to pursue policies, what sort of relationship they intended to have with the Secretary of State and how independent they intended to be.
  It is not good enough for the Secretary of State merely to come to the House and say that the best people will always be appointed, and expect us to take his word for it. He must accept that, while a Government of his political colour are in office, it will not automatically be seen by the majority of people in Wales—who do not vote for the Conservative party—that the people he appoints will necessarily be very representative of the people of Wales.
  On an issue such as the Welsh language, it is critically important that the Government find some means of moving away from the convention of Welsh Office quangos. One might wonder whether the board will be representative, but another crucial matter is the degree of control that it will have with regard to the resources

  965
  provided for Welsh-medium education. In another place, there were interminable debates on this issue, but the Government provided no satisfaction. It was said simply that everything would be based on boards and that the education authorities would have to prepare schemes, just as the health authorities do. But the schemes of most public bodies in Wales involve very little by way of resources; they concern themselves with such matters as the provision of Welsh speakers on staffs for the purpose of answering queries in Welsh and translating forms. Education is totally different. Here, the expenditure could run into millions of pounds. In an average county, it would take perhaps £500,000 annually to build one new primary school every year and, perhaps, a new secondary school every 10 years. There is a quantum leap between the two situations.
  We shall want to know what powers the board will have to approve schemes with the resource implications of Welsh-medium education bids by county councils or by schools themselves. These resource implications are totally different from those of other schemes; yet the Secretary of State slid over this area in an unsatisfactory way.
  Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend is dealing with a fundamental and very important point. The successful development of Welsh-medium education in areas such as mine has been based on a very sensitive balance of resources between English-language nursery schools and Welsh-language nursery schools. We have avoided conflict and tension. Any Welsh language board must not blunder into the situation without appreciating local democratic decisions and sensitivities.
  Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. There must be local democratic accountability for such education decisions. In a budget year, there could be a conflict between a Welsh-language school and a special-needs school. If democratic accountability is removed, things are made very difficult. But how is democratic accountability to be secured at an all-Wales board level? I do not want to divert the debate into areas relating to a Welsh assembly, but the establishment of such an assembly would be one means of securing democratic accountability. Local authorities could be used to the greatest possible extent by being given the right to nominate board members. In any case, we must not leave everything to people throwing themselves against the walls of a quango that is responsible only to the person who appointed it—the Secretary of State. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that such a system will satisfy people, he is making a big mistake.
  We want to ensure that the Bill leaves this House in an improved state. We do not intend to vote against it, but we see many imperfections in it. It is important that it should achieve the maximum measure of good will. We do not want people in strongly Welsh-speaking areas to say that it has not done enough, or people in Newport, Presteigne, Knighton, Connah's Quay or Milford Haven to say that it has done far too much by introducing what they regard as some sort of discriminatory provision in favour of Welsh speakers in relation to employment. It is extremely unlikely that the good will that we want to see would be achieved in those circumstances. We want people in Newport to be able, when the Bill becomes law, to say,
  966
  "It's a good thing that this law is now on the statute book: we may not speak Welsh ourselves, but people in other parts of the country do, so we want to give the Act a fair wind and wish it godspeed." Thus the attitudes adopted by all the parties in the House are extremely important. The Secretary of State must appreciate how important it is that he should demonstrate give and take such as we have not seen so far.
  In connection with the privatised utilities, the Secretary of State used words that I found difficult to understand. I was able to make something of them only by reference to the report of the debates in another place. With the possible exception of the training and enterprise councils—perhaps not a very good example—it appears that privatised utilities will not be touched by the0 Bill.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: We have here a new dimension. The Government's declared policy is substantially to reduce the public sector by a whole series of measures, including full-scale privatisation and market testing across the board. There is a danger that a large number of bodies within the scope of the Bill will be removed as a result of Government policy.
  Mr. Morgan: I am extremely glad that my hon. Friend has raised that point. Opposition Members have to judge the Bill's effectiveness not only on the basis of what the Secretary of State has said today but also on the basis of what the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said recently. The Chief Secretary has made the point that he wants to roll back the frontiers of the state much further. Thus there is no point in the Secretary of State's coming here and saying, somewhat boastfully, that the good news is that the Government are legislating to bring the Welsh language up to a level of equality in the public sector while the bad news is that there will not be any public sector. What will be left if all the Government's proposals go through? It will not be very much if they manage to get their legislation passed in the course of this Parliament.
  There is little to indicate that the Welsh people will benefit greatly from the Bill, which is a will-o'-the-wisp. It is a measure that will impose obligations on a shrinking public sector, and its impact will progressively decline over the years. I am not sure that that is what the Secretary of State wants. If it is, he must realise that there will be mutterings all over Wales. It will be said that he is not fighting for Welsh interests, that he is fighting for his place in the reshuffled Cabinet and does not want his English colleagues to be able to say, "We don't want that chap to be Secretary of State for Employment or Secretary of State for the Environment: after all, he went native during his three years in Wales." The right hon. Gentleman will be open to such accusations unless he indicates that, from time to time—not all the time; just now and again—he is willing to take on conventional Tory thinking.
  In this case he must recognise the importance of the Welsh language and say to his Cabinet colleagues, "Sorry, but we intend to impose public-sector obligations on utilities that have been privatised. I know that it is against Tory thinking, but we ought to make an exception in this case." If the right hon. Gentleman does not do that, he will not be fighting for Wales—he will be behaving like a conventional Tory and using Wales as a springboard for his next promotion. Well, we in Wales are not willing to be used in that way. We are not the right hon. Gentleman's platform for promotion. What we want is restoration of

  967
  the Welsh language to as near equality as possible without creation of the complications that would arise from full bilingualism. If we had full bilingualism in this House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would have to say, "Order. Order. Disgyblaeth, Disgyblaeth." at the beginning of each parliamentary Session, and Hansard would have to be printed in Welsh. That is not what we want, though I am sure that, given your surname, you, Sir, have such dreams in the middle of the night. What we want is a measure confined to practical things to assist the restoration of the Welsh language to its rightful place, in so far as such a thing can be achieved by the law. But the impact must be felt in Wales, and not in England. The Minister's replies to interventions about the shrinking public sector were extremely unsatisfactory. This is a matter to which we shall have to return, as is the question of funding Welsh-medium education and the equally important conventional Welsh-language education in the Welsh-speaking areas.
  We also want something more. On the composition of the membership of the board, reference was made in the other House to the need to take account of three categories—Welsh speakers, Welsh learners and non-Welsh speakers. That was it; the fourth category was missed. The other House forgot about what we might call the un-learners: people whose Welsh is rusty and will disappear if they do not do something about it. The recent market research study commissioned by S4C, the independent television channel in Wales, showed that that is quite a large category. Possibly there are as many as 500,000 people who speak a bit of Welsh but who would not fill in a census form to that effect because their Welsh is rusty. They may have learnt a little and then stopped going to classes, and they will not be able to speak Welsh in 20 years' time unless they do something about it. That category is numerous in industrial Wales. S4C said that it needed to do more for those people, and the Government need to do more for them. No one in the other House paid attention to that category which is numerous in the former coal-mining and steel-making areas of west Wales and in parts of north-east Wales.
  The Government made a beginning in the other House and on Second Reading here. They have announced the identity of the chairman. They did not need to announce it because it became more and more obvious as time went by in the other place. We wish Lord Elis-Thomas well in finding the right colleagues. I hope that they will have a democratic input. Lord Elis-Thomas has been a tireless champion of the Welsh language around countless Hampstead dining tables. I hope that he can find colleagues who will be able to communicate as well as he does with some groups in the industrial areas of Wales, where perhaps the battle will be won or lost. We take that view not only because we represent those areas but because that is where the language has been declining.
  We shall not go back into the question of the Committee of the Regions and the deal on the treaty of Maastricht. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I was only going to say that it might be renamed the treaty of Malltraeth after the contribution of the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) to its passage through the House by propping up the Government when they needed it most.
  The problem will be overdependence on boards and schemes. Those are the buzz words in the Bill. They are almost like hymns and arias in Max Boyce's songs of 10 or 15 years ago. There will be over-reliance on boards and
  968
  schemes which we in Parliament will have nothing to do with. The Secretary of State forgets that the key to the success of the Bill is education and jobs, and what happens afterwards to people who learned Welsh in school. We want an assurance that when the Secretary of State deals with the remaining stages of the Bill and makes appointments, he will remember that he represents a minority party and that his four Back Benchers arrived at the House today in enormous comfort in a Reliant Robin. He should realise that he needs to be able to sell the Bill to the whole population of Wales. We are not talking about Tory placemen who will support the Secretary of State, whether it is the right hon. Gentleman or someone else. He should remember that we are dealing with a measure which should satisfy the rightful demands of the whole nation of Wales.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance for those who may wish to catch your eye later in the debate? When my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) used three words of Welsh, it appeared that his microphone died. Can you give us a ruling on the use of the Welsh language in debates? There are precedents—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman asked me a question. May I answer it? He sought the guidance of the Chair. The guidance is printed clearly on page 365 of "Erskine May":
  "Speeches must be made in English, but quotation in another language has been allowed on occasion, though a translation should be provided."
  That is as much for the protection of hon. Members as for the Chair, so that we may all know what hon. Members are talking about.
  Mr. Flynn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are precedents for the use of Norman French in another House, for the use of Middle English, which I have used, and for the use of French in quotation. At one time, there was a long quotation in Latin of several stanzas of Virgil's verse. If some hon. Members wish to quote in Welsh to illustrate the glories of Welsh literature, will that be in order?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the greatest respect, the hon. Gentleman did not listen. He should listen carefully:
  "Speeches must be made in English, but quotation in another language has been allowed on occasion,"—
  not automatically
  "though a translation should be provided."
  The quotation and translation should be relevant to the Bill.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): I rise with some trepidation, especially following the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), whose logic and train of thought left me at times bereft of speech, which is unusual for me.
  I hope that I meet the criterion of the hon. Gentleman in that I rise not as a conventional Tory. I can claim some right to speak on the Bill. My mother was brought up in Aberavon. She may have known the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) because they are, I think, of similar age. She spoke Welsh fluently. She taught me a little of the culture conveyed by that ancient language. From an early age, I learned that the language

  969
  was a vital part of the common heritage of England and Wales. Although my Welsh vocabulary is limited, sadly, to only a few choice words, such as "Fenlinfoel", I will support the Bill which is aimed at increasing the prominence of the language. This historic Bill will do just that. Its overriding intention is that the English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality.
  The word "historic" is indeed fitting to describe a Bill that repeals the Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The policy of those laws was to suppress the Welsh language and deny it a role in public life in Wales. The policy continued unabated for centuries. Even during the last century, speaking Welsh in schools was an offence for which a pupil could be beaten. A child caught speaking Welsh would be made to wear a pendant bearing the words "Welsh Not". The "Not", as it was called, was passed from offender to offender, and the unfortunate child wearing it at the end of the day received a thrashing. After 1862, when grants were given to schools if children passed tests in reading and writing in English, the "Not" was considered a vital piece of equipment by many teachers. Not having gone to a public school, fortunately I have never been the recipient of a good thrashing.
  In spite of that onslaught, half the population could speak Welsh at the turn of the century. This century, measures to sustain the language have become a dominant cultural and political theme. The Welsh Language Act 1967 at last gave equal validity to the language.
  A language directly descended from the Brythonic language, which was once spoken across mainland Britain and whose dialects were here long before the Romans arrived, has survived. We should be thankful that it has, for it harbours a vibrant literary tradition, especially in poetry and song. It enhances the cultural diversity that is so essential to our kingdom.
  The nation owes this hardy, resilient language a duty of care. We should nourish and nurture it and ensure that it flourishes. There are already grounds for optimism. I was pleased to learn recently that the Welsh fourth television channel, S4C, which is just 10 years old, is watched by 67 per cent. of the population in the Principality. My broadcasting background has taught me how crucial television can be in sustaining a language. We must also give credit to BBC radio and BBC television in Wales.
  The many community newspapers circulating in the Welsh-speaking part of Wales also play an important role, but above all education is now making a vital contribution. Some 15 per cent. of secondary schoolchildren in Wales now receive at least part of their education in Welsh. The national curriculum has ensured that all our children have the opportunity to learn Welsh.
  In a recent survey for S4C, 70 per cent. of respondents between the ages of 12 and 15 said that they could speak some Welsh. That is encouraging, but we must not be complacent, because in the same survey the figure plummeted to 31 per cent. for 16 to 24-year-olds. Competence seems to fade when school days are just a memory. That is why the Bill is vital.
  The language must not be treated by school leavers as an appendage to their lives, seen only on road signs or in shop windows. It must be common currency, an integral part of the community. The Bill makes great strides
  970
  towards that goal. It constructs a framework for the promotion of Welsh in everyday life by requiring every public sector body to develop a scheme setting out the services that it will provide through the medium of Welsh. It gives statutory authority to approve those schemes to a Welsh Language Board that will be charged with promoting and facilitating the use of the language. It backs the board with the Secretary of State's powers to make the public body comply.
  The Bill also provides that there is no restriction on the use of Welsh in legal proceedings and empowers Ministers to prescribe Welsh statutory forms. That all amounts to a powerful and wide-ranging attempt to foster the language.
  The principle behind the Bill is that the Welsh and English languages should be treated equally. It is, of course, right that those for whom Welsh is the first language should be able to conduct their business with public bodies in that language. It is also right that those who would like to use the language should be given every encouragement to do so.
  When the Bill's provisions are enacted, the school leaver who speaks Welsh will have a choice of which language to use. He cannot be made to speak Welsh, but he will see that the language is alive and well and not part of the curriculum that might as well be forgotten. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, West said, many words and concepts in Welsh cannot easily be translated into English. That in itself is an incentive to speak Welsh.
  I congratulate the Government on two omissions from the Bill. It is sensible that the private sector has been excluded, because the people of Wales would not thank the Government if their business had to labour under new duties—
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Why is it sensible to include the Post Office while it is in the public sector but to exclude it when it enters the private sector?
  Mr. Fabricant: It will not necessarily be excluded. The hon. and learned Gentleman raised that matter earlier with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, as he said, the matter will be discussed in detail in Committee.
  No one in Wales would thank us if we forced private companies to incur new duties and extra costs that would not be experienced elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It was wise not to discriminate against the English speakers in Wales. The good will of the whole population has been safeguarded and the attractiveness of the Principality as a target for investment has been maintained. Hon. Members will agree that Wales is attractive to overseas investors.
  Mr. Flynn: We are indebted to the hon. Gentleman for giving us the benefit of his experience of Welsh broadcasting gained during the weeks that he worked for Radio Caroline. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the private and public sectors. His party's declared policy is to reduce the number of civil servants from 500,000 to 10,000 through privatisation, contractorisation and market testing. Does he not see that if the Government have their way there will be no public sector?
  Mr. Fabricant: Removing the burden from the state gives resources to the private sector. I remind the hon. Gentleman that Governments do not create jobs; they are created by the private sector. What the hon. Gentleman suggests would drive business from the United Kingdom generally and from the Principality in particular. I worked

  971
  for BBC Wales in Bangor and Cardiff for longer than I worked for Radio Caroline, for which I worked for two and a half weeks. It seemed to my listeners like two and a half years and to me, suffering from seasickness, it seemed like 25 years.
  The Minister of State., Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): I assure my hon. Friend that some of the most prominent supporters of the Welsh language are the public utilities, which have given superb service. There is no better example than Welsh Water, and there are others, such as British Telecom. There is no reason whatever for a public sector body to abandon its Welsh language policy when it becomes private.
  Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention.
  I applaud the Government for spending more than £7·5 million to support the Welsh language and for offering in the Bill a bright future for a language that has enriched the kingdom for centuries. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it quite clear that he will listen in Committee to all views and will seek to fine-tune the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
  6.38 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Many years after I was born in Wales and had been taken to be brought up in Lancashire, I returned to Wales, first to work and then to live there. Some still say that those who are not good Welsh speakers or Welsh speakers at all face problems if they go to work in the public service or the professions in Wales. We must lay that bogey to rest early in the debate.
  I have a little Welsh, but it is fairly abysmal and I wish that it were much better. From that position, I confirm that there is nothing to fear in the proposed legislation. We are not debating an exclusive matter; we are discussing a language and culture that, far from being exclusive, are strongly seductive. The only cause for fear about the Welsh language and culture is if they are corralled into provocative, defensive aggression. This measure—albeit much strengthened, I hope—could do a great deal to ensure that Welsh has its rightful place, not a suppressed place.
  It is, therefore, a matter of satisfaction that the House is given the opportunity of debating the best ways to promote and protect the Welsh language, although I regret that we are debating the Government's Welsh Language Bill, not the Welsh Language Board's Bill. I thought that the board's Bill was a much better, a much more purposeful and determined effort to deal with the issue.
  Much has been done for the Welsh language since in his 1962 speech "Tynged yr Iaith"—the fate of the language—Saunders Lewis advocated
  "nothing short of revolutionary methods to protect Welsh."
  Thankfully, a rapid evolution has taken place without the need for revolution.
  The last three decades have seen the Welsh language thrive, at least in some sectors: in the arts, in sport, in the academic world and in parts of the media. However, there is still cause for concern about the development of Welsh in the printed media. In that sector, the Welsh Language Board can do a great deal to promote the universality of Welsh, which appears but rarely and in limited form, in national daily and weekly newspapers.
  In the battle for survival, for that is what it has been, the Welsh language has shown that the pen and the mind are
  972
  far mightier than the sword or the bomb could ever be. The most fluent pens and some of the highest of minds were much in evidence when the Bill was debated recently in another place. I am sure that anyone who listened to or read some of the speeches were heartened to hear so many of, shall we call them, the maturer Welsh dragons still breathing enough fire to frighten their English cousins and tormentors into supporting the Bill.
  Some of their Lordships paid tribute in the other place to the Welsh Language Board. Without wanting to labour the point, I, too, applaud the board and support what the Secretary of State said about it. I also applaud very strongly the appointment of Lord Elis-Thomas as chairman of the board. Acceptance of that appointment in some parts of the House today has been very grudging. He is a man of high intellect and great ability, and he is still youthful enough—indeed, he is a mere teenager in terms of the other place—to give the board real energy. He is a worthy successor to his predecessor.
  The number of people speaking Welsh today is increasing. In each of the present counties of Wales, more children are learning Welsh than ever before. Those who raise bogeys about the increase in the speaking of Welsh should note that today it is commonplace in a constituency such as mine, Montgomeryshire—I repeat "Montgomeryshire" for the benefit of the Secretary of State in his last days in that office—for a typical family to consist of monolingual English parents and bilingual Welsh and English-speaking children. Parents in my constituency encourage that trend, which I applaud.
  The future of living Welsh clearly lies in the hands of schools and colleges where it is taught and of the children who learn it. I say with all the strength that I can muster that the role of the primary school in rural areas is crucial. Village schools are the very womb of the Welsh language. I hope that we shall hear the Minister of State—who, I know, is devoted to the Welsh language—confirm when he winds up the debate that he still believes that the village school has a valuable role to play.
  Sir Wyn Roberts indicated assent.
  Mr. Carlile: I am pleased to see the Minister nod in agreement.
  Parliament also has an important part to play in the future of the Welsh language. In dealing with the Bill, we have an historic and rare opportunity. It is not every day that one has the opportunity to repeal statutes of Henry VIII. Now that we have that chance, we must seize it with both hands and not only get rid of historic surplusage but try to put in place legislation that will be an historic glory for the future.
  I regret that I feel that the Bill does not quite live up to the occasion. It is perhaps a little bit like the current Welsh rugby union team: it promises a good deal but does not always deliver it. I hope, however, that our Committee proceedings will prove to be a little more auspicious than some of the recent meetings of the Welsh rugby union.
  We must ask ourselves what we want from the Bill and what our aims are for the future of the Welsh language. I believe that we want the Bill to emerge from Committee as a friendly dragon, breathing fire into the Welsh language, rather than as a mere paper tiger—for that is how it looks at the moment.
  If our aim were to allow the language merely to be Wales's answer to the Loch Ness monster—prehistoric,

  973
  rarely seen and good only for tourists—the Bill as it stands would do the job. If, however, our aim is the more purposeful one of promoting Welsh among every sphere of social, economic and professional life in Wales, the Bill must be improved. At the moment, it pays homage to Welsh. More than homage is needed if the Bill is to have a real effect.
  I draw the attention of the House to the fundamental issue of the very status of the Welsh language. I regret very much that the Bill stops short of stating categorically that the Welsh language shall enjoy equal status with English as the official language of Wales. That omission has rightly upset many people throughout Wales.
  For the people of Wales, there is no real question about whether Welsh is equal to English; what is perplexing is why the Government are not prepared to enshrine that recognition in the Bill. The sad fact is that, unless it is enshrined, the Bill will not demonstrate to all comers, including those who have the most genuine concern, that Welsh is equal to English. Welsh must be, legally and officially, equal to the English language, otherwise it is bound to remain the second language in its own country. We have in the Bill the chance to correct that anomaly.
  A start to correcting the anomaly would have been a statutory right, enshrined and entrenched, for all families in Wales to have their children educated through the medium of Welsh, if they wish it, wherever they live. That right is not in the Bill. I tell the Minister of State, in the hope that he will address the issue in his reply, that it is not enough for people living in Powys who wish their children to attend a Welsh medium school to be told that it is a matter for the local education authority. A lead on this is needed from the Welsh Office. That is the sort of responsibility that the House should shoulder, through the Bill.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Without being mischievous, if the hon. and learned Gentleman is arguing for a basis of equality and arguing, further, that there should be this right to have education in Welsh, should there not be a corresponding right to have education in English?
  Mr. Carlile: What I have said is absolutely clear. The position as it is now is plain; I am arguing for a new right to be enshrined for us to have our children educated through the medium of Welsh if we wish.
  Mr. Wigley: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the policy is for pupils of bilingual schools in both non-Welsh-speaking and Welsh-speaking parts of Wales—Welsh and English speakers alike—to have total fluency in both languages by the age of 11? Does he further accept that there should be an even-handed policy that gives both groups that opportunity in the community in which they live?
  Mr. Carlile: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point.
  The setting up of a statutory Welsh Language Board has been welcomed throughout Wales and can achieve a great deal. I should like the board's functions to be extended so that it can provide practical services, such as translation and intepretation. I should also like the board to have sufficient funds to carry out research into the Welsh language and the best ways of promoting it.
  974
  I am convinced that membership of the board should be as broad as possible. I hope—again, without labouring a point that has already been raised—that, before appointing members of the board, the Secretary of State will consult as widely as possible local authorities, public bodies, Members of Parliament and others involved in Welsh life. I also ask the Secretary of State to try to ensure that there is a sufficient number of elected local authority representatives on the board.
  I turn now, briefly, to the Welsh language schemes. This part of the Bill is like an unhatched egg: it could emerge as a swan or it might turn out to be an ugly duckling. There is very little in the Bill that suggests the form the schemes will take when they come into operation. I should like mother hen at the Dispatch Box to expand on the type of schemes that the Government envisage developing.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. and learned Gentleman has left out the intervening step, which is the production of guidelines by the Welsh Language Board. Those guidelines, on which the schemes will be based, will be approved not only by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State but by this House and the other place.
  Mr. Carlile: I am grateful to the Minister for mentioning that, but it seems to me that he raises a question as to whether the autonomy and independence of the board will be guaranteed. The point that I was seeking to make was that the board should also be able to take practical steps to ensure that schemes are brought to fruition, rather than merely take the advisory step of devising them. I hope that some good ideas for schemes for promoting the Welsh language will emerge from Members of all parties when the Bill is debated in Committee. Many ideas are available—for instance, the idea of a scheme to give incentives to companies in Wales that are able to provide Welsh language lessons for their employees.
  I turn to public bodies and the point raised by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). It is entirely illogical, I suggest, for the Post Office to be required to meet one set of parameters while it is a public body and then be allowed to abandon every one of them when it moves into the private sector. I am not saying that it will; I hope that those who run the Post Office will have more sense.
  I have little confidence in the future of British Rail or its successors in this context. We in central Wales seem to face the possibility of our railways—if they continue to exist—being run from Doncaster. I cannot imagine that there will be great enthusiasm for spending money to promote the Welsh language in that situation. In the other place, some wise minds and voices spoke of the importance of ensuring that the privatised utilities were required to maintain the same standards as public services. I hope that the Secretary of State and his Ministers will be persuaded to change their minds by what is said in Committee. Universal utilities such as gas, water, telecommunications and electricity play a self-evidently vital role in the everyday lives of people in Wales, and the Welsh language would benefit from their full co-operation in Welsh language schemes.
  The Welsh language and its culture are the heartbeat of Wales. At the very least, Welsh—as Wynford Vaughan Thomas put it—adds an exciting note in a world of insidious and spreading standardisation. I believe, however, that that observation significantly understates

  975
  the reality. Welsh is more than a great, historic, ancient language; it is an evolving language as well. If we are to keep the heart of Wales beating, we must have an Act of Parliament that is up to the task—the task of preserving and extending a living language into the next millennium and beyond. I do not believe that we have that legislation yet, but I am glad that we have been given the opportunity to debate the issues fully. At least we have a basis on which we can improve during the Bill's later stages. I hope that we shall not fail the people of Wales in what must rightly be regarded as an historic task.
  6.56 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who gave us an eloquent agenda for what will no doubt take place in Committee. In his cogent exposition, the hon. and learned Gentleman dealt with the issues in rather clearer detail than the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). Although I am bound to confess that I did not agree with all that he said, I believe that our views have much in common.
  Let me now deal with the matters on which we disagree. We disagree in particular about the principle of the equal validity of the English and Welsh languages. I do not think that that is a great issue between the two sides of the House. I have read the Hansard report of the debates in the other place, and it is clear from what Ministers said there that legal technicalities led to the advice that was given. We can debate that in Committee, but it would be wrong for Wales to be left with the impression that the Government were reluctant to acknowledge the desire to move towards equal validity.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: The issue of legal technicalities and legal advice is important. When we debated another Bill, we were given different advice at different times about an extremely important issue. Will not the hon. Gentleman at least admit that the legal technicalities discussed in the Lords might just as easily be overturned in the Commons, to enable discussion of the issue of real equal status for the two languages in Wales?
  Mr. Evans: I do not want to spend too much time discussing the legal technicalities of equal validity on Second Reading; the matter should be debated in Committee. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, it was in Committee that legal advice relating to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill was discussed in detail.
  Let me add, however, that the pitfalls have always been well understood. Paragraph 357 of a 1963 report produced by the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire states:
  "We found much informed opinion in Wales strongly in favour of the granting of 'official status' to the Welsh language though it was generally recognised that a precise definition of this concept, in the special circumstances attaching to the language in Wales could not easily be found."
  I do not think that much divides us on the principle; the arguments about legal technicalities are best reserved for Committee.
  Mr. Dafis: I am surprised that such a learned legal mind does not make a clear distinction between equal validity and equal status. Equal validity simply means that anything done in the Welsh language is regarded as equally valid. That is a much weaker concept than that of equal
  976
  status, which implies an impulse actualy to do things in the Welsh language. That is a much stronger and infinitely preferable concept.
  Mr. Evans: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not wish to be tempted to follow his remarks at this point. This is a Second Reading debate, and I want to make it clear that I support the principle of equal validity. We will discuss the legal technicalities in Committee.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery referred to the right to Welsh medium education. It is a problem common to us both as we share the same county council. That is not an attack on the council. Because it covers a sparsely populated area, it faces difficulties with the provision of Welsh medium education. My constituents can get access to it, but sadly they usually have to go outside Powys. As I understand the Bill, the quality of Welsh medium education available in Powys high schools could come within the remit of the board. That would be a powerful factor in dealing with the problems.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman said that Welsh was not his first language—he has an understanding of Welsh, but is not a great Welsh speaker. I would not put my proficiency in Welsh as high as he put his, although I understand some Welsh. I make no apology for speaking in this important debate. I am a Welshman, I have lived and worked in Wales all my life, and I represent a Welsh constituency.
  Together with at least nine other hon. Members, I am partly responsible for the Bill. A moment ago, I referred to the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire report published in 1963. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has it with him. All hon. Members have been liberally supplied with copies. He will recall that the 1961 census showed an alarming drop in the number of children aged five to 15 in Welsh schools speaking the Welsh language.
  I declare an interest, as I must have been one of those children, as were the other nine hon. Members to whom I referred. That acted as a catalyst for a number of events. One was the now infamous speech by Saunders Lewis, although I do not think that in history his contribution to the promotion of the Welsh language will be deemed as great as that of John Elfed Jones and Lord Elis-Thomas.
  It has been said that the report reflected the culmination of a century of decline in Welsh speaking. Thereafter, a number of other reports have been produced. They have shown the two general reactions to legislation on this matter—proceeding either on the basis of co-operation, partnership and persuasion or on the basis of coercion.
  Those two reactions are at the heart of the debate. The Welsh council argued that an important first step was to ensure that the right climate of opinion was created about the Welsh language. That certainly now exists in Wales. It generally has substantial support not just from Welsh speakers, but from the whole population of Wales. That is an important achievement.
  Of course, a language cannot be imposed upon people. Hon. Members have suggested that the Government have a responsibility to introduce Welsh language legislation, and that that will somehow deal with the decline in the number of people speaking Welsh.
  Mr. Fabricant: Is there not a dichotomy in that, when an institution tries to promote a language, at the same time it stops that language's flexibility, which prevents it from

  977
  becoming a modern language? I think especially of the Institute Francaise, which has tried to preserve French in aspic as a 19th-century language. In many ways, that has damaged its prospects as a language for the 21st century.
  Mr. Evans: I certainly do not believe that this Bill will bring about that position. The whole thrust of my approach and argument is that the Government were right to proceed on the basis of carrying the majority of public opinion with them. They created a climate of support for the language, and moved to legislation only when they were sure of support for that.
  Some hon. Members have referred to what has happened during the years of debate on the Welsh language. In 1978, a report was produced by the Council for the Welsh Language for a former Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). It stated that there was
  "a widespread desire for Welsh to continue as a living language. This should be achieved by reasoned persuasion and exhortation, not by compulsion."
  That shows that the Government were right to foster the right climate for a revival of the Welsh language. It also answers the point mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery of assuaging the feelings that might otherwise arise from compulsion, which is sometimes advocated by the strident voices arguing for direct action in defence of the language.
  That report made some specific recommendations. One of the most famous related to the urgency of proceeding to the creation of a fourth television channel. I did a little research on that, as I wanted to know how much the council thought it would cost the Treasury. There was a substantial underestimate. The cost was estimated at £9 million a year. I understand that currently S4C receives £55 million a year from the Department of National Heritage.
  I make no complaint about that, but it gives the lie to the suggestion that the Government have been cheese-paring in their support for the Welsh language. I am grateful for the remarks of a number of people who do not share my political views, but nevertheless recognise the substantial support given to the language over a lengthy period.
  For this debate, I read the Official Report of the Welsh Grand Committee on 16 July 1980, which was within a year of the Government coming to office. I was particularly interested in the observations made by my distinguished predecessor, the late Tom Hooson, who was then in virtually the same situation as I am—he had been the Member of Parliament for Brecon and Radnor for a year. I noted his approach to the Welsh language at that time. He felt that it was the role of Government to help the language. However, he said:
  "it is only the people who can will a future for the Welsh language."—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 16 July 1980; column 26.]
  He felt that the influence within the home was important in that regard. He stressed, as has the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, the need for bilingual education to be developed.
  We should pay due credit to my right hon. Friend the Minister for his work in promoting the language by placing Welsh on the national curriculum. Tom Hooson said that the Government could not force an unreal pace.
  978
  At the time he was talking, Welsh was taught in only one secondary school in what I am proud to call—looking at the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery—the Radnorshire county council area.
  Yet, when my right hon. Friend the Minister introduced Welsh in the national curriculum, and schools had the option to argue that, for some reason, they should be allowed not to participate, not one school in Radnorshire made such a request. That is a testament to the policy of the Government in carrying public opinion in what are termed the English-speaking parts of Wales.
  Tom Hooson knew Radnorshire well and especially the Painscastle area, where last Saturday night and early Sunday morning I had the privilege and pleasure of being the president of the local eisteddfod, one that has been held for 25 years in that predominantly English-speaking part of Radnorshire. A number of people came from all over Wales to participate in the event.
  One of the important subjects talked about that night was the role of the national eisteddfod, which is not only in receipt of local authority and Government support, but will be held in Llanelwedd in Radnorshire in August. In that English-speaking community, I find support and not hostility towards the Welsh language. That is why the policies that we have been advancing to promote Welsh language are right.
  I shall now mention some specific points in the Bill. I pay tribute to John Elfed Jones, the chairman of the Welsh Language Board, for the work that he has done not only for that board, but for the Welsh language policies of Welsh Water. The point has already been made that we did not need to have an Act of Parliament, or a statutory big stick, to require Welsh Water to have a proper policy for the promotion of the Welsh language. I pay tribute to that, of course, not least because Welsh Water is based in my constituency.
  John Elfed Jones has conducted himself with great dignity in his role as chairman of the Welsh Language Board, and I remember occasions on which he had to endure the very people, some of whom were perhaps mentioned by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis)—higher-profile members of the Welsh Language Society—berating him on the National Eisteddfod field. I have said, and I have no hesitation in repeating, that John Elfed Jones will be recalled as a man who achieved far more for the language than Saunders Lewis ever did.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: The tribute to John Elfed Jones is well merited, but surely the hon. Gentleman misses the point that the policy of Welsh Water could be reversed tomorrow by the board.
  Mr. Evans: During the debate, we have heard much about the need for an extension of language policy into a wide range of what are termed public bodies. The Government have made clear their position about public utilities, but it is as deception to claim that there are not provisions within the Bill to ensure that the Secretary of State has the power to involve organisations that appear to be public. Reference has already been made to that.
  When I first read that, I wondered whether the Secretary of State would propose regulations involving Members of Parliament as well, because that would, according to my reading of the provision, be perfectly

  979
  legitimate. It speaks of any person, whether a body corporate or incorporate, who appears to the Secretary of State
  "to be exercising functions of a public nature."
  That seems to be an extraordinarily wide definition. If that includes Members of Parliament, there is no reason why it cannot include other organisations of a public nature, although the Government's position in relation to public utilities has been well ventilated.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery mentioned the position of railways. The railways will be unaffected either way. Even if British Rail were to be included in the provisions of the Welsh Language Bill, it would have been included under that provision in paragraph (o), as it would be if any parts of the organisations were to be franchised out. So there is no distinction.
  Mr. Alex Carlile indicated dissent.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. and learned Gentleman must have misread the Bill, because the copy that I have clearly sets out in clause 6, between paragraphs (a) and (n), specifically defined public bodies, and British Rail is not one. There is a catch-all provision again under the power of the Secretary of State, in paragraph (o). If there was a provision to include British Rail, it would appear under that paragraph (o), and similarly, if we have a franchising of the service, it would be under that provision that anyone who argues that franchise organisation should be required to produce a scheme.
  Mr. Carlile: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right. The remarks made earlier by the Secretary of State in answer to this point suggest that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The matter was raised by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). Perhaps the Minister can clarify that important point when he comes to answer.
  Mr. Evans: It is not for me to answer that point, but I saw the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who is always generous, nodding in assent at the observations I made.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I may be able to assist the House. The test, with regard to the applications of that subsection, is whether the body is funded from Government sources.
  Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.
  As a result of my generosity in giving way to so many right hon. and hon. Members, I have taken up more time than I had originally intended. I shall finish by reiterating what I think is the cardinal principle of importance on Second Reading.
  In seeking to promote the future of language, we can do so on the basis of co-operation, or we can attempt to do so by coercion. Going down the road of coercion would not serve the interests of the Welsh language. The proposals in the Bill will work on a co-operative basis, so they ought to be commended to the House.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I hope that all hon. Members who wish to speak will be called, but that will not be possible if each hon. Member speaks for more than 20 minutes.
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) made a sensible speech. He, like me, is a card-carrying member of the persuasion tendency, a theme that I hope to develop further during my speech.
  We all come to the question of the Welsh language with our own personal baggage and histories. Some have had the good fortune to be brought up in Welsh-speaking households. Others have taken the initiative themselves to learn Welsh. I, alas, am a member of the missing generation who went to a traditional Welsh grammar school, where the Welsh section was corralled into one stream, the Welsh stream, and the rest did other things. I, for example, gave up Welsh for Greek at a tender age.
  However, I recall that, when it came to history, we had a good bias for the language. My history master set the question, "1588 was a decisive turning point in history. Discuss." Those who discussed the armada had a reasonable mark, but those who discussed the translation of the Bible by Bishop William Morgan had a good mark. That shows that that single event in 1588 probably had a more decisive influence on the Welsh language than the statutes of 1535 and 1542 and that more informal elements may have a happier effect on the language than legislation.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish me to remind the House that it was Parliament which, in 1563, required by statute that there should be a translation of the Bible into Welsh. It took a little time because, as the hon. Gentleman said, it did not appear until 1588.
  Mr. Anderson: I stand corrected. Like most English speakers, in Wales I rejoice at the resurgence of the Welsh language. I am particularly delighted by the new self-confidence of our younger people, based principally on the greatly increased expenditure in our schools. That is a major sea change which the great majority of English speakers in Wales now accept as a new consensus. It is based on a recognition that the language is of inestimable value.
  Diversity is important, and we are glad that new pressures in favour of Wales are also coming from the European Community. I have a nightmare that at some stage in the future we shall all be speaking in some mid-atlantic sameness of language—something which the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) seemed to welcome.
  Welsh ceased to be the official language of Wales not by neglect but by law, by the Act of Union, and legislation is again needed to underpin the language and restore its official status. Therefore, I welcome the Bill. I shall be brief and skate over some of its key elements.
  We learn that there will be up to 15 members of the Welsh Language Board. No figures have been given for expenditure on the board, nor do we know how large a proportion that will be of the anticipated total expenditure under the Act. The board is a quango and I hope that the Government will look carefully at relating it in some way to our local authorities. Perhaps the new unitary authorities can in some way act as an advisory body to the board, otherwise it will be rather cut off from democratic opinion in Wales.
  I also hope that, in selecting members of the board, the Welsh Office will be careful to ensure that they are

  981
  committed to the furtherance of the Welsh language and that they have sensitivities and are not zealots who can do immense harm to the language if they press too far.
  I have no particular worries about the phrase
  "appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable",
  which is well known in law, the interpretation of which should not pose any great problem. I am more worried about the phrase "basis of equality". It is difficult to find any legal precedent for that. It will be interesting in Committee to hear precisely how the Government propose that that should be interpreted.
  I asked the Secretary of State about the move from the public to the private sector. That has a particular resonance in Swansea at the moment because the driver and vehicle licensing centre may well, as a result of a Government decision which may be announced tomorrow, be transferred by way of contractorisation to the private sector. There are enormous anxieties in the city on that.
  The Post Office is a particularly relevant example. It seems absurd in principle that obligations that are accepted by the Post Office when it is in the public sector should be dropped and that the Post Office should simply be subject to guidelines when it moves to the other side.
  I am puzzled by the definition that the Minister has just given of those bodies exercising functions of a public nature in clause 6(1)(o). It is surely a distortion to suggest that bodies exercising functions of a public nature are limited to those that are financially dependent on the public purse. I should have thought that it would be difficult to sustain that in a court of law. I hope that the Minister will look again at that.
  I concede that, when the Secretary of State rejected the applicability of the paragraph to the problem of the Post Office, he was speaking without notice, but I hope that the Minister of State will come forward with a revised standard version, a more definitive version, in Committee. But it may well be that he will be hung on the ideological point that there is the public sector and there is the private sector and we cannot sell off the Post Office or the DVLC if we impose qualifications because their purchase will be less attractive to the private sector.
  That means that Mammon rules and that the Welsh Office and the Government are clearly giving second place to the language and first place to the ideology of moving back the frontiers of the state. I hope that the Government will consider that before the Committee stage. Substantial sections of the public sector—the Post Office and many other areas—because of market testing, are in danger of moving across the divide, across the frontier, and therefore outside the ambit of the board.
  I end as I began. Happily, in Wales, we have avoided the extremes. But there are wings of people in Wales who, one way or another, have extremist views on the language. There are those in my county of west Glamorgan who rail against the betrayals on the part of the county council and there are those who show against the Minister of State at Eisteddfodau, so harming their case. Others simply look at this as a job for the boys and avoid the cultural dimension and the value of the language.
  Happily, we have avoided such extremes in Wales. We have dealt with the language sensitively. There is what I call the doctrine of the evolving consensus in Wales. What
  982
  happened with Hughes Parry which resulted in the 1967 Act was probably the consensus at that time. Happily, as the result of the underpinning of Welsh language education, the caravan has moved. The consensus has evolved now to a point where we can go substantially beyond Hughes Parry and the 1967 Act. Indeed, as an English-speaking Welshman, I believe that the consensus has gone beyond what the Government are now suggesting, and I have already mentioned the aspects that cause me concern. I believe that the language should be encouraged boldly, but with sensitivity and persuasion, underpinned by legislation only when necessary.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Rod Richards: I begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales on the way in which he introduced the Bill. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on what is unquestionably an historic achievement in pioneering the Bill.
  The Bill is the latest in a series of important measures introduced by the Conservative Government that have revitalised the Welsh language and for which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is directly responsible. In education, broadcasting and social and cultural matters, my right hon. Friend's contribution to the language has been immense. It therefore came as no surprise when Lord Elis-Thomas of Nant Conwy, the Plaid Cymru peer, said of him recently that he had done more for the Welsh language than anyone else this century. I was not shocked to find that Lord Elis-Thomas is to become the chairman of the Welsh Language Board. In addition to everything else that my right hon. Friend has done, the Bill will ensure his standing as one of the great Welshmen of his generation.
  Having listened to the opening speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), I think that there can rarely have been a clearer distinction between the spokesman of a mature party of government and a party of permanent opposition in terminal decline. The Bill is an excellent example of the art of the possible undertaken by experienced Ministers, in complete contrast to the Labour party which has forgetten what being in government is all about and, of course, to Plaid Cymru which has no experience of government to forget.
  Having listened to the opening exchanges, I wonder whether the Bill goes far enough. Should it provide for a Welsh version of literature for Welsh speakers, an English version for English speakers and an illustrated version for the Labour party?
  We recognise that the decline of the Welsh language this century can be reversed only gradually. Quantum leaps are not feasible. There is already evidence that Government policies have encouraged the language to make a come-back, especially among the young. The Government's education policy will ensure that the trend continues, but it would be a mistake to quicken the pace of change by forcing the language on a reluctant people. That would be resented, resisted and counter-productive in the long term.
  The rehabilitation of the Welsh language needs the good will of the non-Welsh-speaking majority. If that good will were eroded, it would become correspondingly more difficult to persuade the English-speaking 80 per

  983
  cent. of the population to support measures and developments that they might consider at best pointless and at worst irritating. Therefore, the Bill strikes the right balance in view of the rate of progress made by the Welsh language as it regains the ground that it had been losing. It confers rights on those who wish to live their daily lives as fully as possible through the medium of Welsh, without imposing an irritating hindrance on non-Welsh-speakers. It is a realistic attempt to establish Welsh's equality with English.
  Opposition Members must recognise that the Welsh language cannot be saved by legislation alone. NonWelsh-speakers must also want the language to survive and prosper, but it will not do so if it is rammed down their throats. Therefore, my right hon. Friend is right to exclude the private sector from the requirement for public bodies to draw up strategies outlining how they are to use Welsh. The private sector already offers services in Welsh and, with encouragement, others will follow suit.
  Mr. David Hanson rose—
  Mr. Richards: I shall not give way because, as Madam Deputy Speaker said, time is short, and many hon. Members of all parties wish to speak.
  It would be wrong and wholly counter-productive to force the private sector to use Welsh against its will. Such a policy would not only create a barrier to inward investment but would provoke business to leave Wales. The outlook for the economy would be correspondingly depressed. As the language gains ground, it may be that, in the not-too-distant future, the private sector will be able to accommodate bilingualism more easily. I believe that it will and that it will want to embrace its heritage, but we must take care not to snuff out that possibility with legislation that could be interpreted as vindictive.
  When I speak of bilingualism, I mean using the language naturally in day-to-day dealings. I fear that the zealots who do so much harm to the language and the image of Wales think that bilingualism means translating everything into Welsh—every sign, every leaflet and every form. That is humbug. All types of bilingual forms are in use in Wales. which probably no more than a few thousand people in the entire country could read in Welsh and fully understand. If we are honest with ourselves, we must accept that the vast majority of Welsh speakers do not use them, or even read them. They are no more than a totem pole around which the zealots dance.
  Indeed, it is the zealots, so prominent in Plaid Cymru, who are the greatest danger to the language. These are the people—
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Grow up.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot allow private conversations or interventions of that kind from a seated position.
  Mr. Richards: These are the people who—
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I make it perfectly clear that I made that intervention on the ground that the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) was using inflarnmatory language about an issue that we had hoped would exclude party politics. The hon. Gentleman was inviting such an intervention.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: In that case, the hon. Gentleman should rise and seek to intervene.
  Mr. Richards: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  As I was saying, these are the people who try to use the language as a weapon with which to carve out an independent Wales. These are the people who refuse to recognise that the language belongs to all parties and to no single party. The zealots are mean minded and mealy mouthed, afraid of everything because of its perceived impact on the language. These are the people who are so obsessed that they believe that the language is more important than everything, even life itself.
  These are the people who believe that their culture and way of life can and should be wholly isolated from the outside world so that the language is not endangered. These are the people who would put the nation into quarantine to protect the language. These are the people who, if they had their way, would succeed only in killing the language and destroying the Welsh nation. These are the people who despise the Government for their very success in securing the viable future of the language, while they can do nothing but wring their hands on the sidelines.
  Some hon. Members believe that the Government are mistaken in their Welsh language policy because they are doing too much at too great a cost. There are occasions when I wonder whether the Government get the credit that they deserve for their commitment to the language, when competition between Government Departments for scarce resources is fiercer than ever. For example, S4C is subsidised by about £55 million a year. That is roughly equivalent to financing 100 embassies or consulates abroad, and that is at a time when we are doing our utmost to take advantage of the potential markets in the far east and in the new countries that make up the former Soviet Union.
  In reply to those who would argue that the Welsh language gets a disproportionate share of Government spending, I would say that in 1982 my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, justified—rightly, in my view—the retaking of the Falkland Islands, which had been invaded by the Argentines, on the ground that the 1,800 inhabitants were English speaking and wished to remain so. Baroness Thatcher said that that consideration was at the heart of the matter. The British task force, at great cost to the taxpayer and, ultimately, at great cost in loss of life, was dispatched 8,000 miles to fulfil our obligations to the English-speaking Falkland Islanders.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the Second Reading of a Bill. Extended remarks along those lines are getting to the point of irrelevance.
  Mr. Richards: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was just finishing.
  I say to doubting hon. Members how much more compelling is the case for 500,000 Welsh speakers next door in Wales.
  7.41 pm
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Mae'n warth o beth nad oes gennyf fi, fel aelod seneddol o gymru, yr hawl isiarad fy iaith fy hun yn yr unig senedd sy'n deddfu ar ran fy ngwlad hyd yn oed mewn dadl sy'n ymwneud a'r iaith gymraeg.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I believe that the hon. Gentleman was here when my predecessor in the Chair made the rules of the House quite clear. I hope that I do not have to repeat them. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to continue his speech in English?
  Mr. Wigley: I had availed myself of a translation of my speech, Madam Deputy Speaker, in case you requested it. I said:
  "It is a disgraceful situation that I, as an MP from Wales, have no right to speak my own language in this, the only Parliament that legislates for my country, even in a debate concerning the Welsh language."
  Had I addressed the House in Norman French I would have been in order, and that is a reflection on the status, or lack of status, of the Welsh language. That lack of status is the central issue in the debate on the Bill.
  I listened to the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), and I dare say that Ministers will realise what a polarising effect and influence he would have if we ever had the misfortune of seeing him as a Minister at the Welsh Office.
  The Bill has been long delayed. It represents the Government's response to a widespread campaign in Wales over the past 10 years and more for a new Welsh Language Act. The 1967 Act has long since been seen to be totally inadequate, as hon. Members on both sides of the House now recognise. As other hon. Members have said, that Act was based on the Hughes Parry report of 1965, which advocated equal validity for Welsh in speech and in written documents, both in the courts and in public administration. However, the 1967 Act provided for Welsh-speaking people only the ability to speak Welsh in the courts, with no rights regarding documents in court. There were no rights in connection with public administration. In other words, the 1967 Act fell well short of the 1965 Hughes Parry report.
  Since then, the principle of equal validity itself has been shown to be inadequate. It was a step in the right direction at the time, but equal validity is a licence to allow all public bodies to do nothing whatever for the Welsh language and to do everything through the English language alone. Indeed, in order to give people who speak Welsh and who want to use the Welsh language the opportunity to do so, the institutions with which they deal must have a degree of bilingualism, to make equal validity meaningful for those individuals.
  Over the past decade or more, people have called more and more for Welsh speakers to have language rights established in law, in a way that does not deny English speakers their rights. We are a nation with two languages. Both should have full and equal rights. Those who want to use Welsh should have the right to do so, certainly in dealings with the Government and public administration, with the courts and with public services, and with officialdom in general. In other words, Welsh should be as much of an official language in Wales as English. Individuals should thereby have full, free and unfettered choice of the language that they want to use.
  On 1 July 1986, I introduced a ten-minute Bill to that end. It was supported by hon. Members from all four parties in Wales, and given an unopposed First Reading. At about the same time, Lord Prys-Davies introduced a similar Bill in another place. The details were slightly different, but the objectives were the same. He and I overwhelmingly agreed on our targets; the Bills were
  986
  almost interchangeable. I pay tribute to the work that Lord Prys-Davies has done, both at that time and over the intervening period.
  In October 1986—this is the prelude to the present Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that is why it is relevant—Lord Prys-Davies and I met Welsh Office Ministers to discuss the way forward for the two proposed Bills. The Secretary of State at that time, Nicholas Edwards, and the everlasting, evergreen Minister of State, who was there in his present capacity, met us and agreed to a public consultation exercise on the contents of the two Bills. That took place in the winter of 1986–87. By April 1987, when the consultation had been completed, about 2,000 responses had been received, of which only 43 objected to the direction in which the two Bills were going. However, it was 1988 by the time that the new Secretary of State for Wales, Peter Walker, said that, of course, there would be legislation. There has been a saga of prevarication and delay over the intervening period.
  In the meantime, the Welsh Office set up an advisory panel on the language consisting of, I believe, eight wise people. They were consulted and they consulted people in Wales, and they recommended a new language Act. The Welsh Office then moved on and set up a Welsh Language Board in July 1988. It consulted again, and again recommended a new Act; indeed, it published a draft Bill in February 1991. There was wide consultation again, and that draft Bill was then regarded as a minimalist provision. However, it was not taken up by the Welsh Office, and last autumn in Cardiff 4,000 people from all parties demonstrated in favour of new Welsh language legislation.
  Now, seven years after we introduced those Bills in 1986, the Government are moving forward with their own Bill. Their Bill does not even go as far as the minimalist Bill provided by the Welsh Language Board, and it is interesting to note what the board said about it. I pay tribute, as other hon. Members have, to the work of the board. When the Bill was published in December last year the board commented in its press release:
  "The Government's Bill clearly fails to achieve the objectives set out by the Secretary of State in his statement to the House in February 1992 and falls well short of the Board's own proposals published in February 1991 … All Welsh MPs and Members of the Upper House will now have a key role to play. The Board urges them to ensure that the eventual legislation gives the language and the people of Wales a firm foundation of rights".
  I emphasise the word "rights". Those were the considered comments of the board set up by the Government themselves to advise on the matter, after extensive consultation with the people of Wales.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Unfortunately, one of the references in the Welsh Language Board's press release will not be true. Although it was right for the board to say that it was up to all Welsh Members of Parliament to improve the Government's Bill and to press for the measures suggested by the board, when we return after the recess we shall debate a measure that will take the choice away from Welsh Members. We shall not be responsible for the status and future of the Welsh language in Wales.
  Mr. Wigley: Undoubtedly, on the Monday that we return, there will be a debate on that matter and strong feelings will be expressed. It goes without saying that I should like to see our own Parliament deciding these matters in Wales, but we must make the best of what we have. The House of Lords tried to amend the Bill.

  987
  Interestingly enough, the former Secretary of State for Wales suggested that the Government should make progress on the definition of status and a cross-section of peers voted in support of a change in that direction. However, we have not yet had that change.
  I hope that the Government will be sensitive to these matters in Committee and will give ground because a number of the members of the Welsh Language Board were on the point of resigning if the Government had not given an undertaking to re-examine some of the details of the Bill. We are still looking for a fulfilment of the commitments given at that time. The Bill went through the House of Lords without any significant strengthening. The Government refused to accept amendments to improve the status and other shortcomings. The lobby in Wales has been overwhelming on a number of these points, but the Government have not yet moved on them.
  At last we have the Bill before the House. We have waited 25 years since the last Bill and we need to get it right this time. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) said that there is not likely to be another Bill this side of the millennium. I hope that he is not closing the door to the possibility that, if this Bill is not strengthened enough and if the Labour party gets into government, the next Labour Government will provide their own Bill to do the necessary job. We would, however, rather see the Bill strengthened now and get it right in Committee.
  Frankly, the Bill is extremely inadequate in its present form. It is little more than a Welsh Language Board Bill setting up a statutory board and relatively little else. It is worth drawing the attention of the House to the comments made by the Welsh Consumer Council:
  "If Welsh language policies are to be meaningful, and if legislation is to be useful, and if the ordinary consumer is to exercise choice in going about his or her daily life, the test must be that the Welsh language can be used in a normal and unproblematic way on a daily basis in everyday life."
  The central question that arises—this has been the central objective of the campaign over the years—is to enshrine language rights in law. We need legislation to create and define the rights of those who want to use the Welsh language—some 500,000 people, although there are possibly 1 million people when one takes into account those who understand and speak some Welsh—and enable their children to have a bilingual education. After all, language belongs not simply to the Welsh speakers in Wales but to all the people in Wales. The Bill creates rights for one person alone—the Secretary of State. There are some limited rights for the Welsh Language Board, but they are subject to a veto by the Secretary of State.
  We welcome the appointment of Lord Elis-Thornas as the new chairman of the board. We wish him well. If he is to undertake a successful job with the responsibilities that he has, he needs stronger legislation than what we have before us and resources to ensure that such legislation can be turned into meaningful reality.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Is the hon. Gentleman implying that Lord Elis-Thomas is ill advised to accept the post when we have such a weak Bill before the House?
  Mr. Wigley: It may well be that Lord Elis-Thomas knows that the Government will accept strengthening amendments in Committee. Time will tell whether that is the case. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that Lord Elis-Thomas and members of the board—or
  988
  whoever is chair of the board—will find it easier to do that job if the Bill reflects what is wanted in Wales and they have the resources to undertake their responsibilities.
  As I said, the central inadequacy relates to the status of the language. I draw the attention of the House to the recommendations made by the Welsh Language Board in its draft Bill. The first clause in the Bill before the House should relate to the definition of status:
  "Welsh shall be an official language in Wales where in relation to English it shall be of equal validity for the purposes of the administration of justice and the conduct of administrative business so that, subject to the following provisions of this Act, any oral statement and any act, writing or thing made or done in Wales for those purposes and expressed in Welsh shall have the like effect as if it had been expressed in English."
  That is a clearly defined legally thought-out statement and I do not understand why the Government have not been willing to take an unequivocal statement of that sort as the opening part of this Bill, rather than hiding it behind a sub-condition lower down in the Bill:
  "The purpose referred to …above is that of giving effect, so far as is both appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable, to the principle that in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice in Wales the English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality."
  This contains a lot of qualification and uncertainty. We need a clear-cut statement as the starting point on which the Bill should be built.
  The Bill must be amended if it is to be accepted by the Committee. There are a number of inadequacies, but I shall not go into them in depth. However, I shall refer to them in passing so that we can follow them up in Committee. For example, in courts of law, when the hearing is requested by the defendant to be through the medium of the Welsh language—that is, the hearing should be in Welsh as the predominant language—the jurors who are listening to the case should be able to understand Welsh. Public bodies should make available forms in a bilingual format. Public sector bodies that are now private utilities should be included in those public bodies. Clause 6(1)(o) defines that and I hope that it will be clarified by the Government in Committee.
  There should be a definition of the right to have bilingual education within reasonable reach of people's homes. Most authorities do that and I pay tribute to them. I also pay tribute to people such as Lord Haycock in the old Glamorgan county council who did sterling work in that direction. Some areas are slow and dilatory. West Glamorgan is one of those areas in which there has been an outcry for many years to have a better provision of bilingual education. A right needs to be enshrined in law to overcome the difficulties in such areas.
  There have been problems in the introduction of race relations legislation when jobs have been advertised as having a Welsh language requirement. Clearly, that is ridiculous in areas such as Gwynedd where a job was advertised for people to work in an old people's home. Overwhelmingly, the people in that home are Welsh speaking and there was a requirement for the job to be bilingual. That matter was taken to the Race Relations Board. There needs to be a change in the law to overcome that sort of abuse of race relations legislation to frustrate the Welsh language. The right of people to speak Welsh to each other in their place of work should be clarified, because it has caused difficulty in the past.

  989
  Prisoners should have the right to converse with visitors through the Welsh language and to write and receive letters in Welsh. There should be no difficulty for parents who want to register their children's names through the Welsh language. Such practical difficulties have arisen in the past. If the Bill is to be acceptable, it must deal with those points. We must have a board that is independent of the Welsh Office, not a handservant to the Welsh Office. We must have a board to serve the whole of Wales and the Welsh language, not to serve the administrative convenience of the Government of the day. That will be achieved only if the Bill is substantially improved.
  We have been under pressure, as have other hon. Members, to oppose the Bill on Second Reading. We will not do that because we believe that it can be improved in Committee. When we eventually get to Third Reading we will determine our attitude on the basis of what improvements have been made along the lines that I have outlined and those to which many other hon. Members have referred.
  7.59 pm
  Mr. Roger Evans: I welcome the Bill, and applaud the careful and thoughtful way in which it has been prepared, and the way in which it has met the practical and careful aspects with good will and co-operation.
  I must nevertheless raise two points with my right hon. Friends upon which I seek reassurance. The first is the particular position of my constituency. Monmouth is not Gwynedd. Its traditions are different. In the 1991 census from Monmouth borough—that is not quite the same area as my constituency—only 2 per cent. of people returned that they were Welsh speakers. Monmouth borough council receives about six letters a year in Welsh and I understand that, as a matter of courtesy, those letters are always replied to in Welsh. The position in Monmouthshire is different. Clause 5(2) of the Bill describes schemes which are
  "appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable".
  Will my right hon. Friend the Minister give an assurance that what is suitable for Gwynedd will not be imposed upon Monmouth, and that matters will be looked at sensibly?
  I shall describe to my right hon. Friend and to the House the points that some of my constituents have emphasised to me. First, despite the great concern of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and as he will appreciate, the practice of British Telecom, Welsh Water and South Wales Electricity is to submit bilingual bills. Some of my constituents are not very pleased with that. Secondly, my constituents complain that the national curriculum for Wales introduced compulsory Welsh teaching by the back door, in the sense that the impact of that was not appreciated in my constituency until it had happened. I am asking for special consideration for Monmouthshire.
  My next point is slightly more exotic. I ask my right hon. Friend to re-examine schedule 2 to the Bill, which puts a piece of dynamite under what the Government intended. The schedule of repeals refers to the Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542, in each case the extent of repeal is the whole Act, so far as unrepealed. I have checked with
  990
  the Library how much of each Act is still in force. No doubt someone will have to double check this, but let us be absolutely clear what the Government are proposing. If we repeal an Act of that kind of date, the effect is to make it as if the Act had never been passed, except as to matters which are past and dead. It would be startling and shocking if we were told that Wales was dead and past or even that the Welsh language was dead and past.
  Let us examine the provisions of the Laws in Wales Acts. Section 1 of the 1535 Act says:
  "That his said countrey or dominion of Wales shal be stonde and contynue for [ever]…incorporated united and annexed to and with this his realme of Englande."
  [Interruption.] The nationalist Members are right to cheer. My right hon. Friend—I am sure, by mistake—seeks to repeal the Act of Union. That has the most startling legal consequences. The 1535 Act goes on to deal with the rights of persons born after the passing of the Act, a matter which was of considerable importance before the Act of Union with Scotland.
  I am sure that if the House sought to repeal the Scottish Act of Union by a schedule of incidental repeals, there would be satisfaction in some quarters and howls of protestation in others. The repeal of the Laws in Wales Act has nothing to do with the Welsh Language Bill. I can go further. The test that those responsible for statutory repeals apply is whether a provision in legislation is past or spent. It is a logical and legal absurdity that the rights of persons born after the Laws in Wales Acts should continue to be what they were before.
  If there has never been an act of union with Wales, how can later legislation ever have been intended to apply to Wales? That has several ludicrous political and legal consequences. I shall not deal specifically with section 3 of the Laws in Wales Act 1535, which imposes on my constituents the obligation
  "to be obedient and attendaunt to the lorde chauncellour of Englond, the Kinges justices, and other of the Kinges moste honorable counsaile".
  That may be dealt with now in specific legislation. Monmouthshire's position may be separate.
  However, it is worse than that. In section 47 of the Laws in Wales Act 1542, the law on markets overt is vastly superior in Wales to that in England. The medieval anomaly and scandal that a person could go and buy stolen goods in certain markets in England and get a good title was not part of the laws of Wales. It has not been since 1542. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister did not intend by a backwind to do that.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about the repeals. They are repeals of the spent provisions of the Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542. We have been advised on the matter by Law Commission staff. We are examining carefully the markets overt point and we shall come back to it in Committee.
  Mr. Evans: I respectfully suggest to my right hon. Friend that the advice given is wrong. The repeals section refers to the whole of each of the Acts, as unrepealed. It does not refer simply to those matters which one might think were relevant—those relating to the Welsh language. Those provisions were repealed 50 years ago. They were the notorious sections of the legislation which were so rightly criticised in Wales.
  I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister has admitted that the section relating to markets overt is

  991
  relevant and current law and that to change it would be a policy change. I am delighted to hear that it will be investigated.
  I have drawn the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) to this matter, and he is worried about it. Under section 56 of the Laws in Wales Act 1542, Bewdley shall be part of Worcestershire. There is a saving for the inhabitants of Bewdley, however, covering
  "all suche liberties and frauncheses as they lawfullye had and exercysed within the same towne before the making of this Acte".
  I do not suppose for a moment that the Welsh Office or those responsible for statutory repeals have examined the customs and privileges of the inhabitants of Bewdley. Likewise, those customs and privileges should not be taken away by a backwind.
  I shall not continue this analysis. The City of London will be most interested in reviving the concept of the Welsh mortgage, which was also outlawed. It was a much fairer financial arrangement than many conventional mortgages. I suppose that those responsible for statutory repeals would say that the Welsh law of alienation of land or in the Welsh law for the descent of real property is spent. If that is right, it is an interesting matter. I am sure that nationalist Members who are learned in law will be interested to know the consequences of the Bill being passed in this form.
  Mr. Wigley: We will take it to the courts.
  Mr. Evans: I am delighted to hear that. That sedentary observation that the matter will be tested in the courts is right. I have no doubt that, by a blunder of those who advise on statutory repeals, my right hon. Friend the Minister has got us into an unnecessary predicament.
  We have rightly heard a great deal about the traditions of culture and language of our country. However, I place infinitely greater importance on another part of our tradition than do those responsible for statutory law revision, who seem intent on ripping passages from the record of what Parliament has achieved over the centuries simply to shorten the law books and increase the profits of Messrs Butterworths.
  The preface to the 1535 Act is one of the noblest pieces of English Tudor prose. it is rather pro-Welsh if one reads it carefully. I shall not weary the House by doing so, but I finish with a request to my right hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider both points.
  8.9 pm
  Mr. Peter Hain: Welsh is spoken with pride across my constituency. In many valley villages such as Rhifawr, Cwmllynfell, Cwmgorse, Gwaun-cae-Gurwen, Lower Brynamman, Ystalyfera, Godrergraig, Trebanos, Alltwen—I am pleased to say that it now has a Labour county councillor—Gellinudd, Blaendulais and many other communities in the Neath area, Welsh is the first language of many families.
  It is important to remember, however, that in those former mining communities the Welsh language is part of a distinctive valley culture, which is treasured for its principles of mutual aid and co-operation. That culture is now under siege from economic decline and social disintegration. I support the welcome growth in the use of the Welsh language, but my only concern is that it is ceasing to become a working-class one. The Welsh
  992
  Language Board and the Welsh Office must address that problem, otherwise the board will not be representative of the entire population of Wales, particularly those valley villages that were once thriving mining communities in which the Welsh language was an integral part of daily life. As testimony to our commitment to the language, we will welcome the National Eisteddfod to the Neath valley next year and I hope that it will be the most successful one ever.
  The Bill is an important step forward along the road away from the bad old days when the use of the Welsh language was repressed. It has many defects, however, which the Labour party has already identified and which I hope we shall be able to address in Committee. For example, all powers to enforce the Act will lie with the Secretary of State and not the board, which is specifically designed to be an advisory body. That means that the Welsh Office will retain the discretion to interpret and enforce the Act. Although all that power is given to the Secretary of State and the Welsh Office, an anomaly is created because the Secretary of State cannot be prosecuted under the Act.
  It is also important that the new board should be made up of individuals with the relevant expertise and not stuffed with Conservative placemen and women. I wish Lord Elis-Thomas well and congratulate him on his appointment—after all, it is better to have an ennobled deal on the Welsh language than a grubby deal on Maastricht. It is important that the Secretary of State gives full representation to all opinion in Wales and not simply to those with whom he happens to be in coalition at a particular time or those who happen to be drawn from the ranks of Conservative lackeys.
  One of the main defects with the Bill, as has been identified by several hon. Members, is that its provisions relate to public bodies only. That leaves a big question mark over what will happen to the privatised utilities—gas, telecommunications, water and, who knows, the Post Office. British Rail is certainly in an anomalous position, because the subsequent Act will apply to it for the few remaining months of its life in the public sector, but will cease to do so once BR transfers to the private sector. That is absolute nonsense.
  The Government have committed themselves to examine the possible privatisation and deregulation of the Post Office—in effect, they have given it the green light. The Post Office will, therefore, be covered by the Act only while it remains in the public sector. The same would apply if just a part of the Post Office, such as Royal Mail Parcelforce, were privatised, while its counter services remained in the public sector. What about those parts of the Post Office that were hived off into the private sector?
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: The hon. Gentleman has sought to make some distinction about the railways and the Post Office moving into the private sector. If he reads the Bill, however, he will understand that they are not covered by it other than under clause 6(1)(o), subject to the discretion of the Secretary of State. They are unchanged by the Bill, because, if they move into the private sector, the Secretary of State can then decide whether they should be covered by the Bill.
  Mr. Hain: I do not believe that that interpretation is incorrect, but the Minister of State was not positive about that issue when the hon. Gentleman raised the matter

  993
  earlier. There are too many grey areas and too much fudging in the Bill, which we will need to explore in Committee.
  It is important to note that almost one third of the citizens in my constituency speak Welsh. Many will welcome the progress towards proper recognition of their language that is offered, to some extent, by the Bill. We have an excellent Welsh secondary school, Ysgol Gyfun Ystalyfera, in my constituency and virtually all the Welsh primary schools are overflowing. There is a tremendous demand for more places in Welsh-medium schools and more resources for Welsh language education. It is a matter not just of more classrooms but of better quality textbooks, better training for teachers and better resourcing of education; in that way, Welsh language teaching will enjoy equal status with English teaching in Wales.
  Although it is important that the Welsh language receives the legal recognition and status to which it is entitled, a living language needs more than the backing of the law; it needs the resources which the Government have so far denied it and which the Bill does not provide. We want a language that is indigenous, not elitist, one that is living, not academic, and one that is part of the community, not imposed on it. That requires the firm backing of the law, but, together with that firm foundation, it demands a tolerance that springs from a new confidence that the rights of Welsh speakers are, at last, to be guaranteed.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Walter Sweeney: When I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), I thought that he went a little over the top, until I heard the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). I should like to hark back to the consensus that seemed to exist among the other hon. Members who have spoken. It is clear that the temperate speeches of other hon. Members revealed a need for the Bill and that persuasion rather than coercion is likely to be the best way in which to further the interests of the Welsh language.
  It is impossible to please everyone with the Bill because of the different nature of different parts of Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) rightly referred to that when he said that just 2 per cent. of his constituents were Welsh speakers. In some parts of Wales more than 60 per cent. of the local people are Welsh speakers, but, according to the latest available statistics, there are only 5·9 per cent. of Welsh speakers in my constituency. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth that we should take into account those parts of the country where Welsh is not widely spoken.
  I welcome the resurgence in the use of the Welsh language that has occurred in the Vale of Glamorgan. The grandparents and parents of many of my constituents can speak Welsh, but they do not. They hope that their children, or at least their grandchildren, will do so. The resurgence in the Welsh language is due, in large measure, to the success of the measures introduced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has laboured hard in support of the Welsh language throughout his political career.
  994
  If we are to continue to move forward, however, it is important to avoid unnecessary division. Division would be bound to be created if we foisted on the private sector a requirement that it introduce a policy for the use of the Welsh language. Any business that is trying to make a profit will recognise that if its customers want communications to be in Welsh or if it wants to be able to communicate to them in Welsh, it will be in its commercial interest to ensure that Welsh enjoys equal status with English. Surely that is the way forward rather than coercion and diktat from central Government.
  I was interested in the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth about the Bill's constitutional implications. I shall certainly be interested to see what the Standing Committee makes of it.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I shall add one point that I did not make in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) and say that I am assured that the Union of England and Wales no longer depends on the laws that we are proposing to repeal. That unity is based on subsequent legislation—which probably includes the Bill.
  Mr. Sweeney: In the Vale of Glamorgan we are seeing a resurgence in the Welsh language. One reason for that is the widespread recognition that Welsh schools generally provide a high standard of education. I see a parallel between schools providing Welsh in south Glamorgan and schools such as my own grammar school in England which provided Latin in years gone by. Even if the learning of a language is an intellectual discipline rather than a necessity for communication, it stretches the intellect and helps people to learn other subjects. The mere fact that people have grappled from an early age with two languages instead of one seems likely to mean that they will make better students.
  It is essential for the Committee to consider the distinction between Welsh being learnt—as Bacon would have it—as an ornament and Welsh being learnt because it is an inherent part of the local culture. If we can bridge that divide in a spirit of fellowship and with a recognition of the differences that exist between different parts of Wales, we shall be more effective in making the Bill a success.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) and was extremely disappointed that he picked up on the constitutional issue. It was something that we noticed some time ago, but did not raise.
  On a more serious note, Welsh is one of the oldest living languages in Europe, which is remarkable. It is all the more remarkable because, until this century, it has not been given fair play. Hon. Members have referred to the Welsh "Not". Several attempts have been made to annihilate the language, but now the Welsh language appears in every walk of life in Wales—there has been a welcome resurgence in the language.
  I agree with the Secretary of State that there is a vast reservoir of good will in the country towards the language. I congratulate everyone who learns the language. It gladdens my heart when people move to my constituency

  995
  and learn the language, often in concert with their children. To them, I say, "Thank you for your effort and congratulations."
  Last year, 60,000 plus people registered on various courses in Wales to learn Welsh. That is an astonishing figure of which I am proud. I am sure that the credit for it is shared equally throughout the House. The issue is not a political one and I am pleased that hon. Members are not treating it as such. From my upbeat preface, people might be tempted to think that all is well but, regrettably, all is not well. Every citizen of Wales and of the British Isles has a duty to nurture and maintain the language and culture of Wales. Welsh was the intrinsic language of the British Isles well before the Anglo-Saxon influence—a fact that is sometimes forgotten.
  I have said that I am glad that the debate has not been about politics, and that Welsh is not a political football. However, the reference of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) to Saunders Lewis was offensive to many people, perhaps not in the Chamber, but all over Wales. I am a great respecter of Mr. John Elfed Jones, the chairman of Dwr Cymru, and I am sure that even he would not wish to have heard what was said earlier.
  I mention in passing the remarks—as usual, that is all that they are worth—of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) which were immature, offensive and politically motivated. I have cleared my chest and shall now get on with the business in hand. If the hon. Gentleman had done so, we would have arrived at our business earlier.
  Seven years have passed since my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) presented his Bill to the House. I echo his generous, honest and sincere tribute to the work carried out by Lord Prys-Davies at that time. We have had an agonising wait in Wales, and we have now been presented with a woefully inadequate Bill. We have a golden opportunity and we must grab it. If we miss it, the consequences will be dire. If the Bill is not comprehensively amended and strengthened, Wales will have waited for nothing, not just for seven years but for many centuries.
  There is little in the Bill to make one cheer. We have an opportunity to take positive steps to ensure that the language is safeguarded and nurtured and that, as the Secretary of State said, the continued renaissance of the language proceeds apace. Therefore, although I am pleased that the Bill has come before Parliament, I have to say that it is inadequate in many ways.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon and other hon. Members have said where they believe the Bill to be inadequate. I shall confine my remarks to a few parts of particular concern to me and to many tens of thousands of people in Wales. I must make it abundantly clear that the list of subjects to which I shall refer is not exhaustive—far from it. I wish that I could say that only a few amendments were necessary, but I cannot.
  The Bill's inadequacy has prompted several groups and societies, and thousands of Welsh people, to urge Opposition Members, and no doubt Conservative Members, to reject the Bill ab initio and vote it down. In discussion with the Bill's opponents, I have taken the view that if Parliament is about making laws that are just and equitable, the Bill must surely be amended. I trust that that faith in the parliamentary system will not prove to be misplaced.
  I believe that the Bill should carry a clear definition of the status of Welsh in relation to the English language.
  996
  That point was forcefully made by Lord Crickhowell in another place. As a former occupant of the Welsh Office, he could see nothing detrimental in such a definition, and representatives from all parties in the other place felt that it was right and proper. I do not understand why the Bill does not state that Welsh should be an official language in Wales, having equal status with the English language in the administration of justice and the conduct of administrative business. That issue was mentioned by the Welsh Language Board. The Bill should seek to address the current imbalance—there is no doubt that parity between both languages cannot and will not be achieved unless it is clearly embodied in the Bill that Welsh is an official language in Wales.
  The Welsh Language Board's report of February 1991 was discussed and extensively quoted in another place. The report says:
  "Unless it be declared by an Act of Parliament that the Welsh language shall have equality of status with the English language, it will continue in its existing state of inequality."
  Paragraph 37 says:
  "Without such a declaration, the Welsh language will remain bereft of official status and will continue to be perceived as being inferior, in all legal and administrative respect, to the English language."
  The import of those words could not be clearer. They are the words of a board that the Government set up to give advice on the subject of the Welsh language and how to nurture it. It is astonishing that the board's view, clear and strong as it is, and based on good sense, appears to have been dismissed out of hand by the Government. We as a party will definitely table amendments to fill this serious lacuna in the Bill. Without such a declaration of principle, the Bill, which seeks parity for the languages, is fatally flawed.
  This is our opportunity, and I urge hon. Members on all sides of the House to take it, otherwise we shall be criticised for having taken part in a legislative process that failed the people of Wales. As Lord Prys-Davies said in another place, the fruit of failure could be bitter. In my view, this is a core issue that must be addressed.
  On the all-important subject of Welsh-medium education, the Bill contains no provision concerning the rights of individuals. The Welsh Language Education Development Committee recently expressed specific concern about this issue. It did so in a letter to Lord Prys-Davies, which referred to the fact that the board would have insufficient power in respect of bodies responsible for education in Wales. The letter said:
  "There will be insufficient power to establish Welsh-medium provision in accordance with parental wishes where it is not currently available … The board will not have sufficient power to require funding councils for further and higher education to recognise the costs of providing for students who would opt to pursue vocational and professional courses through the medium of Welsh or, indeed, for employees who would be keen to see training in both Welsh and through the medium of the Welsh language in order to respond to the demands of the public."
  These concerns are vital. Parents throughout Wales have shown that they, too, are greatly concerned about the lack of forward planning and funding to satisfy the—thankfully—rapidly increasing demand for Welsh-medium education.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that Welsh-medium education is provided for in section 8 of the Education Act 1944, which lays duties on local authorities and, possibly, the funding council, if it is

  997
  established by my right hon. Friend. The duty of the Welsh Language Board will, of course, relate to the performance of the local education authorities and the funding council.
  Mr. Llwyd: I am sure that the Minister agrees that the woefully inadequate provision in many parts of Wales—west Glamorgan, for example—is hardly what the 1944 Act foresaw. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's historical reference, but it does not give me any confidence whatsoever. The point should be mentioned specifically in this Bill. It is clear that, in terms of the provision of Welsh-medium education, some authorities in Wales are completely devoid of respect for the language. It appears that they have failed with complete impunity in this regard—a point that the Minister may wish to consider.
  Recently, parents in Cardiff protested about the lack of provision for Welsh-medium education. Indeed, there are plenty of other examples throughout Wales. In some cases, Welsh-medium education is conducted in corridors and in various other locations that place children at a gross disadvantage. There are two sides to the coin, however: this shows that the provision is inadequate, but it shows also that the demand exists. I submit that the demand must be met, and this is the vehicle for making that point clear.
  The situations in which the provision is inadequate create understandable animosity. They are concerns that the European charter for regional or minority languages sought to address. Article 8 of that charter provides that member states should make pre-school education, primary education and university and higher education available in the relevant regional or minority languages and should make a substantial part of that education available in the relevant language. That appears to me to be just and correct. The Government have decided not to sign the charter. I have written to the Secretary of State about that point, but I have been given no assurance that the Government will sign. It is ironic that, apparently, the Welsh language is safer in the hands of the European Community than in the hands of the British Government. We as a party supported Maastricht throughout. How right we were!
  Welsh language education is assured, according to the Minister of State. He says, and has said in another debate, that being a constituent part of any Welsh language scheme is a matter that falls within clause 6. My view—and that of many others, I am sure—is that this vital provision must be separately spelled out. It is far too important an issue to be left to an agreement between the board and local education authorities, some of which, as I have said, are less than enthusiastic about the language, and have shown that to be the case.
  The basic right of parents to secure the provision of Welsh-medium education for their children within a reasonable distance of their homes should and must be safeguarded and specifically provided for in the legislation. Will the board find it easy, for example, to discuss and approve individual language schemes for all the new unitary authorities if or when they come? Is it good sense to have 20 to 25 different education language schemes and policies in Wales? Would not it be much simpler to give here and now, in a separate clause, a pledge that parents have a right to have Welsh-medium education provided for their children within a reasonable distance if that is what they require?
  998
  If—God forbid—the schools of Wales were all to opt out, the task would become even more ridiculous; then we should have to deal with approval for, I suppose, 2,000 language schemes and policies. Common sense says that that would be ridiculous. In my view, justice for the language also says no. We should be faced with a bureaucratic nightmare, and in the meantime parents' legitimate rights and aspirations would be denied—that would be intolerable. If, as the Minister of State says, the provision of Welsh-medium education is already safeguarded by the wording of the Bill and if, as he says, that is the Government's intention, why should not we be given a clearer exposition to allay the fears of thousands of people in Wales and to avoid the administrative nightmare that must surely follow? After the inordinate delay in presenting the Bill to the House, we owe it to the people of Wales to provide them with the strong, clear Welsh Language Act which they require and which is no more than they deserve.
  Another grave shortcoming of the Bill is the lack of provision for empanelling Welsh-speaking juries. This goes to the core of the question of status. In 1575, no less a judge than Sir William Gerrard said that a judge in Wales should be able to understand what a Welsh-speaking witness said in the language spoken—not, it will be noticed, through an interpreter. That is the basis on which the Juries Act 1974 was passed—every juror should understand what is said in English. If there has to be a choice between the hurt feelings of the potential juror and the need for justice to be done, the scales are overwhelmingly weighted in favour of justice. Instantaneous translation, however expert, will not catch the nuances of the original language. As everyone who has taken part in or conducted a trial knows, frequently nuances are everything. The random selection of arguments by the Government, echoed by Lord Ferrers in the other place, is not valid in this context.
  The right to a Welsh jury trial is no more a breach of the principle of random selection than was the Privy Council decision in Ras Behari v. the King-Emperor, which was decided in the 1930s. The ratio decidendi was that all jurors empanelled to hear a case in the English language should understand English.
  I referred to the point as being a core point. Indeed, in the debate in the other place, it was said that if the right was not enshrined in the legislation, the words about equal validity and about both languages being official would be exposed as a sham. Those were robust words, bearing in mind the forum in which they were spoken, but I have to agree with that view.
  The Second Reading debate is not the time to argue about the minutiae of the Bill, but there are strong arguments to counter the objections of random selection, demography, injustice to non-Welsh speakers and others which may come from the Government Benches. My hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon, in a powerful speech, mentioned other concerns, as have other hon. Members. Regrettably, there is a myriad of points to consider; they will have to be addressed if the measure is to be meaningful.
  I wish to touch on two other concerns: the right of a Welsh speaker to speak Welsh unimpeded wherever he is, including the workplace, and the need for reform of part of the Race Relations Act 1976. Recently, there have been examples of employers telling employees that they must not speak Welsh at their place of work. Two such examples

  999
  occurred in my constituency. They caused widespread offence throughout Wales as well as anguish to those involved. The Bill should be amended to make such behaviour a criminal offence, because in normal parlance it is an offence, so that we do not witness such potentially divisive and harmful actions again.
  There have also been cases where employers have advertised for Welsh-speaking staff. There are key areas where staff are required to be Welsh-speaking. We should remember that Cyngor Dosbarth Dwyfor conducts all its business through the medium of Welsh; it is to be applauded for that. Recently, there have been celebrated cases where unsuccessful applicants, knowing that posts required Welsh speakers, applied for them and subsequently sought recourse in the courts for not being appointed. I believe that the Race Relations Board supported at least one case.
  Section 1 of the 1976 Act should be amended to provide for a declaration that, for the purposes of section 1(b) of the Act, a person does not discriminate against another by reason only of the fact that that person applies to another person the requirement or condition that he or she be able to communicate in Wales through the medium of the Welsh language. Such an amendment is necessary to clarify a position which is at best a grey area and which at worst will lead to misunderstanding and antipathy which can only be divisive and harmful.
  I reiterate that there is an enormous pool of good will towards the language. Like other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I seek parity for Welsh speakers and non-Welsh speakers. We are not asking for more. We are asking to be placed in the position that people were in prior to the Act of Union 1536. I urge all hon. Members to respect the rights of Welsh speakers and non-Welsh speakers in Wales, to make sure that they are protected and to ensure the continued recovery of the language which is so close to the hearts of the people of Wales. Failure to strengthen the Bill will mean that a golden opportunity is lost, perhaps for ever.
  8.44 pm
  Mr. Sebastian Coe: I do not wish to detain the House long. I hope within a short time to be on my way to my Celtic constituency, not across the Severn, but across the Tamar. I do not speak as a Welshman, a Welsh speaker or a constitutional lawyer; nor do I wish to bring into question the Act of Union.
  The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) was right to point out that it is incumbent on hon. Members apart from Welsh Members to enhance the development of the Welsh language. I read with interest the other day a quote from Wittgenstein, not the normal bedtime reading in my constituency, which sums up the debate:
  "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world."
  Language liberates and furthers understanding. When it is taught well, it can improve national prestige and interest; when it is taught badly, it hinders and can even incarcerate and imprison. The language of any nation is in itself the main proof and touchstone of the country's existence as a separate nation, or at least as a separate identity. To all intents and purposes, it is the very embodiment of nationhood.
  I welcome the Bill. It is good that the Government recognise the importance—I have to choose my words carefully—of a minority language. They recognise that
  1000
  there is a philosophical and practical approach to enhancing language. The Welsh language is a vibrant working language, which makes a vital contribution to the cultural breadth of the Union. Hon. Members from both sides have made articulate and important contributions.
  It has been pointed out that over the last century Welsh as a spoken language has been on the decline. The 1991 census shows that the decline has been arrested.
  Like the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), we can take some comfort from the fact that the language is being taught in 80 per cent. of primary schools and 90 per cent. of secondary schools. There needs to be consolidation as well. The language should not become irrelevant to youngsters when they leave education. It has to be transplanted into the workplace.
  I make one slightly guarded comment. I speak as a past member of two quangos. I am not automatically impressed with the work of quangos. I do not in any way play down the appointment of the chairman today, but, from time to time, quangos make strange decisions. They do not always work in the most cost-effective way in pursuit of their aims.
  I speak also with some sadness because I represent a part of the country which lost its language some years ago. A strong Celtic thread runs through Cornwall. There is a distinct culture, whether we talk about Methodism, rugby—most Cornishmen tell me that they taught it to the Welsh, probably not too well, judging by recent results—male voice choirs and brass bands. Two weekends ago we had a twinning in a village in my constituency. The charters were read out and signed in four languages—English, Welsh, Cornish and Breton. It took us slightly by surprise to hear the national anthem of Brittany because it was "Land of our Fathers".
  The Celtic tongue is an ancient one: Welsh is an ancient language. If there had been a language Bill many centuries ago, we might be debating a vibrant Cornish language.
  I support the Bill because it is important for a language to live, develop and be enhanced. The Minister said that the Welsh Language Act 1563 allowed Wales to have its own translation of the Bible and the Prayer Book. Sadly, Cornwall lost that battle in 1549. Will the Minister and his colleagues look afresh at the signatories to the European charter on minority languages which means a great deal to the Union? Some languages, such as Cornish, are struggling. Cornish does not have thousands of speakers, but people are interested in developing and enhancing it.
  The line-by-line debate on the Bill will take place in Committee in a few weeks. Many issues transcend politics and perhaps in that light we can look at the use and enhancement of minority languages.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: It is a pleasure to follow the dignified and positive speech by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) about our language and the Bill. Throughout this four-hour debate there has been wide consensus, certainly among the Opposition parties, and sometimes it embraced some Conservative Members who would support a much stronger Bill. We welcome the Bill and look forward to debate in Committee where I hope that the Government will allow us to strengthen it. The Labour party and other parties will table amendments to try to increase the Bill's powers.

  1001
  I shall summarise five or six areas in which there is wide consensus. First, the principle of equality between Welsh and English must be enshrined in the Bill's first clause. The Government have argued that that is implicit in the Bill, but it needs to be stated loudly and clearly that Welsh and English are equal in the public life and administration of Wales. I would accept a small amendment to the effect that that will be the case where reasonably practicable, because in Gwent and Clwyd and perhaps in Brecon and Radnor and Powys the language has a different status from that which it enjoys in Dyfed and Gwynedd.
  My second point is about the extension of the Bill's powers to private utilities, because, as it stands, the Bill applies only to public bodies. Welsh Water, Wales Gas, British Telecom, South Wales Electricity and Manweb deal with every consumer in Britain. There are several other major organisations and I should like to see a schedule covering those. It could not apply to every corner shop, but it should apply widely and cover the clearing banks in Wales, and Boots, Dixons and supermarkets such as Sainsburys and Tesco. I could list 50 or 100 large private bodies to which the legislation should apply.
  Clause 20 gives Crown immunity to Government Departments and there was a move in the other place to delete that clause. I cannot understand why those Departments should be treated any differently from local authorities. When my constituents write to me in Welsh they will expect an answer in Welsh and it is elementary courtesy so to reply. The same applies to the Welsh Office and its various departments. If equality means anything, it must apply to all letters from Government Departments.
  The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) spoke professionally and graphically about Welsh-speaking juries. Given his professional background as a solicitor working in Gwynedd in a strong Welsh-speaking area, he knows about nuances. Many people in Dyfed and Gwynedd are much more fluent in Welsh than in English. They feel much more at home and give better-quality evidence, and the nuances in their evidence are important. Despite the best translation facilities, English-speaking members of juries will not pick up those nuances. It enhances the quality of our justice to allow Welsh speakers to give their evidence in Welsh and to try Welsh speakers before Welsh-speaking juries.
  I had a niggling doubt about whether a jury would be biased by such selection, but when I read the speech by Gareth Williams, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in the other place on Welsh-speaking juries, that doubt was removed. If it is good enough for the noble Lord with his distinguished background, it is good enough for me. For reasons of status and equality, the Bill must give a right to have Welsh-speaking juries.
  The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne said that he had an inherent suspicion about the way that quangos work. The Welsh Language Board will be a quango. We may have some reservations about the announcement of its chairman, but we congratulate him. He is a worthy ex-Member of Parliament, he has great ability and citizenship and he is committed to the language. However, we have deep disaffection with the whole idea of quangos. We look forward to the day when there is a Welsh assembly in Cardiff.
  Mr. Wigley: A Parliament.
  Mr. Williams: Why not; let us call it a Parliament. It could have a department to safeguard the language and introduce new laws on it passed by elected members in Wales. The present constitution of the board is arbitrary and gives far too much power of patronage to the Secretary of State. It has a chairman and 15 members, but there is no detailed representation. Those 15 members—if that is to be the number—should be representative of individual organisations in Wales, whether they are dealing with education, local authorities, women's institutes—Merched Y Wawr—or nursery education. The board should reflect the regional diversity of Wales and should include non-Welsh speakers and Welsh learners. That part of the Bill must be considered in more detail.
  No hon. Member has referred to the mandamus provision: that the Secretary of State can take action if a defiant local authority or public body refuses to produce a Welsh language scheme for the board. The board cannot institute legal proceedings against a disaffected or dissident public body, and that substantially weakens the powers of the board. I understand that the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Race Relations Board can initiate proceedings. We shall seek in Committee to provide an equal power for the Welsh Language Board.
  I have two reservations about the Bill. Several references have been made to Welsh-medium education and to its great success throughout Wales, particularly in the anglicised areas of Wales where previously no Welsh-medium education existed. Hon. Members have been lobbied by several organisations during the past few years. They have suggested that the Bill should include a clause that gives Welsh-medium education as of right to all children between the ages of three and 16. I support that suggestion. There should be a right in Cardiff, Swansea, Clwyd and Gwent, as well as in Dyfed and Gwynedd, to Welsh-medium education, wherever that is reasonably practicable and wherever it can be provided within a reasonable distance of home, transport being free of charge.
  We must, however, be even handed. An absolutely equivalent right to English-medium education must be provided for those parents who choose that medium for their children. There cannot be one set of rights for one group of people without exactly equivalent rights being granted to everyone else. That is not, however, the case in some parts of Wales.
  A complaints body ought to be set up alongside the Welsh Language Board. It is not enough for the board to have a complaints procedure. A separate complaints body should be set up. It could be the ombudsman. There could even be the establishment of a Welsh language ombudsman. I notice that, in its briefing to Members, the Welsh Consumer Council referred to the need for a separate complaints body. Alternatively, there could be a tribunal. I understand that the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Race Relations Board have a tribunal procedure.
  The complaints mechanism would have to work both ways. It would have to apply both to a recalcitrant public body—a body that was not implementing a Welsh language scheme—and, conversely, to a public body that was too enthusiastic about the use of the Welsh language. In that case, there could be employment implications.
  The Bill is far too weak. It needs to be greatly strengthened. Those who should strengthen it ought to be those Members of Parliament with Welsh constituencies.

  1003
  There have been interesting and valuable contributions to the debate from Members of Parliament with constituencies across the border, but legislation that affects Wales should be dealt with by Welsh Members of Parliament. The Secretary of State for Wales referred to the need for consensus. The only way to achieve consensus is to refer the Bill to the full Welsh Grand Committee.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Like all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I welcome the opportunity to speak about the Welsh Language Bill. It has been a long time in gestation. It is a great pity that, during that gestation period, we did not get something more like the Welsh Language Bill that has been proposed by the Welsh Language Board, some of whose members have sat patiently throughout the debate in the Strangers' Gallery.
  That gives me the opportunity to recognise the contribution of one of my constituents, not just for creating a consensus in Wales but for taking forward positively the use of the Welsh language in Wales, not only as the chairman of the Welsh Language Board but as the chairman of Welsh Water. I am pleased to be able to say those words. We have had many differences about the way in which Welsh Water runs a number of its activities—particularly in relation to its supply to customers and the charges it makes—but I cannot fault him for the way in which Welsh Water has supported the Welsh language, and the way in which he, as chairman of the Welsh Language Board, has strengthened the possibility of improving the status of the Welsh language beyond what is now in the Bill. I am, of course, referring to Mr. John Elfed Jones.
  The issue of equal validity has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members. It seems to me that what is in the Bill at the moment does not really go beyond what the Hughes Parry committee recommended in October 1965. I have to confess that I have not read all of the proceedings in the Lords, but I did, with the help of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), dip into them. On 9 January, Earl Ferrers said that the Bill would be
  "confirming the official status of the Welsh language across the public sector as a whole."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 January 1993; Vol. 541, c. 834.]
  It seems to me that it is but a short step to confirm the official status of the Welsh language in Wales.
  Mention was made in the Lords debate of some technical legal difficulties., but I hope that either the Opposition can come up with a form of words that the Welsh Office and Government will accept or the Government will put to work the very powerful legal brains in the Welsh Office and other Departments and come up with another form of words to confirm the official status of the Welsh language, not only in the public sector but in all sectors in Wales.
  It is good that the Welsh Language Board will be a statutory body, although I have reservations about the creation of yet another quango for the appointment of whose members the Secretary of State will have total responsibility. I hope that in Committee we shall look at ways of enabling a public consultation to take place—perhaps through the Welsh Affairs Select Committee—about people who can represent all walks of life in Wales on this public body.
  1004
  One thing that worried me in the opening speech of the Secretary of State was his reference to the educational role of the Welsh Language Board. It seems to me that, in a way, it would undermine some aspects of the work of the Welsh Joint Education Committee, which is very closely connected with the democratic processes in Wales. The Welsh Language Board will not be. If the Welsh Language Board is to fulfil a function in education, it will need specialist sub-committees, for which, according to my reading of the Bill—and I have read the whole of it—there is no provision. Perhaps the Minister of State will be able to point out such a provision.
  The Welsh Language Board, in this educational role, could cut across the Curriculum Council for Wales and the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales which will be set up. There would need to be some very clear definitions of the Welsh Language Board's responsibilities in its educational role.
  As has already been pointed out, whatever else the Bill or the Welsh Language Board may do, the fundamentally important area is the development of bilingual education. The Bill says nothing about that; perhaps we should not expect it to. The Minister should make a statement about the ways in which Welsh bilingual education will be further promoted. In my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) there is great demand for a bilingual secondary school. Mid Glamorgan would dearly love to provide that school, but, with the threat of capping and other problems, it is not able to reserve the capital allocations for that purpose. The Welsh Office has a role to play in providing extra funding to ensure that bilingual education is provided.
  Under the heading
  "Financial effects of the Bill"
  the Government go out of their way to stress that there will be
  "no overall increase in public expenditure … but where there are additional costs these will be accommodated within mainstream budgets."
  Under the Act that established the Development Board for Rural Wales, there is provision for funding for Welsh publications and work. This year, a number of organisations applied, but almost as many as received money did not receive any, including Cyffeillion Y Ddaear Cymru—Friends of the Earth Wales—which has its headquarters in my constituency. It produces a large number of publications in the Welsh language on important environmental issues.
  There is a case for money and I sincerely hope that in Committee it will become apparent that the Government are prepared to provide it.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. John Morris: We have listened to excellent speeches and I am pleased that all hon. Members who wished to speak have been able to do so.
  For longer than most of us can remember, there has been a great deal of striving to reach the consensus to which the Secretary of State referred on the encouragement and improvement of the status of the Welsh language. It has taken more than 400 years to right the wrongs of Henry VIII's legislation which established English as the only official language in Wales. The Welsh language lost its official status not through neglect or misuse, but by Act of Parliament, and only by an Act of Parliament can it be restored.

  1005
  The main thrust of the concern of many in both this House and another place is whether the Bill gives the Welsh language a proper legal status, of necessity by another Act of Parliament. It does a great deal, but not enough, Dim da, lle gellirgwell—"Not good where you can get better", as I am obliged to translate.
  I welcome the Bill and I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for introducing it. He may well have delivered his swan song this evening in his present capacity. I pay a special tribute to the Minister of State for his considerable efforts over the years. I also pay tribute to Lord Prys-Davies and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who both played important roles in providing legislative paving stones. Last but not least—I am not the only one tonight to sing his praises, so his ears must be burning—I pay tribute to John Elfed Jones, the distinguished chairman of the Welsh Language Board.
  The first stepping stone towards correcting history was the Welsh Courts Act, introduced when this country was fighting for its very life in 1942. Much later, as a young Member of Parliament, I was asked to prepare a report for the Welsh parliamentary party on the status of the Welsh language. A multi-party delegation of us went to see the then Minister for Welsh Affairs, Sir Keith Joseph, and we suggested the name of David Hughes Parry to chair the committee. The fact that the Minister accepted our recommendation illustrates the bipartisan nature of the approach.
  The honour of introducing the Welsh Language Act 1967 fell to my noble Friend Lord Cledwyn. No one should underestimate the difficulties of getting a place in the legislative timetable—an obstacle course that the present Secretary of State has had to surmount. I, for one, fully realise that. I was introducing a Bill a year for Wales, so I know the problems and I congratulate the Secretary of State. Anyone who has been to the Cabinet Committee in July and dealt with such matters knows how difficult it is. It is equally difficult to explain complicated legislative concepts to hard-bitten parliamentary draftsmen. "Da was, da a ffyddlawn"—"Well done, thou good and faithful servant"; that is for the benefit of another Welsh Presbyterian.
  We should not over-estimate the importance of the Bill. Its main purpose is to provide a framework for the exercise of choice. Legislation will not cause the Welsh language to flourish. Only more and more Welsh people using it will do that. The Bill will, however, remove inhibitions and will provide and facilitate the opportunity and machinery for its use. It will improve the conditions of normality, so that no one will regard the use of Welsh as odd. When improved, the Bill can restore the language to its proper legal status, as the native official language of the country.
  I was a junior Minister of Transport as long ago as 1966 to 1968 and, during that period, the Welsh Office was encouraging greater use of Welsh in formal documents. Even then, every licence application form had to be fought for. Looking back, the counter-arguments now seem bordering on fantasy. A bilingual driving licence application form would be too large physically. That was just one major objection to it. How far have we come in 25 years?
  Important as the Bill is, of equal—some might say greater—importance is section 21 of the Education Act
  1006
  1980, which ensures proper provision for costs of Welsh language education. The Government inherited, and honoured, the agreements that I had reached with the Treasury, announced at the Cardiff Eisteddfod to less than universal acclaim in 1978. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his kind remarks. When I went to Caernarfon at Easter 1974 and asked the local education authority what was the extra cost of bilingual education, it was evident that the question had not been previously addressed in that way. My officials mumbled the phrase that it was covered by the rate support grant. After considerable time, the evidence was forthcoming, the Treasury could then be bearded and we introduced a measure which was subsequently adopted, to my total gratitude, by the Conservative Government.
  The most encouraging news, of which the Secretary of State has reminded us, is the increase in the ability of the young to speak Welsh, qualified by the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). It has been all due to the resolve of parents and the work of local education authorities, despite difficulties over resources. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to say that it is a matter for the local education authorities to decide their priorities, but if they have to operate within a ceiling, it is exceedingly difficult to provide for all the necessary good things. If the ceiling is raised, if resources are made available, local authorities' tasks will be that much easier.
  I return to the more immediate problems identified in the course of the helpful discussions on the Bill in another place and tonight. First, there is the status of the language. The Bill does not provide for statutory bilingualism. It provides that in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice in Wales, the English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality.
  I am not sure what those words mean. I have never come across them before. I am sure that they are sanctified by the Government's legal advisers. However, as we were reminded, on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill the legal advisers of the Foreign Office and the Attorney-General had differing views. I do not know whether the Attorney-General has been consulted on this matter—I suspect not. Government Departments are loth to consult the Attorney-General. At least, that was my experience, much as I desired his advice from time to time.
  I share the disappointment in Wales that a better formula has not so far been found to give to the language its proper status. If we came to the situation anew, with a blank sheet of paper, with no history, what is proposed in the Bill might be enough—but the perception of justice is as important as justice itself. Despite the assurances in another place that Welsh is an official language, that it was not the intention to establish Welsh as an official language in the Bill because the Bill reflects the Government's belief that it already is, I am sorry to say that it is not seen as such because, frankly, it is not. Recent history has shown that an extension of the right to use the Welsh language has had to be proved. The reality is that it is not seen as a right.
  The Bill goes a long way, but not far enough. The Government must find a formula once and for all to kill off that perception of inequality. I have studied closely every word that has been said in another place. As I understand it, the Government do not lack the will—the problem is to find the legal means to achieve it.
  I listened carefully to the tenor of the Secretary of State's sympathetic remarks tonight. Three sets of

  1007
  amendments were moved in another place, including the occasionally used purpose clause and the ingenious amendment of the noble Lord Hooson. The objections put up would have done credit to the windmills of Don Quixote. I assure the House that no one wants Hansard translated into Welsh. That was one of the objections put in another place.
  I invite the Government to try again because, as has been said, they have the means and the powerful body of parliamentary draftsmen to find a formula. Otherwise, the subject will be returned to time after time in a legislative effort to correct the situation. It would be a running sore and the credit that the Government deserve for introducing the Bill would be substantially dissipated.
  I come now to the second issue. I welcome the setting up of a statutory board. The fact that the board is statutory means—obviously, perhaps—that it has legal duties and obligations which are—obviously, again—spelt out in legislation. Having set up the Welsh Development Agency, I was determined, despite the considerable lack of enthusiasm inside and outside the Welsh Office, that Mid Wales Development should also be a statutory board and, in the same way, with even more opposition, the Land Authority for Wales—all three of which, I am pleased to say, have survived the ravages of 13 years of Conservative Government.
  The board must attract members of high calibre to reflect Welsh-speaking and non-Welsh-speaking Wales, those learning and those who have been described—I had not thought of them in this way—as having had some of the language but have seen it depreciate over the years. That fourth group is clearly important.
  The chairman has a key role to play, and I wish Lord Elis-Thomas well in his new appointment. He has a great responsibility to act fairly and properly for the language. Many of the board's problems will be concentrated in non-Welsh-speaking Wales—contrary to those who thought that there might be more in Welsh-speaking Wales. I say that after having thought about it a great deal, as I am sure the Secretary of State has.
  The board, and the chairman in particular, will be dealing with public bodies, especially local authorities. As a political animal, the Secretary of State will know the composition of all of them. The chairman, in particular, will have to to tread like Agag—I stress that for the benefit of my Presbyterian friend—to ensure that he acts diplomatically and achieves the best results.
  There has been criticism of the lack of an independent element on the board. There is a fear, which to judge from experience is justified, that the Government may pack the board with safe, acceptable placemen. The Secretary of State must guard against that. There is also a fear that it will lack democratic accountability.
  As so many elected local and public authorities will be involved, may I suggest and commend a formula, whether it be written into the Bill or not? When I set up the Land Authority for Wales in the face of bitter opposition from local government, it was necessary to carry local government with us. In order to constitute part of the membership, we invited the two major local government organisations in Wales—one representing the counties and one the districts—to put up between them four members, of which the Secretary of State would choose two, one from each. That system may still be operating. It certainly did not diminish the Secretary of State's responsibility or circumscribe it unduly.
  1008
  Although the two were there as members of the authority, there was some accountability. If there had not been, they might not have been renominated the next time by their constituent organisations. I commend that suggestion to the Secretary of State and hope that he will act on an even wider basis than I felt necessary in the perhaps narrower sphere that I have just described.
  There is perhaps an even more respectable precedent than mine. As I understand it, a non-conformist Prime Minister, now Lord Callaghan, declined to take full responsibility for appointing bishops. The practice was for two names to be put forward by the Synod, from which he chose one. That is even more respectable than my system.
  The bottom line is that the board must have the public's confidence. It has important tasks to perform and must carry public opinion with it. It must not behave outrageously but, if it does, it can be replaced by the Secretary of State in due course. I am especially pleased that the board will advise the Secretary of State on matters affecting the Welsh language and that it will have a promotional role. That will be a very important part of its function. I felt naked at the Welsh Office, not having such a body to advise me on the spending of public money in that sphere.
  My advisers at the Welsh Office might have had great experience in health or education, but in this respect it was very limited. Perhaps I may disclose the fact that, soon after going to the Welsh Office, I discovered that my principal adviser, the assistant secretary, did not claim to speak Welsh. It was a bit of a shock, but the situation was corrected fairly soon.
  There is a need for such a body to give advice. The Secretary of State mentioned the Eisteddfod. I took a decision on my own initiative, and I was fortunate in persuading the Prime Minister of the day—Lord Wilson, as he now is—while he was coming round the Devil's Bridge falls with me, that what I recommended was the proper thing to do. There is no better place to secure the agreement of the Prime Minister of the day than when one is taking him round the Devil's Bridge falls at a fast pace. I recommend that method to the Secretary of State.
  The same happened with Ysgolion Meithrin Cymraeg—the Welsh nursery schools. I was worried at the time about whether either body would accept the offer, but the role is an important one, and I hope that it will provide a valuable service for the Secretary of State.
  The key to the working of the Bill will be the draft guidelines to be issued by the board after approval by the Secretary of State and by Parliament, and the form of the schemes to be approved by the House in due course. I would fault the Secretary of State here, because I wish that either he or those who spoke on his behalf in another place had set out in more detail what they had in mind for the draft guidelines, and especially what kind of schemes they intended to recommend to the House.
  Another matter of concern is the extension of the board's remit to the privatised concerns. As publicly-owned industry becomes more limited, or some of its functions diminish, the role of the board will necessarily diminish. The privatised concerns are monopolies. Some may not be, but one cannot buy water elsewhere from another source and, apart from a few specialist consumers, one cannot buy gas and electricity elsewhere either. Privatised concerns are public organisations, yet if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) said, some of the functions of other public organisations are

  1009
  privatised, as with Group 4 or other such companies, even though they will still be part of the public service that runs the prisons, if there is a franchise I doubt whether they will be covered.
  I lack the confidence that the hon. Member for Caernarfon had in clause 6(1)(o). The Minister of State made it clear that the test would be whether a body was funded from Government sources, so if a franchise were given it would seem that the body was no longer funded by Her Majesty's Government and would therefore be outwith the provisions of the clause. We shall return to the matter in due course, because we feel strongly that whether publicly-owned industries remain public or become private, they are still a vital part of the economy and the life of Wales.
  Not the most important issue, but one to which a great deal of symbolism is attached, is the right to trial by jury in Welsh. The argument has been advanced that that right would breach the principle of the random choosing of juries. However, it is only fairly recently that juries have been chosen from among all adults in the country. Until the beginning of this century juries had to be male, and there was a property qualification until fairly recently. In security cases the Attorney-General can override the choice of juries. So that argument cannot stand a proper test. Furthermore, cases can be, and frequently are, moved to other parts of the country where there will be a bigger pool.
  The real mischief with which we have to deal is the perception of unfairness which arises from the fact that one can be tried in Welsh in a magistrates court but not if the case is sent for trial to a Crown court. No answer was given to that problem in another place. Translation, however good, however improved it may be, can never be as satisfactory. Juries judge witnesses by their demeanour, their nuances and their reflexes. It is my professional experience that a translation is never as good as the real thing.
  My next concern is the interface with the race relations and equal opportunities legislation. An amendment was proposed in the other place which, with some refinement, met with the approval of the Race Relations Board. It was a shock to many of us that there has been litigation on those issues in the past few years. When the legislation was conceived, whether I was a Minister or a Back Bencher—I think that I was a Minister both times—it was never thought that the issues of race and equality of opportunity would impinge on the Welsh language. It is a novel concept that there was a right of action arising from those matters.
  A great deal of concern was expressed in another place that the Bill will not bind other Government Departments. In view of the statements made there, and those of the Secretary of State tonight, I do not share all of the doubts about this matter. Obviously, one Secretary of State cannot be superior to another one—it goes right across the whole concept of a Secretary of State. The Committee may want to return to that matter and perhaps argue why the Race Relations Board can take another Minister to court whereas the Welsh Language Board will not. However, I do not share the apprehension that has been expressed.
  Hon. Members have listened patiently all day, especially to my speech, and I am grateful to them. We
  1010
  have come a long way socially and legally since Tudor times. I have a little recollection of my grandfather, who went to school between 1875 and 1882—he went for only seven years because he left at the age of 12 and went down the pit at 13. He told me about the "Welsh not". Although historians argue about this, about 1861 when teachers were paid by results—history seems to be repeating itself in part—Welsh children were tested on English reading, English writing and arithmetic, but no allowance was made for the fact that they came from Welsh-speaking homes. The "Welsh not" was put around a child's neck if he or she spoke Welsh in the playground or anywhere else and it had to be worn until it was passed on. We have come a long way since then. I welcome the Bill. Once it is improved in Committee, it will be important and I thank the Government for introducing it.
  9.36 pm
  The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): It is clear that there is no real opposition in the House to the Bill—there has been criticism, but not outright opposition. I am grateful to all parties for their forbearance. I particularly welcome all the supportive speeches that we have heard, including that of the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) with all his experience as a former Secretary of State. I also give special thanks to English Members from over the border for their supportive speeches—my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) and for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe).
  I assure all hon. Members who have spoken that we shall consider their views carefully at all stages of the Bill, as we have considered, and are still considering, the views nobly expressed in another place and those that are still coming from Wales. If we can improve the Bill by amendment or new clauses, we shall endeavour to do so, but first we must be convinced that whatever change is proposed is genuinely for the betterment of the Bill and those who are likely to be affected by it. Hon. Members will expect no softer proviso than the one I have just given.
  We are legislating in a highly sensitive area in which I believe—the more I hear—it is easier to make mistakes than be right. Therefore, hon. Members will understand our cautionary approach. I assure the House that that is dictated not by stubbornness but by sensitivity.
  At this point, I pay tribute to the considerable thought and work that has been put into the Bill by not only the Welsh Language Board and the Welsh Office but other Departments of State, my colleagues in the Government and their officials, all of whom, without exception, have tried to be as helpful as possible during the months in which the Bill has been prepared.
  The House will recognise that the Bill is an important element in the Government's wider policy of support for the Welsh language, which is now accepted as part of Britain's heritage. That policy of support has found expression in many forms in the past 14 years, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reminded the House at the beginning of the debate. That policy has certainly inspired confidence in the future of the language and inspired those who work for it to ever greater endeavour and achievement.
  Our policy is aimed at supporting the language wherever it is spoken. It is a policy for the whole of Wales and all the people of Wales. I assure my hon. Friend the

  1011
  Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) of our continuing sensitivity to different parts of Wales and, indeed, the flexibility that is possible within the Bill so that different parts of Wales can be given different treatment.
  I advise those who criticise the Bill for being weak, inadequate or a paper tiger—as the hon. and teamed Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) called it—to consider its scope. It will, after all, extend to every branch of public sector service in Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has reiterated today that that will include Government Departments and their agencies. To all intents and purposes, therefore, it will be as if a formal duty were placed on such organisations.
  Welsh-speaking consumers will be consulted during the preparation of schemes. Schemes to be submitted to the board will have to contain proposals for giving effect to the principle of equality as set out in the Bill, as well as a timetable according to which they will be implemented.
  The general policy for the introduction of schemes is intended to be flexible but comprehensive. The task of introducing schemes throughout the public sector will, by anyone's definition, be a major undertaking. The board will therefore need to consider the rate at which it believes that it can introduce schemes and those parts of the public sector to which it will accord particular priority. There will therefore need to be a phased introduction of schemes, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already made it clear that he would expect priority to be given to schemes introduced by the major public sector employers in Wales. That will, of course, include Government Departments and their agencies.
  I believe that we can leave it to the board to ensure that there is no unnecessary delay in introducing schemes. The board will be able to judge the timetable that is appropriate, according to the particular circumstances of each body. It is important that schemes are in place as quickly as possible, but it is just as important that they should be schemes that can last. The machinery that we propose needs to be considered with that thought in mind.
  The legislation will achieve nothing if it serves only to promote short-term measures that bring about temporary alleviation for Welsh speakers. If public sector organisations are to make a lasting contribution to the establishment of an environment in which the Welsh language can prosper, schemes must be devised that will stand the test of time. Schemes must therefore be able to change as the expectations of Welsh speakers change. The Bill provides for that. Individual schemes can be amended, where appropriate, so can the board's guidelines. Therefore, not only is the Bill intended to have an impact right across the public sector, but its effects will be lasting. We are setting the board a serious challenge, to which I am sure that it will be anxious to respond.
  It is clear that clause 6(1)(o) will attract a great deal of interest. The type of body that will meet the test contained in that subsection is one that, in the first place, appears to the Secretary of State to be exercising functions of a public nature. We have been advised that a body that is funded by the Government—for example, the training and enterprise councils—may satisfy the test, if it falls within the definition contained in the subsection.
  Mr. Hain: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: May I leave the matter to the Committee?
  1012
  References have been made to the official status of the language. The Government believe that Welsh already has such a status. Anyone who doubts that statement has only to look at the way in which public business is conducted in Wales today and, indeed, has been conducted for many years. Welsh plays a prominent role in our public administration and special provision has been made for it in Acts passed by this Parliament. By establishing the principle of equality, the Bill reaffirms that official status.
  Crucially, the Bill recognises that status alone is not enough. Declarations of status do not in themselves address the practical obstacles that can stand in the way of services being made available in Welsh. The Bill does not, therefore, establish the principle of equality in isolation; it provides for those obstacles to be overcome. The challenge facing the Welsh Language Board will be to assist public bodies in finding innovative ways in which such obstacles can, wherever possible, be overcome.
  Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister give way?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: If I may, I do not want to give way. I want to express some views on the tremendous variety of subjects that have been raised in the debate.
  Reference has been made to other principles, including the principle of equal validity. The principle behind the Bill is that of equality as expressed in the phrase
  "on a basis of equality".
  A variety of wide-ranging declarations of principle has been suggested in the debate, and I am concerned that they would introduce uncertainty into the Bill's provisions. That could only be resolved by recourse to the courts. It would not further the cause of the language to turn it into a legal battlefield. I, for one, do not want our language to be murdered with legal niceties by sharp-faced lawyers. [Interruption.] I exclude the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon from that category. That would do nothing to promote an environment where the language has the support of all parts of the community. It would be one way in which the good will that currently exists towards the language could easily be dissipated.
  The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) referred to the need for statutory rights for Welsh speakers. The problem with statutory rights is that they depend on the courts for their enforcement. In my view, what the majority of Welsh speakers want is not the right to go to court to demand a better service but a better service as such. The Bill concentrates on those practical issues to ensure that better service is provided.
  The Bill provides for an efficient and effective means of resolving disputes without requiring individuals to employ a lawyer. We do not believe that it is sensible to require individuals to enforce their rights simply in order to receive a service in Welsh. We believe that the needs of Welsh speakers are better served by placing obligations on public authorities. The Welsh Language Board has shown in its work to date that it can use its good offices to find solutions to the practical problems facing Welsh speakers. Backed up by the Secretary of State's power of direction, that will happen even more in future.
  A number of hon. Members have referred to education. They include the hon. Members for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that education would remain at the heart of our policy of support for the language. It might be helpful if I say a little

  1013
  more about how it will be dealt with by the Bill, as suggested by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths).
  Local education authorities will be required to include their proposals for the provision of Welsh-medium education in their schemes. A similar duty will be placed on any schools funding council for Wales which may be established in future. As is the case for other public services, local education authorities will have to take into account guidelines that the board will produce on the subject. The Bill requires that public organisations consult on the terms of their schemes and we shall expect local education authorities to consult parents. That process will not involve any change to the terms of the Education Acts under which the provision of Welsh-medium education has grown so encouragingly over the past few decades. The strength of those Acts is that they link the provision of education to the wishes of parents and to local circumstances more generally.
  In line with the Bill's provisions, it would not be our intention to impose a rigid blueprint to which Welsh-medium education must conform. The linguistic character of Gwynedd is different from that of Gwent and we would expect the provision of Welsh-medium education in those two areas to reflect that. Welsh-medium provision will therefore continue to reflect local circumstances while ensuring that the reasonable wishes of parents are taken into account wherever possible.
  In recent years, there has been an encouraging development in Welsh-medium education, particularly in the secondary sector, which we all welcome. I am anxious that we should build on good practice and extend that into further and higher education. The duty to prepare schemes will therefore extend to further and higher education colleges and their respective funding councils. I am sure that that will help to solve the problem of the school leavers who want to learn Welsh and carry on with their studies from school. It may, I hope, impact on the figures for those under 25 in the next census, if not before. Schemes will not impact on the position of Welsh in the national curriculum—that factor is already taken care of under separate legislation.
  The board will assume the responsibility for taking a broad overview of the position of the Welsh language in the education system in Wales. In doing so, it will be important for the board to work alongside the other organisations working in that sector. That will certainly include the curriculum and assessment authority—which is to be known by its Welsh acronym, ACAC—but it will be equally important for the board to establish close working relationships with the further and higher education funding councils. The board will not remove from those organisations their own responsibility for the development of Welsh-medium education in their particular sector. I am sure that the education system in Wales will benefit from their close co-operation.
  The issue of juries at trials conducted through the medium of Welsh is one which, I assure the House, has received long and careful consideration. However, the Government's view remains unchanged: we do not consider it appropriate to make provision to require juries at such trials to be composed solely of people who understand Welsh. I acknowledge the strength of feeling
  1014
  about this issue, but we simply cannot allow anything to interfere with the principle of random selection of juries or place further hurdles in the way of the administration of justice. I expect that I shall find it necessary to say more about that matter in Committee.
  I am reinforced in my view by perhaps the most authoritative report ever produced on the position of the Welsh language in the courts. The House is no doubt aware that I am referring to the findings of the report by the late Lord Edmund Davies some 20 years ago for the then Lord Chancellor. None the less, I remind the House that the noble Lord concluded that the arguments in favour of the process of the fully random selection of juries exceeded the arguments in favour of stipulating a requirement for Welsh-speaking jurors. Lord Edmund Davies advised the use of simultaneous translation facilities as the best means of overcoming the practical difficulties associated with the former argument. Over the past 20 years, developments in the expertise and professionalism of translators have further reinforced the view that the best means of safeguarding the interests of Welsh speakers in court is by means of simultaneous translation.
  I see the Bill as establishing a framework for public bodies to provide services through the medium of Welsh, on the basis of equality of status between the two languages—and equal respect. We are ensuring, through the Bill, that Parliament, whose will it will be that English and Welsh should be treated on the basis of equality in Wales, should have an important and continuing role to play in the implementation of the Bill.
  When the board has been established, one of its first tasks will be to draw up guidelines—these have been referred to in the debate—as to the form and content of the schemes to be prepared by public bodies under clauses 9 and 10. Those guidelines will be subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament, as, indeed, will any revision of them in the future. The board's annual report will also be laid before Parliament, as provided for in schedule 1. I must tell the hon. Member for Cardiff, West that this House has not finished with the Welsh language. The guidelines will come before us in due course. The Bill therefore assumes Parliament's continuing interest in the Welsh language, and there is scope for that interest to be expressed on the Floor of the House and in another place. I regard that as of the utmost importance and in tune with the best traditions of Parliament. After all, it was Parliament which, by statute in 1563, required that there should be a Welsh translation of the Bible. That was a very significant event.
  There are those who believe that the Bill does not go far enough. I believe that it is about right, and I ask hon. Members to give it a Second Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  WELSH LANGUAGE BILL [Lords] [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Welsh Language Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenditure attributable to the Act incurred by the Secretary of State, and

  1015

  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other Act.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

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

  NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 11096/92, relating to the efficiency and safety of nuclear power stations in certain non-member countries; and agrees that it would be wholly appropriate to amend Decision 77/270/Euratom to authorise the commission to contract Eurotom borrowings in order to contribute to the financing required for improving the degree of efficiency and safety of nuclear power stations in certain non-member countries.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  Question agreed to.

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

  COURTS (JURISDICTION)
  That the draft High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 21st April, be approved.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  Question agreed to.

  Gas (Exempt Supplies) Act 1993
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  10 pm
  Mr. Alan Duncan: The reason I have asked for the debate is that the Gas (Exempt Supplies) Act 1993 was passed earlier this year by both Houses of Parliament to amend the law affecting the supply of gas, yet it has not been implemented, because the Health and Safety Executive has so far declined to draw up a new regulation to cover the new circumstances. Its failure to do so, and its unwillingness to show any intention of doing so in the near future, is in my view a breach of its obligations. Rather worse, its attitude strikes me as treating the will of Parliament with contempt.
  The Act was the brainchild of my noble Friend Lord Cochrane of Cults. It was his creation. He started it as a private Member's Bill in another place and, after its completion there, asked me to pilot it through this House. It passed its remaining stages here in January, and promptly gained Royal Assent.
  In a nutshell, the Act tidies up the labyrinthine series of regulations governing the supply of gas through pipes, and thereby makes it easier to supply gas from a propane storage tank to a series of proximate outlets such as caravans, chalets, self-contained housing estates, isolated communities or agricultural properties. It is a fairly simple deregulation exercise and, if only the HSE would realise it, a safety exercise as well. It is almost beyond belief that such a simple and straightforward amendment to the law should be subsequently thwarted by others.
  In order to understand why a seemingly simple matter has become so bogged down, we need to take a few steps back. The origin of the problems which gave rise to the Act lies in the implementation of two earlier pieces of legislation, the Pipe-lines Act 1962 and the Gas Act 1986. Until the 1986 Act, there were three distinct gas markets in the United Kingdom: nationalised gas, industrial gas, and liquid petroleum gas. The 1986 Act granted British Gas a monopoly of the supply of gas throughout the United Kingdom. It allowed for competition, however, in that it permitted the regulator, Ofgas, to grant section 8 authorisations to other suppliers who succeeded in passing the stringent vetting procedures laid down by the Act.
  The implication, though, of the 1986 Act was that any authorised competitor under section 8 was likely to be a substantial business supplying gas as its main commercial activity. The sort of parallel one might draw is that between Mercury and BT. The trouble was that most of the suppliers who suddenly found themselves subject to section 8 authorisation were small, even minute, enterprises in which the supply of gas was only a tiny incidental part of their business. They were hardly a threat to the commercial prosperity of British Gas, and certainly not the sort of supplier envisaged by those who drafted section 8 of the 1986 Act.
  For historic reasons, most of them were found in the holiday park industry, the better parks having piped LPG into their caravans or chalets as part of improvement schemes for their customers. Those caravans, for instance, which have an individual bottle of gas for each unit are outside the scope of the 1986 Act and other legislation. At the same time as rigorously applying section 8 of the Gas Act 1986, Ofgas declared that these tiny piped LPG

  1017
  systems were pipelines under the Pipe-lines Act 1962. This was clearly not the intention of that Act, as a list of its exemptions shows.
  Accordingly, small suppliers, all of whom are almost irrelevant to the sort of massive supply undertaken by British Gas and its putative competitors, were set a most intricate paper chase, involving numerous public bodies and no end of forms and approvals, all of which were designed to govern sizeable supplies of gas to consumer or corporate users. The forms might work for one or two applications a year, but certainly not for a host of tiddly suppliers, most of whom were in remote areas and whose supply was quite specific. It is hardly surprising that a large backlog of unfinished applications built up.
  Complaints were rife among all parts of the LPG market about the complexity of the authorisation system and the sheer inefficiency of Ofgas's administration. To be fair, Ofgas was not designed to oversee such a regime. A few cosmetic changes were made, but the problem remained. It was subsequently pointed out at a meeting at the Department of Energy that the section 8 authorisation procedures had reached such a state of collapse that the Secretary of State was in fact breaking the terms of section 4 of the 1986 Act under which he was obliged to ensure that all reasonable demands for gas should be met.
  This is where my noble Friend Lord Cochrane leaped into the breach. Once it became clear that the Department of Energy would not oppose a private Member's Bill, if it were properly designed to put things right, he engaged the co-operation of the various interested parties to support the drafting of a suitable Bill. The Gas (Exempt Supplies) Bill had its Second Reading in another place on 8 July last year.
  The 1993 Act had two purposes, both of which were welcomed by the DTI. The first, under section 8 of the Gas Act, was to exempt the supply of propane through a pipe, and the second was to allow the Secretary of State to make other exemptions by negative order. The purpose of the first exemption was simply to allow suppliers of piped propane to continue much as they had always done before Ofgas began to hound them. They were, after all, governed by an industry code.
  The purpose of the second section of the Act was to allow the Secretary of State to grant exemptions to cover other supplies which do not fit well in the 1986 Act, such as by-product gases which would otherwise be caught by Ofgas. This reflects the corresponding provision in the Electricity Act 1989.
  British Gas had a few qualms about the Bill. I think that it is fair to say that these were largely commercial, and largely unfounded. The sectors affected by the Bill were hardly those which were liable to undermine the competitive position of British Gas. The whole of the independent gas industry supported it—that is to say, the producers of propane, by-product gas, landfill gas and coal gas—and so did Ofgas, the DTI, individual consumers and the small suppliers who were struggling with the hydra-headed monster created by the 1986 Act.
  The Bill was enthusiastically supported by the three main trade associations in LPG supply, the Liquid Petroleum Gas Association, the National Caravan Council and the British Home and Holiday Parks Association. Given the DTI's blessing for the whole idea of
  1018
  a private Member's Bill, the latter two paid all the legal costs in the belief they were working on a means of solving the problem. The culprit in all this, however, is the Health and Safety Executive.
  Ever since its earliest days, the regulator, Ofgas, has been at odds with the HSE over the administration of the safety requirements of the 1986 Act as they affect section 8 authorisations. It appears that Ofgas did not really want to become involved, but the HSE refused to undertake the necessary safety regulations itself.
  Legally, Ofgas deals only with the "supply of gas through pipes", but in practice this means that it deals with the regulation of any gas which is sold directly or indirectly to a user. Any gas which is not a supply in these terms, or in other words is a self-supply, is the responsibility of the HSE, and always has been. This division into supply and self-supply under overlapping rules has been, and remains, a matter of great confusion to those involved.
  Once exemption under the Act begins, this problem will disappear, as only one code of practice—that of the HSE—will apply, and supply will be treated the same as self-supply. Curiously, though, the HSE opposes the change of rules for supply, even though this would bring it into line with self-supply where HSE rules already apply. I hope that the House is following me on this increasingly complicated matter. What are the reasons for its objections? Has it researched the compliance costs? Has it made a risk analysis? I do not think so.
  After the Gas (Exempt Supplies) Bill was published, there was, inevitably, a large drop in the number of section 8 applications, in expectation of the sensible regime to come. Indeed, the Ofgas report for 1992 even welcomed the Bill, and since its passing Ofgas—while acting quite legally—has been totally passive in this field, dealing only with a trickle of applications.
  For this Act to be implemented, a commencement order has to be issued by the Secretary of State under section 4(2), but in practice I believe that the Minister is reluctant to issue a commencement order until the HSE has published its revised regulations for gas installation and use. Despite a ministerial assurance in another place that it might be ready by now, the latest indication is that the HSE has no intention of having these regulations ready before the middle of 1994. What can they possibly be waiting for?
  Without a commencement order, the industry is in limbo, and what is more—this causes me great concern—the unauthorised supply of gas is a criminal offence on its own, even if no change is involved. To supply gas dangerously is a different offence. The Secretary of State has the power to make the necessary orders, yet it is hard to see a rational justification for not doing so when, for LPG self-supply, there is already an accepted set of regulations—which are deemed unsuitable for supply—considering that it is the terms or purpose of the delivery of gas which define which category is involved.
  I cannot see what the HSE is waiting for, but as soon as the DTI takes steps to try to implement the Act, the cry of "safety" goes up from the HSE, and the commencement of the Act is further delayed. It is simply not true to say that, when we passed this Act, we all knew we would have to wait thereafter on the HSE to get its house in order. We were led to believe at the time that the HSE would actually accept a voluntary call-out code for exempt supplies. I feel that the Minister should hold it to that understanding.

  1019
  Piped gas is actually safer than having to place a cylinder beside every unit, because the fire loading is less. So what magic ingredient can the HSE possibly be about to put into new regulations which will make the supply of propane safer? Is it reasonable to take over one year to draw up the rules? Is it reasonable to talk about the statutory need for emergency telephones and call-out procedures when these are already provided for under a voluntary code which is working well, and has been for many years?
  My hon. Friend the Minister, in conjunction with my noble Friend Lord Cochrane of Cults, who worked tirelessly on the Bill, has been tremendously supportive of this Act. He has guided, steered, nudged and helped to amend it. He has done everything he can to help to implement it.
  I intend no criticism of the Minister; indeed, I am at pains to commend his efforts to solve a problem that many would not have bothered to consider in such detail. However, to devotees of "Yes Minister", it seems that Sir Humphrey is working overtime. The current regime is in utter chaos, the law is in place to rectify the problem, but those responsible are doing nothing to put the solution into practice.
  The Health and Safety Executive has been so dilatory that, owing to its failure to give a fair wind to the implementation of the Act, there is even a risk that existing suppliers of propane—for whom the 1993 Act is designed to create an exemption from needless bureaucracy—may actually be subject to criminal prosecution under the Gas Act 1986. That is absurd; in my view, it is itself criminal. No industry can flourish when it is over-regulated; no industry can even breathe when the various regulatory bodies are quarrelling with each other. That is especially true when so many of the regulations seem utterly pointless anyway.
  The current state of affairs is a disgrace. This small Act has been passed by both Houses, yet an outside body is defying the will of Parliament to solve a problem that directly affects the welfare of suppliers and customers. Those who have failed to put the Act into practice are not only failing in their duty, but acting in a manner that should make them directly answerable to the House for their behaviour.
  I assure the Minister that he would have the full support of the House were he to address the matter boldly and knock some heads together. Will he, assure me that no one will be prosecuted for the criminal offence of supplying gas before this muddle has been resolved? May I invite him to announce a date on which the Act will be implemented—and may I ask him to confirm, without equivocation, that the HSE will not be allowed to continue to thwart the will of Parliament, to the detriment of those who have a legitimate right to go about their lawful business?
  10.16 pm
  The Minister of Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): Let me begin in the traditional way by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) on his success. He is probably unique in managing to put a Bill on to the statute book without saying a word, and then raising the same legislation on the Adjournment.
  My hon. Friend kindly accorded some recognition to the role played by my Department and myself in the drafting of the Bill. Let me, in turn, pay tribute to both my
  1020
  hon. Friend and to my noble Friend Lord Cochrane. This is a relatively small but extremely important area of the law, and, as soon as I had the pleasure of meeting my noble Friend shortly after taking up my present post, it struck me that we should act as quickly as possible. I think it is fair to say that, together, the three of us have put the legislation on to the statute book.
  As my noble Friend has pointed out, the purpose of the Act can be linked with our objective as a Government. It is deregulatory; and it increases competition in the gas market, albeit at the margin. I readily accept that the provisions of the original 1986 Act—particularly section 8—have proved a burdensome procedure, given that small amounts of gas are going to a very limited market. We have been very much aware of the industry's concern about the cost and the burdens that it will incur in complying with the authorisation procedure.
  I think that I can give my hon. Friend some good news, although perhaps not quite as much as he and our noble Friend might wish.
  The main purpose of section 8, and the provisions in earlier legislation on which it was based, was to control entry into the piped gas supply market. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, that applies in particular to caravan sites and holiday parks. It was almost by mistake that the small-scale systems have attracted the same degree of control as the much larger systems for which section 8 was designed. Those small businesses, as they mainly are, were not attempting to set themselves up as gas suppliers; the supply of gas was incidental to their main business. At the same time, as I am sure my hon. Friend recognises, all gas supplies, including LPG, are potentially hazardous, and it is right that the safety regime under which LPG is supplied is rigorous and enforceable and inspires public confidence.
  In its 1990 annual report, Ofgas noted that concern had been expressed by the interested parties about section 8. As a result, it began an internal review of the section 8 procedures. Once the review had been completed, Ofgas immediately took action to implement the various administrative changes, which did much to streamline the then existing procedures. My hon. Friend fairly paid tribute to Ofgas for that.
  However, those changes did not resolve all the problems. Ofgas and my noble Friend Lord Cochrane drew our attention to the legislative changes needed to make matters easier. In particular, in 1991 Ofgas drew our attention to the overlap of safety responsibilities between it and the HSE. The then Department of Energy studied its recommendations and concluded that they were sensible. It was largely as a result of that that we supported the Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton piloted through the House.
  I recognise—indeed, I share—my hon. Friend's frustration that the Act has not been brought into effect. During the Act's passage through the other House, the Government gave two assurances. The first was that in deregulating this aspect of the gas market there would be no diminution in safety standards. The second was that the Act would not come into force until the Health and Safety Executive had had sufficient time to put alternative arrangements in place.
  I think it fair to point out to my hon. Friend that the Act was supported by the Government on that basis. However, it is also fair for him and for our noble Friend

  1021
  to point out that, at that time, it was expected that the HSE would come forward with those regulations in a rather more timely way than has been the case.
  My hon. Friend is aware that the HSE answers to the Health and Safety Commission, which is an independent body. The commission has not declined to bring forward regulations, but it has been conducting a wide-ranging review of gas safety, including the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1984. At the urging of my Department, among others, that review has rightly taken account of the need to avoid adding any unnecessary burdens on industry. My officials and other interested parties have urged the HSC to press ahead with this important task.
  I understand that the review has been completed and that the HSC will be considering proposals for revised regulations on 22 June. Those regulations have important implications for public safety, and the HSE must therefore allow adequate time for consultation. That is not a matter of choice; it is required to do under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. It hopes that the regulations can be put in place by June 1994. At that point, the Department intends to introduce an order bringing the Gas (Exempt Supplies) Act into force.
  Safety, as I have said and as was made clear in the other place, is the key point. Section 8 authorisations include two important safety requirements—the requirement that suppliers have the right of entry into the premises supplied, and the requirement of the provision of a 24-hour telephone and emergency response service. It is important that those are maintained, and that they are capable of being enforced, and we must do that if we are to uphold the assurances that the Government were given that, as a result of the Act, there will be no reduction in safety standards.
  Those two requirements may appear to be relatively minor, but we must not forget that gas is a hazardous substance, and there needs to be an appropriate response available should an incident occur. It is sometimes claimed that, because the Act applies to low-pressure gas coming from large LPG tanks, the hazard is not so great. We can argue about whether that is the case in practice, because we have large LPG tanks that are inherently dangerous but, given the assurances that we gave to another place, I feel obliged to stick by those undertakings.
  I recognise the immense frustration of my hon. Friend
  1022
  and my noble Friend, and the holiday parks industry, which has been behind, and supportive of, the Act. Therefore, we have tried to introduce some interim arrangements to cover the next 12 months to June 1994. We have sought to devise those interim arrangements while ensuring that we take the necessary measures to ensure that safety remains paramount. We have been through, as my hon. Friend knows, a number of alternative ways to meet the requirement to have easy interim arrangements and to meet our safety obligations. We have investigated the possibility of the class authorisation, but that was not acceptable to the HSE, which felt that it would not be enforceable.
  My hon. Friend's suggestion that there was a breach in the terms of section 4 is not the case. Section 4 requires the Secretary of State to secure that a person who already has an authorisation does not refuse to supply a customer who can economically be supplied by the person. Therefore, the relevant provision has nothing to do with the procedures for granting authorisation. I can set his mind at rest on that.
  I have some, although only a little, good news. Spurred on by the pressure of the debate, my Department has been considering with Ofgas how the existing regime can be administered in as light-handed a manner as possible over the next 12 months. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend and all my other hon. Friends who have been good enough to stay tonight that we have, literally just, reached agreement in principle with Ofgas on some arrangements that have been designed to achieve further streamlining.
  I had hoped to be able to lay out the full details of that to the House, but so fierce and detailed have been the discussions that I am not yet able to do so. I can say that work will be continuing over the forthcoming holiday period—at least, for my hon. Friends, it will be a holiday period—and I am confident that we shall be able to go some considerable way to enforcing regulations over the coming 12 months in a rather more light-handed way than had been anticipated.
  The HSE is independent. Under the terms of the Act, Ministers have no powers to tell the HSE, or the HSC, what to do, and that has readily been accepted by the House before. I shall make sure that my hon. Friend's views on the way in which the HSE has responded to his Act are drawn to the attention of the director, and I shall also comment to it on the number of my hon. Friends who have been here to listen to the debate.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Services
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the police services in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is published annually in the "Police and Constabulary Almanac, Official Register". A copy of the 1993 edition has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take the necessary steps to arrange for the prefix royal to added to each of the police services in England.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No.

  Prison Escort Services
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all civil servants and their past responsibilities where they have subsequently joined any of the companies involved in tenders for British gaols or court escort services.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is not possible to list former civil servants who may subsequently have taken up employment with private sector companies in this field, since staff below grade 3 who wish to take up outside employment are only required to seek approval to do so for a period of two years after leaving Crown employment, and in certain specified circumstances. Six former members of the Home Office have sought and obtained approval under these procedures to take up employment with companies involved in the provision of prison-related services. All were governor grades, three were governing establishments; one was head of custody in an establishment; one was in the inspectorate of prisons; and one in the remands contracts unit. In addition, a former police superintendent on secondment to the unit was given approval to take up employment with such a company.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if civil servants attempting to recruit staff for companies involved in tendering for Home Office business will in future face disciplinary action.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  If, in relation to the tendering process for Home Office business, there is evidence of any impropriety on the part of Home Office staff, disciplinary action will be taken where this is considered appropriate.
  566

  Drugs
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will place in the Library a full copy of the research report from Sheffield university, prepared for his Department, on the prevalence of drug use among young people.

  Mr. Jack
  A full report will be published later this year and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Bail Hostels
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of places for(a) men and (b) women at probation or bail hostels covering the Greater London area on 10 May.

  Mr. Jack
  As at 10 May 1993, there was a total of 360 places at approved bail and probation hostels in the Greater London area: 308 are designated for men; 33 for women; and the remaining 19 are available to either men or women, as required.

  Emergency Warnings
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 19 May if he will outline the alternative arrangements to the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation, based on radio and television broadcasts.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Arrangements for the use of radio and television to broadcast warnings to the public have existed alongside the siren system for a number of years and they involve the broadcasting of pre-recorded messages over existing broadcasting networks.

  Police Inspectors
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) male and (b) female police inspectors in England and Wales were members of ethnic minorities at the most recent available date.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  At the end of January 1993, 28 police inspectors in England and Wales were members of ethnic minorities. All were male.

  Deaths in Custody
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners died in custody in the 12 months to March; and how many have died since 5 April.

  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. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 24 May 1993:

  Deaths in custody
  The Home Secretary has asked me to write to you directly in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question on deaths in custody. Between 1 April 1992 and 31 March 1993, eighty-six prisoners died in prison custody. Since 5 April 1993 nine prisoners have died in prison custody. These figures include deaths from all causes in both directly managed and contracted out operations.

  Naturalisation
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current time lag in the processing of naturalisation applications.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  For certificates of naturalisation granted in April 1993 the average waiting time was 21 months. For those applying now waiting times should average less than 12 months.

  Police (Management Supervision)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the establishment in each police authority in England was employed on management supervision duties at the latest available date.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is not held centrally.

  European Parliamentary Constituencies
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) on 1 April,Official Report, column 385, if he will make a statement on progress in formulating proposals for the boundaries of European parliamentary constituencies.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We hope to make an announcement on this matter shortly.

  Unit Fines
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the full evidence which led him to decide to scrap the unit fines system, including details of those cases in which too high a fine was given and those in which too low a fine was given.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 25 May 1993]: In reply to a question from the hon. Member on 19 May, columns 211–12, I have explained the reasons why my right hon. and learned Friend decided that it would be right to end the unit fine system. Although he was influenced, in taking that decision, by representations, both orally and in writing, from magistrates, members of the public and Members of Parliament, it would not be practicable to collate these representations as "evidence" and place them in the Library as requested. Nor would it be appropriate for the Secretary of State to comment on sentencing in individual cases.

  Police Authorities
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those police authorities that have been considered for amalgamation(a) during his period of office as Home Secretary and (b) during the past 10 years; and which proposals did not proceed because of the current procedure for amalgamation (i) as the only or primary reason and (ii) as a contributory reason.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 19 May 1993]: No police authorities have been considered for amalgamation during the term of office of my right hon. and learned
  568
  Friend. At the time of the abolition of the metropolitan county council's consideration was given to possible changes in the relevant police force areas. No changes were made because it was felt unlikely that reorganisation would improve effectiveness. The amalgamation procedure was not a factor in this decision.

  Complete records for the last 10 years are not available. However, the records that are available indicate that detailed consideration has not been given to the amalgamation of any other force areas during that time.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Select Committee Recommendations
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many Select Committee recommendations have been made about, and how many accepted by, his Department since April 1992.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology has published one report since April 1992. The Government's response is contained in the White Paper "Realising our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology", copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  The position in respect of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, whose remit relates to the work of both Her Majesty's Treasury and the OPSS, is covered in the reply by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, 24 May 1993, column 419.

TRANSPORT

  Road Safety
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has conducted into safety factors in respect of new roads.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Department carries out safety audits of new trunk roads before they are opened to traffic and specifically reviews their safety performance one and three years after opening as well as continuing with routine monitoring of safety. It also carries out a programme of research into factors which affect road safety, including, for example, pedestrian and cycle facilities, traffic calming measures, junction design, surfacing and safety fences. This is used in reviewing standards for new roads and in improving existing roads.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies have been undertaken on the additional injuries in accidents to pedestrians and cyclists caused by bull and roo bars on motor vehicles.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Pedestrian injury accidents are currently being investigated by the Transport Research Laboratory. As yet this research has been unable to reach firm conclusion concerning injuries from bull or roo bars; but I expect the investigations to show increased accident injury from such equipment.
  569

  Berkley Avenue, Greenford
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish his inspector's decision on the inquiry into the proposal to close Berkley avenue, Greenford, between Greenford road and Oldfield lane north; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The Secretary of State for Transport expects shortly to announce his decision in the light of the inspector's report on the inquiry into the proposal to close a length of Berkley avenue. Arrangements will be made for the hon. Member to receive a copy of the decision letter.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library copies of papers presented to the meeting of the high level forum on the channel tunnel rail link held on 19 May.

  Mr. Freeman
  Copies of the four papers presented have been sent to right hon. and hon. Members affected by the route of the rail link and placed in the Library. The papers are "Department of Transport—Property purchase and compensation policy", "DoT—Terms of reference for the further study of the London terminus", "DoT—Arrangements for the study and assessment of options for stations on the Union Railway" and a paper by Union Railways entitled "Route and stations development programme", all titles are prefaced by "Paper for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link High Level Forum".

  Traffic, South-East London
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement concerning the official journey taken through south London on 18 May by the Minister for Roads and Traffic whilst in a 1907 taxi cab; and what proposals he now has to improve the road network and traffic flow in south-east London.

  Mr. Norris
  The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the Minister for Transport in London was being driven in the splended taxi which the hon. and learned Gentleman so obviously admired, to Chester house in Kennington officially to open the excellent Royal British Legion taxi drivers; training school.

  The Department has three schemes in its programme for improving trunk roads in south-east London. It also pays transport supplementary grant at 50 per cent. of accepted expenditure and capital support to local authorities to improve their local roads. A further current initiative is improving the efficiency of the existing road network by the development of red routes.

  Crossrail
  Mr. Peter Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusions were reached by Schroeders and Warburgs in its advice to his Department on the prospects of a private sector contribution towards crossrail; what form this contribution is expected to take; and if he will make available details of the financing of the project before 8 June.

  Mr. Norris
  Our consultants, Warburgs and Bechtel, both concluded that crossrail is a project that the private 570
  sector will find attractive. The basis on which the private sector would contribute to the cost of the project will not be settled by 8 June.

  British Rail Pension Fund
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the value of the surplus in the British Rail pension fund for the last five years for which records are available.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the trustees of the pension fund.

  Twyford Down
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to recent new proposals for a route for the M3 bypass around Winchester which aims at minimising damage to Twyford Down.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Alternative proposals for the M3 route currently being constructed through Twyford Down were submitted to my Department earlier this year by a media film company. The proposals were considered carefully, but they related to options which had already been considered and rejected.

  A19, Durham
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the severity of disintegration of the newly laid surface to the A19 in County Durham.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Major maintenance work to the southbound carriageway of the A19 between Peterlee and Sheraton was completed in January 1993.

  Minor chipping loss which has occurred over approximately 5 per cent. of the total area of surfacing will require remedial works under the maintenance period of the contract by the contractor at his own cost.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many patches of disintegration have been identified on the newly laid surface of the A19 in County Durham; which contractor has been asked to carry out repairs; and how long this is going to take.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Major maintenance work to the southbound carriageway of the A 19 between Peterlee and Sheraton was completed in January 1993.

  Inspections have identified 28 areas of minor chipping loss. Amey Construction Ltd., the main contractor, will carry out the remedial works at its own cost during the 12-month maintenance period. The works are programmed to take 10 days and will be carried out under contra-flow.

  Road Improvements (Public Inquiries)
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the usual length of time between the announcement of a public inquiry into a major road improvement scheme and its first hearing.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The length of time between formal announcement and the opening of an inquiry varies
  571
  according to the circumstances of the individual scheme. It is never less than six weeks in order to allow sufficient time for all parties to prepare their case.

  West Wellow Bypass
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a map showing the proposed route of the A36 West Wellow bypass as announced in his Department's press release dated 19 May.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  A public consultation brochure showing the route options now being considered for the A36 West Wellow bypass is being published on Friday 28 May. A copy will be placed in the Library on that date.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current estimated cost of building the east London river crossing; and how he has calculated any changes since his answer of 16 July 1992,Official Report, column 862.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 21 May 1993]: The total estimated cost of the east London river crossing remains at £300 million at 1989 prices.

  London Travelcard
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to protect the London travelcard; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 24 May 1993]: The Government are promoting discussions with public transport operators in London on how best to develop the present travelcard to meet the future needs of passengers and operators. We intend, when we seek powers for bus deregulation in London, to give operators the right to participate on fair terms in multi-operator ticketing schemes.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  EC Institutions (Official Visits)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the tax treatment of official visits by hon. Members to European Community institutions in Brussels and Strasbourg.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government have tabled a new clause to the Finance Bill which will exempt from tax payments of expenses for Members' visits to Community institutions in Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg, under the terms of the Resolution of the House of 6 December 1991,Official Report, column 582.
  572

  Relocation Expenses
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations his Department has had on the proposed reform of tax relief on relocation expenses.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A series of consultative meetings has been arranged by the Inland Revenue since the proposed reform of the tax treatment of relocation expenses was announced on Budget day. The meetings have been attended by representatives of employers, professional bodies and representative organisations.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has as to how many taxpayers are affected by the freezing of the tax thresholds and allowances proposed in the March 1993 Budget, giving the numbers who have gross incomes of(a) less than £30,000, (b) £25,000, (c) £20,000, (d) earnings below the higher rate threshold and (e) earnings below the national insurance upper earnings limit.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Latest estimates for 1993–94 are as follows:

  Number of individuals affected

  Millions

  (a) Total income under £30,000

  22·9

  (b) Total income under £25,000

  21·8

  (c) Total income under £20,000

  19·6

  (d) Total earned income1 under £27,1452

  22·7

  (e) Total earned income1 under £21,8403

  22·1

  1 Includes income from employment, self-employment and occupational pensions.

  2 The sum of the basic rate limit and the level of the basic personal allowance for those under 65.

  3 National Insurance upper earnings limit.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to how many foreign individuals currently living in the United Kingdom the Inland Revenue has granted non domicile status for tax purposes; and how much this concession cost the Exchequer in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Overseas Dividends
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers receive income from overseas dividends; and what was the gross sum received before tax.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I regret that the information requested is not available.
  573

  National Insurance
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total number of taxpayers after the Budget changes in 1993–94, giving figures separately for(a) those who pay national insurance contributions only on incomes below the income tax threshold, (b) basic rate taxpayers with earned income below the NIC upper earnings limit, (c) basic rate taxpayers with earned income above the NIC upper earnings limit, (d) all basic rate taxpayers, (e) higher rate taxpayers with earned income above the NIC earnings limit, (f) all higher rate taxpayers and (g) all taxpayers.

  Taxpaying individuals, aged under 65, 1993–94

  millions

  Marginal rate

  No income subject to NIC

  Earnings1 between LEL and UEL

  Earnings above UEL

  Total

  Lower rate

  0·7

  2·7

  —

  3·5

  Basic rate

  0·7

  14·0

  1·7

  16·5

  Higher rate

  —

  0·1

  1·4

  1·5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  1·5

  16·8

  3·2

  21·5

  1 Includes earnings from employment or self-employment.

  Overseas Entertainers
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of withholding tax deducted from overseas entertainers in the film industry and in total in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The total withholding tax deducted in each of the last five years from foreign entertainers and sportsmen has been:

  £

  1988–89

  12,537,141

  1989–90

  13,387,341

  1990–91

  18,612,822

  1991–92

  16,690,738

  1992–93

  20,294,617

  No breakdown of these figures is available.

  Drugs Seizures
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many seizures of(a) heroin, (b) cocaine and (c) synthetic drugs have occurred in (i) the United Kingdom and its waters and (ii) Wales in each year from 1987.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 21 May 1993]: I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is contained in tables 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 of the Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Statistics of drugs seizures and offenders dealt with, United Kingdom 1991", and table A1.3 of "Statistics of drugs seizures and offenders dealt with, United Kingdom, 1987–91" (area tables), copies of which are in the Library.
  574
  Mr. Dorrell
  The latest available estimates are as follows:

  Taxpaying individuals, 1993–94

  millions

  Marginal rate

  Aged under 65

  Aged 65 and over

  Total

  Lower rate

  3·5

  1·4

  4·9

  Basic rate

  16·5

  1·5

  18·0

  Higher rate

  1·5

  0·1

  1·6

  Total

  21·5

  3·0

  24·5

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Vance-Owen Plan
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United States Secretary of State since 17 May on the continued credibility of the Vance-Owen plan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) on 24 May, c.375. by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, the Member for Grantham, (Mr. Hogg).

  Detention Camp, Gospic
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the existence of a detention camp at Gospic in Croatia; what action he has taken about the matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has received no representations. We remain in close touch with the International Committee of the Red Cross about its work in identifying, securing access to and progressively closing detention camps in former Yugoslaia. If any new evidence is brought forward of detention centres, we would immediately pass it on to the relevant organisations.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the establishment of a United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We recognise the need to strengthen the role of the United Nations centre for human rights. With our EC partners we have proposed that the post of
  575
  director of the centre be upgraded to that of Under Secretary-General for Human Rights/High Commissioner for Human Rights.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the names of the United Kingdom delegation to the United Nations world conference on human rights in Vienna.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 13 May, c.559. The precise composition of the delegation is being finalised, and will be transmitted to the conference organisers in due course.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's aims for the United Nations world conference on human rights in Vienna.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on 27 April, column 371.

HEALTH

  Royal Free Trust
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been treated by the Royal Free Trust since it became an NHS trust hospital; and what were the numbers treated in the two previous years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The figures for the first two years of the Royal Free Trust relate to finished consultant episodes in the general and acute specialties, and are as follows:

  Number

  1991–92

  33,822

  1992–93

  42,539

  The total for 1992–93 includes patients undergoing renal dialysis.

  No information is available centrally on the number of patients treated in the years before the Royal Free achieved trust status. However, a special exercise conducted for the House Select Committee established that there were 32,040 FCEs in 1990–91.

  Nebulisers
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy regarding the free provision of nebulisers for use by patients in need.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Health authorities must provide free of charge any equipment which, taking account of resources, needs and clinical priorities locally, they decide to provide as part of a national health service treatment programme. This applies whether the equipment is supplied permanently or on loan, and includes subsequent maintenance costs as well as initial supply. Hand-operated nebulisers may be prescribed by general practitioners and are free of charge to patients exempt from prescription charges.
  576

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost to date of the preparation, production and distribution of consultation documents by all NHS trust applicants.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A total of £5·93 million has been made available to regional health authorities for the cost of consultation on the four waves of national health service trusts during the years 1990–91 to 1993–94.

  Family Planning Services
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to ensure a free choice of family planning services on the NHS.

  Mr. Sackville
  National health service family planning is a self-referral service and people who wish to use it are free to choose their source of advice—their own general practitioner, another general practitioner if he or she is willing, or a family planning clinic. The Government's aim, as stated in the White Paper "The Health of the Nation" is that by 1994–95 the full range of NHS family planning services, however provided, should be appropriate, accessible and comprehensive.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research has been undertaken by her Department upon the effect of the inclusion of contraceptives on the selected list scheme upon levels of unplanned pregnancies in the United Kingdom;

  (2) what assessment she has made of the effects of the extension of the selected list scheme in respect of contraceptives on her Department's target in respect of teenage pregnancies.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) on 18 January at col.97.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations she has received in opposition to the extension of the selected list scheme to contraceptives.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Approximately 420.

  Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the legal status of the sub-committees of the Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs;

  (2) what procedures were followed in making the appointments to the sub-committees of the Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs; and what were the criteria used to judge the suitability for membership of these committees.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The sub-committees do not have a legal status which is separate from the main committee. The Advisory Committee on National Health Service Drugs decided which of its members would serve on sub-committees taking into account their professional expertise.
  577

  Salmonella
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list, for each year from 1987 to date, the number of cases of salmonella poisoning which have not been caused by eating infected food.

  Mr. Sackville
  The annual statistics published about confirmed salmonella infections are based on reports, by the public health laboratory service and hospital laboratories in England and Wales to the PHLS. The majority of these reports relate to individual cases and information as to the cause of infection is rarely available. In outbreaks involving two or more people, a cause other than food is reported infrequently. Occasionally outbreaks resulting from spread from person to person are reported, usually in an institutional setting.

  Halcion
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about the use of the drug Halcion in treating cases of severe depression.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Halcion, or triazolam, is a treatment for insomnia and not for depression. It was withdrawn from the United Kingdom market in 1991 on grounds of safety because of psychiatric adverse reactions, including depression. Under the Medicines Act the manufacturer has rights of appeal against the permanent withdrawal of the drug and at the present time the matter remains under appeal.

  Hospitals (Location)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what attention is paid in deciding on locations of hospitals to the relative age and level of car ownership of the surrounding population.

  Mr. Sackville
  The catchment area of a hospital will be determined by the contracts taken out by district health authorities or fund-holding general practitioner practices, on behalf of their residents and patients. Decisions on new hospital sites will be influenced by a variety of local factors, including accessibility.

  NHS Employees (Freedom of Speech)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 9 March,Official Report, column 487, when the final guidelines on freedom of speech for national health service employees will be published; and if publication will be delayed to take into account the findings of the Clothier inquiry.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We do not consider it appropriate to delay the issue of the guidelines and expect them to be issued in the near future.

  Hospitals (Security)
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures she has taken or intends to take to improve security in NHS hospitals following the recent report of Crime Prevention Consulting Ltd.

  Mr. Sackville
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has given a detailed reply in another place.
  578
  A full report and its recommendations were presented at a conference, sponsored jointly by the Department of Health, the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts, and the National Health Service Trust Federation, on 11 May.

  My noble Friend wrote to the chairmen of all health authorities and trusts on 13 May bringing the report to their attention. A copy of the letter is available in the Library.

  The NHS management executive has also written—EL(93)47, a copy of which is available in the Library—to all general managers and trust chief executives, outlining the key messages in the report and asked them to review their procedures for crime and loss prevention in the light of the review and to submit by 30 September 1993 a report on improvements made or planned.

  A new NHS security advisory group is being set up to promote a programme of security improvements and carry forward the recommendations of the consultants' report.

  Fertility Treatment
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average waiting period for IVF treatment; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Waiting time information by specialty is published in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England", a copy of which is available in the Library. Information on the time that waiting list patients have waited for treatment of specific conditions is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to amend the waiting list system for IVF and fertility treatment for childless couples to take into account the age of that couple; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Decisions about the appropriate treatment for a couple seeking help over infertility are a matter of clinical judgment. Age is one of the factors clinicians will consider in assessing a patients' suitability for any form of infertility treatment.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the hospital waiting times for patients in the Northern regional health authority for 12 months and 18 months; what were the comparable figures for each of the last two years; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Waiting times information by regional health authority is given in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England", published twice a year, copies of which are available in the Library. Latest provisional figures for 31 March 1993 were published on 10 May 1993—press release H93/740. These show the number of patients waiting for more than a year in the Northern regional health authority has fallen by 72 per cent. or nearly 4,500 patients in the two years since March 1991.

  Condensation
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has available about the effect of condensation in the home upon people's health.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department is aware of research carried out by the Building Research Establishment, an executive agency of the Department of the Environment.
  579

  Drugs
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she will place in the Library a full copy of the research report from Durham university, prepared for her Department, on the prevalence of drug use among young people.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 25 May.

  Laboratory Technicians
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 19 May,Official Report, columns 197–98, if the word technician in her answer means laboratory technicians.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Yes.

  Concorde Trials
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library a copy of the informed consent information and forms which were given to subjects who were asked to take part in the Concorde trials.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have today arranged for copies to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  British Nuclear Fuels plc
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what types of information he is obliged to make public regarding British Nuclear Fuels plc; and which areas of its operation are treated as confidential.

  Mr. Eggar
  For the considerations affecting the Government's policy in this area, I refer the hon. Member to my replies to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent,Official Report, 7 July 1992, column 140 and 24 March 1993, column 612.

  Waste to Energy
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to be able to announce a decision on the proposal for a refuse-to-energy plant in Belvedere.

  Mr. Eggar
  The timing of his report is a matter for the inquiry inspector. When my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade receives the report he will give timely but careful consideration to it.

  My right hon. Friend will announce his decision on the application at the earliest possible opportunity after receiving the report.

  British Airways
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will ask the Director-General of Fair Trading to investigate evidence of anti-competitive activities by British Airways against Air Europe, and its parent company ILG, since 1987;

  (2) what inquiries he has commissioned into the allegations of anti-competitive practices by British Airways against rival airlines; and if he will make a statement.
  580
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Allegations of anti-competitive practices in European air services fall to be considered by the EC Commission under articles 85 and 86 of the treaty of Rome. The Civil Aviation Authority has powers to investigate complaints of anti-competitive practices on specific routes to and from destinations outside the EC and to consider appropriate remedies.

  Under paragraph 4(1) of the schedule to the Anti-competitive Practices (Exclusions) Order 1980 (SI 1980 No. 979), any course of conduct pursued by an air transport undertaking solely in respect of carriage by air, otherwise than on a charter flight, is excluded from investigation under the Competition Act.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he was aware of the evidence of access by British Airways to computer information concerning rival airlines, when he gave his approval to British Airways' takeover of Dan Air in November 1992.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The President of the Board of Trade's decisions in merger cases whether to refer proposed acquisitions to the MMC take account of comprehensive advice from the Director General of Fair Trading on the public interest issues raised by the merger concerned.

  Additionality
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has available on how the additionality principle is applied within each member state of the European Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the European Commission's third annual report on the implementation of the reform of the structural funds, pages 17 to 18, and the European Court of Auditors' annual report concerning the financial year 1991—Official Journal of the European Communities, C330 of 15 December 1992, pages 130–131, 146, 153, 346, 355, 359 —copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  British Aerospace and Rover Group
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the implications for the United Kingdom of the European Commission decision of 9 March requiring the Government to secure repayment of £44·4 million of state aid plus interest from British Aerospace and the Rover Group.

  Mr. Heseltine
  British Aerospace plc yesterday paid to the Government the sum of £57·6 million made up as follows:

  £ million

  Repayment of state aid received by BAe and Rover in 1988 in connection with privatisation costs and buying out minority shareholders

  11·0

  Repayment of state aid representing the interest that would have been paid between 1988 and 1990 by BAe had it not been allowed to defer (interest free) the payment of the purchase price of Rover

  33·4

  Interest on the above sums through to yesterday

  13·2

  Total

  57·6

  581
  The Commission decision is intended to put BAe in the same position, after tax, as if it had not received state aid. Tax relief would have been available for interest of £33·4 million if it had been paid between 1988 and 1990. Tax relief would also normally be available for the interest of £13·2 million on a United Kingdom debt. BAe therefore now intends to investigate whether tax relief is available for both amounts. If relief is available on both sums at 33 per cent.—the current corporation tax rate—it will reduce the net cost to BAe by E11·0 million and £4·4 million respectively. The net cost to BAe of yesterday's payment would then be £42·2 million.

  BAe has expressed concern that under United Kingdom law one or both of the amounts of £33·4 million and £13·2 million might not attract tax relief. If that were to be the case, BAe would have paid, and the Government would have received, up to £15·4 million more than the Commission envisaged. The Government understand BAe's concern and have also noted the opinion of the Advocate General that the Commission might reasonably assume that tax relief would be given on the payment of £33·4 million.

  To ensure that the payment has the effect that the Commission intended, and that BAe is not disadvantaged by any difference between United Kingdom tax law and the tax assumptions made by the Commission, the Government have made arrangements to ensure that, if tax relief is not available in respect of the two payments, the company is returned to the same position as it would have been if it had not received the state aid. This would be done by transferring to the Inland Revenue, out of the sum received, an amount equal to the tax relief in question. That would then be set against BAe's tax liability. Details of the arrangements are in a note which is being deposited in the Library of the House. Both the European Commission and the Inland Revenue have been consulted about, and have raised no objections to, the proposed arrangements.

  Science arid Technology
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how the science and technology policy of his Department will be affected by the White Paper on science, engineering and technology published today; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Government want to see a new partnership with industry, bringing together public sector resources, to increase the nation's competitiveness. Today's White Paper on Science, Engineering and Technology commits the Government to partnership in science and technology to ensure they contribute more fully to the nation's wealth and well-being. The DTI is committed to making this partnership work. DTI's budget for industrial innovation is rising by some 15 per cent. this year to around £125 million, despite pressure on public spending. While the main responsibility for innovation must remain with industry, DTI has an important role.

  Support for R and D projects from DTI's innovation budget is less than 2 per cent. of industry's own R and D spend. Thirteen United Kingdom companies individually spend more on R and D each year than DTI does through its innovation budget. Moreover, much of DTI's support goes to the large firms who account for so much of industry's total. In view of this, DTI will change the
  582
  balance of its financial support so as to concentrate in future on helping smaller firms gain access to technology; building up partnerships between firms, with academia, and overseas; and ensuring firms have the services they need to innovate and to do business better. Smaller firms need effective local delivery of technology that may require sourcing on a local, United Kingdom or global basis. Both the access to that technology and the infrastructure which can provide it will therefore need to be strengthened, taking account of the Faraday principles, as will the promotion of innovation and the spread of best practice.

  The Department will significantly improve companies' access to science and technology by making innovation services available locally, for example through one-stop shops. These services will place the national and international expertise on industry's doorstep. One-stop shops will help form sustained partnerships, bringing together public and private sector business services, including DTI technology and innovation services, for the benefit of the local company customer. The DTI will build on the local innovation networks which are already used by firms. These networks draw on expertise in higher education institutions, technical colleges, industrial research organisations and others.

  DTI will put more effort into helping firms of all sizes come together to undertake R and D projects, including projects under the LINK and EUREKA initiatives. The Department will also work with other Departments, the research councils and in Europe to help this process to succeed. DTI will therefore:

  design its innovation services for delivery involving one-stop shops;

  support the establishment of local partnerships through which firms can obtain the technology and business services they need for innovation;

  consult industry over a more comprehensive information service about technology overseas;

  work to harness publicly-funded effort in science and technology;

  through its sector divisions and otherwise, act as a voice for business in science and technology throughout Government.

  In view of the decision to increase support for technology transfer and best practice activities, DTI will be reducing its support for industry/industry collaboration through its innovation budget, and from 1 September will support only projects which will result in exceptional economic benefit.

  Recognising the particularly important contribution that smaller companies make to the innovative process, direct single-company support to small SMEs will continue under the successful small firms merit award for research and technology—SMART—scompetition and SPUR—support for products under research—scheme. However, from 1 April 1994 it is proposed to limit SPUR to companies with up to 250 employees in order to concentrate on the smaller firms which have the greatest difficulty in raising R and D capital.

  Kvaerner Govan
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much intervention funding Kvaerner Govan has received over the last five years.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Offers of grant and details of the amounts paid are matters of commercial confidence between the Department and the company concerned.
  583
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many ships Kvaerner Govan has received shipbuilding intervention funding in the last five years; and what is the total value of the assistance given.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 25 May 1993]: Offers of grant and details of the amounts paid are matters of commercial confidence between the Department and the company concerned.

  Lead Batteries
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans his Department has to ensure that the level of lead batteries currently recycled is maintained and increased.

  Mr. Eggar
  I am aware that a combination of factors, including the current low price of lead, is reported by lead acid battery recyclers to be making their recovery operations increasingly uneconomic. On 5 May my Department issued a consultation paper seeking views on the options open to the United Kingdom for implementing the Directive on Batteries and Accumulators Containing Certain Dangerous Substances (91/157/EEC). This explores the possibilities for maintaining and increasing the traditionally high United Kingdom recycling rate for lead acid batteries. Officials recently met the battery recyclers and their representative organisation, the Lead Development Association, and encouraged them to make proposals as part of their response to this consultation paper.

  Swan Hunter
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make an application to the European Commission to allow payments to be made from the shipbuilding intervention fund to Swan Hunter.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have written today to European Commissioner van Miert to ask him to reconsider the eligibility of British warship yards for the shipbuilding intervention fund.

  British Coal Superannuation Scheme
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the level in each year from 1983 of the social cost grant provided to British Coal to help it meet the cost of additional contributions to its staff superannuation scheme in respect of early pensions and pensions for redundant miners; if he will provide full details of the terms and conditions associated with these grants; and what provision is made for alteration of social cost grant levels if British Coal meets its contributions by using part of the surplus in its pension fund.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 19 April 1993]: Grant provided to British Coal with respect to the staff superannuation scheme has been as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1983–84

  3·9

  1984–85

  9·1

  1985–86

  12·5

  1986–87

  27·4

  1987–88

  47·6

  1988–89

  55·3

  584

  Year

  £ million

  1989–90

  59·3

  1990–91

  68·7

  1991–92

  72·1

  1992–93

  80·4

  Total

  436·3

  Grant payments have been made under the relevant provisions of the Coal Industry Acts 1965, 1967 and 1987 and Coal Industry (Restructuring Grant) Orders 1987 to 1992. Grant will continue to be paid in respect of eligible expenditure by British Coal.

SCOTLAND

  Police Services
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take the necessary steps to arrange for the prefix royal to be added to each of the police services in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No.

  Woodlands
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) on 2 February,Official Report, column 177, whether any access agreements have been made or proposed since October 1991 in respect of any woodlands sold by the Forestry Commission before that date.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The arrangements for securing public access to woodlands sold by the Forestry Commission were introduced in October 1991 and could not apply to land sold before that date.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set out his current targets for the sale of Forestry Commission land in the United Kingdom in the current year and for each of the next three years.

  Sir Hector Monro
  As announced in Cm 2214, "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1993–94 to 1995–96 for the Departments of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Forestry Commission" (table 13.10), the Commission plans to sell 15,000 hectares of forest land in the current financial year and in each of the next two years. The sales programme for 1996–97 is under consideration.

  Agencies
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those bodies with executive agency status which are responsible to him; what plans he has to give executive agency status to any other Department or public body responsible to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I have responsibility for the following executive agencies:
  585

  Agency

  Launch Date

  Chief Executive

  Registers of Scotland

  1 April 1990

  Mr. James Barron

  Historic Scotland

  1 April 1991

  Mr. Graeme Munro

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  1 April 1991

  Mr. Andrew MacLeod

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  1 April 1992

  Dr. Robert Hay

  Scottish Prison Service

  1 April 1993

  Mr. Edward Frizzell

  Scottish Record Office

  1 April 1993

  Mr. Patrick Cadell

  Scottish Office Pensions Agency

  1 April 1993

  Mr. Norman MacLeod

  Chief executives respond, on my behalf, to letters and written parliamentary questions from hon. Members on operational issues within their sphere of responsiblity as set out in the agency's framework document. A copy of each framework document is available in the House Libraries.

  I announced on 18 November 1992, c. 271, that the fisheries research service of the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department is under consideration for executive agency status. Other candidates may be announced later this year. It is the Government's intention that all executive agency candidates will have been identified by the end of 1993 and to have launched them by mid-1995—end 1994 and mid-1996 in Northern Ireland.

  Energy Conservation
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he plans to take following the recent study by Scottish Enterprise on energy conservation in the domestic sector.

  Mr. Stewart
  Scottish Enterprise was co-sponsor of a study of the use of energy in Scotland. This study has not yet been published.

  Rape and Sexual Assault
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce legislation to alter the range of sentences open to the courts in cases of rape and sexual assault.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In Scotland rape, and most other sexual assaults, are common law offences where the maximum sentences available to the court are not laid down in statute but determined only by the maximum sentencing power of the court in which a case is heard. Where a case is heard on indictment, a sheriff sitting with a jury may impose a sentence of up to three years' imprisonment or remit the case to the High Court for a higher sentence if he believes this to be appropriate. A judge in the High Court may impose a sentence of up to life imprisonment. We believe, therefore, that there are already appropriate penalties available to deal with even the most serious cases.

  Wild Plants
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the common and botanical names of wild plants which are currently categorised in Scotland as 586
  (a) protected and (b) endangered species; what measures he has in place to protect such species; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provides protection for all wild plants. The subset of endangered or rare species is identified in schedule 8 to the Act, as varied by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Variation of Schedules) Order 1988 (S.I. 1988 No. 288) and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Variation of Schedules 5 and 8) Order 1992 (S.I. 1992 No. 2350).

  It is an offence under section 13 of the Act for any unauthorised person to uproot intentionally any wild plant. In the case of the plants listed in schedule 8, it is an offence for any person intentionally to pick, uproot or destroy any example.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of abattoirs in Scotland and their combined average throughput in(a) 1970, (b) 1980, (c) 1990, (d) 1991 and (e) 1992; and what are the most recent figures available.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Number of abattoirs1

  Average throughput per abattoir (LUs)2

  1970

  n/a

  n/a

  1980

  66

  17,693

  1990

  51

  24,600

  1991

  50

  26,477

  1992

  48

  27,195

  In 1993, 44 abattoirs in Scotland were licensed under the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992.

  1 This excludes the small remote island abattoirs which generally operate for a short season each year and have a very low throughput when open.

  1 One LU (livestock unit)—one adult cattle/calf or seven sheep or three pigs.

  Islands Shipping Services
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to increase subsidies for shipping services to Orkney and Shetland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I announced on 17 December 1992, at column 466, subsidy provision for shipping services

  587
  totalling £15,129 million in 1993–94, of which provision for services to and from Orkney and Shetland amounted to £6·679 million. I now intend to make available a further £1·934 million in the current year to increase the amount of subsidy available for services to Orkney and Shetland in 1993–94 to £8·613 million. The additional assistance will be provided to P and O Scottish Ferries Ltd. to enable it to maintain the present level of roll-on/roll-off services in respect of passengers and cars. The assistance will enable P and O to increase their commercial tariffs for passengers and cars, while keeping net tariffs, after tariff rebate subsidy, to users of the service unchanged. The increases in commercial tariffs are necessary to enable continued provision of the present level of services. No change is being made in subsidies to freight services.

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he intends to make regarding shipping services to the Scottish islands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I have decided to review the present arrangements under which I provide financial assistance to maintain lifeline shipping services to Orkney, Shetland, the Inner and Outer Hebrides and in the Clyde estuary. I also propose to review options for the future organisation and structure of Caledonian MacBrayne including the possible scope for introducing private sector participation in the provision of Caledonian MacBrayne's services.

  Options to be studied will include continued public sector ownership of Caledonian MacBrayne as well as privatisation options; in the latter I will wish to explore the scope for greater employee involvement. I believe that the time is ripe for a further study of Caledonian MacBrayne following the transfer of the company's ownership to me in 1990.

  The Government remain committed to providing continued financial support for lifeline shipping services to ensure that services can be provided at a cost to users which is consistent with the need to maintain and improve economic and social conditions in the islands.

  The primary objective of these reviews is to explore the scope for improving the cost-effectiveness of the present arrangements in ways which are consistent with safeguarding the interests of the users of the services. I see greater efficiency and effectiveness in subsidy and service provision as leading to better services for the consumer, and wish to make it clear that our overall aim is to ensure that services are maintained and improved, and not in any way downgraded.

  The Scottish Office Industry Department will shortly be inviting tenders for the necessary studies which will inform these reviews from suitable firms of economic and financial consultants.

  Cockburnspath Bypass (Wind Levels)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when he expects to receive the study to be conducted by Strathclyde university on the monitoring of wind levels at the newly constructed Cockburnspath bypass; and if he will publish the results of the study in full;

  (2) what detailed proposals he has to divert vehicles prone to high wind levels off the newly constructed
  588
  Cockburnspath bypass during abnormal wind conditions, indicating what vehicles would be affected and what the alternative route would be.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]:

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 13 May 1993, col 487–88.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what evidence he has on the relative hazards of wind levels at the newly constructed Cockburnspath bypass compared with other parts of the A1.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]:The Scottish Office received a record of all accidents on the trunk road network which have been reported to the police. Abnormal wind strength was a contributory factor in the three recorded accidents which occurred on the Cockburnspath bypass on 21 January this year. Over the previous three years there has been only one other recorded accident on the A1 between Edinburgh and Newcastle where wind strength was a contributory factor. This occurred at Skateraw, just north of Torness power station, in February 1990. None of these accidents involved personal injury.

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

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 May 1993]:The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has published one report since April 1989 on which the Government have yet to respond. Other Select Committees have made 21 recommendations specifically affecting my Department. Of these 20 have been accepted, in whole or part, by the Government or have been noted where no further action was sought.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has held with COSLA concerning the consequences for regional, island and district councils of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the acquired rights directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 24 May 1993]: None.

  Policing
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for public consultation concerning those parts of the forthcoming report of the Sheehy inquiry into policing in the United Kingdom which relate specifically to Scotland's police forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 24 May 1993]: The report of the inquiry into police responsibilities and rewards will be circulated to all interested bodies, including those covering Scottish interests, as soon as it is published. My right hon. Friend will welcome comment from those in Scotland on any aspect of the report.
  589

  Prisons
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the budgeted annual cost per prisoner place at(a) HM prison Greenock and (b) other prisons.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 24 May 1993]: The budgeted annual cost per prisoner place, including capital expenditure, at HM prison, Greenock, for 1993–94, is £30,665. This compares with a budgeted Scottish prison service average figure of £28,314 for the same year.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Global Environmental Facility
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representation his Department will have at the global environmental facility's participants' meeting in Beijing from 26 to 28 May; what discussions he has had with the World hank in regard to the global environmental facility meeting; and if he will make a statement on the way in which the global environmental facility is accountable to supporter states.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom delegation will be led by the deputy secretary of the Overseas Development Administration, supported by officials from the Department of the Environment and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The chairman of the Global Environment Facility has consulted United Kingdom officials on issues which will he discussed in Beijing. The GEF is accountable to participating states at the meetings of GEF's governing body, the participants assembly.

  UN Development Programme
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he received a copy of the "1993 Human Development" reports of the United Nations Development Programme; and what action he intends to take in regard to its recommendations.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The 1993 human development report is being published by the United Nations development programme this week. We welcome the report as a useful contribution to the development debate. We are studying the report and its proposals with great interest, and shall take appropriate account of them.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much aid has been given to St. Helena in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The figures for St. Helena are:

  Number

  1979

  3,935

  1980

  3,795

  1981

  4,062

  1982

  5,834

  1983

  6,533

  1984

  7,471

  1985

  9,354

  1986

  9,202

  1987

  12,241

  590

  Number

  1987–88

  11,057

  1988–89

  20,524

  1989–90

  24,239

  1990–91

  11,759

  1991–92

  9,147

  Note: The method of recording aid expenditure was changed from a calendar year to a financial year basis in 1987–88.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how Her Majesty's Government evaluates the Government of Indonesia in relation to his policy relating aid to good Government.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We review regularly the performance of all aid recipients, including Indonesia, against the criteria of our good government policy.

  In the case of Indonesia, although there are human rights concerns which we regularly discuss with the Indonesian authorities, British aid, which concentrates on tropical forestry, education, energy efficiency, economic infrastructure and public administration is, in our view, used to good effect. Indonesia has a good track record of sound economic management and has done much to reduce absolute poverty over the last two decades.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's position on the World bank's policy in relation to the development of a nuclear power industry in Indonesia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The World bank is not involved in the development of a nuclear power industry in Indonesia.

  Family Planning
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries are designated as priority areas for family planning and population assistance; what criteria are used to choose these countries; and what plans there are to involve more countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Tanzania and Uganda are designated as priority countries for United Kingdom family planning and population assistance. The selection criteria used to choose these countries were: the unmet demand for reproductive health and family planning services; their gross national product per capita; and the potential effectiveness of United Kingdom aid for population programmes.

  The list of priority countries is kept under regular review. We also currently provide population assistance to Ghana, Namibia, South Africa, (via an NGO), Zambia, Zimbabwe and Nepal.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many and which non-governmental organisations received support for family planning and related projects through the joint funding scheme in 1991 and 1992; what were the projects; and in which countries they took place.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In the financial years 1990–91 and 1991–92 a total of seven non-governmental organisations
  591
  received support through the joint funding scheme for projects which were primarily for family planning and related activities. The details are set out in the tables.

  Agency

  Country

  Project name

  £

  1990–91

  Africa Now

  Kenya

  Chogoria Family Planning Programme

  9,350

  AID

  India

  Family Planning Project

  46,468

  Marie Stopes International

  Bangladesh

  Family Planning, Preventative Health Care

  43,808

  Marie Slopes International

  Ethiopia

  Maternal and Reproductive Health Clinic

  57,237

  Marie Stopes International

  India

  Contraceptive Social Marketing

  69,992

  Marie Stopes International

  India

  Workplace Family Planning and Preventative Health Care—Employees and Dependents

  43,258

  Marie Stopes International

  India

  Soap Drama—Family Life/Responsible Sexual Behaviour

  13,250

  Marie Stopes International

  India

  Brass Tacks Family Planning Programme

  31,434

  Marie Stopes International

  Kenya

  National Youth Service

  47,278

  Marie Stopes International

  Lesotho

  Creating a Corps of Village-Based Family Planning Education/Motivators

  33,498

  Marie Stopes International

  Malawi

  Health Programme for Poor Women and Families

  49,507

  Marie Stopes International

  Nicaragua

  Workplace Preventative Maternal Health and Family Planning

  40,699

  Marie Stopes International

  Pakistan

  Lahore Based Reproductive Health Extension Services

  24,777

  Marie Stopes International

  Sierra Leone

  Work Based Maternal and Child Health and Family Planning

  34,744

  Marie Stopes International

  Swaziland

  Male Oriented Family Planning

  21,647

  Marie Stopes International

  Zimbabwe

  Training Programme Zimbabwe Association Women's Clubs

  41,180

  OXFAM

  Senegal

  Family Planning and Literacy

  764

  Population Concern

  Bangladesh

  Family Planning Services for the Rakhainc Tribes

  11,340

  Population Concern

  Bangladesh

  Integrated Family Planning Health and Education

  45,214

  Population Concern

  Caribbean

  Three Workshops Family Planning Fieldworkers

  25,512

  Population Concern

  Caribbean

  Towards Accreditation Sex Education in Caribbean Schools

  72,370

  Population Concern

  Ethiopia

  Family Planning Training for Rural Women Development Agents

  41,675

  Population Concern

  Ethiopia

  Training of Health Assistants

  43,140

  Population Concern

  Ethiopia

  Development of a Manual-Rural Women Development Workers

  14,120

  Population Concern

  Nepal

  Nawalparasi Women's Development

  18,425

  Population Concern

  Pakistan

  Family Planning Through Community Institutions

  32,195

  Population Concern

  Pakistan

  Training for Women Development Workers

  31,715

  UKFSP

  Fiji

  Family Planning

  12,318

  Total

  956,915

  1991–92

  Africa Now

  Gambia

  Tanji Community Family Planning

  11,645

  Marie Stopes International

  Ethiopia

  Condom Social Marketing Family Planning/AIDS Programme Urban Couples

  37,249

  Marie Stopes International

  India

  Family Life Education (Brass Tacks) Extension for Delhi and Lucknow

  40,679

  Marie Stopes International

  India

  Contraceptive Social Marketing

  70,627

  Marie Stopes International

  India

  Workplace Family Planning and Preventative Health Care—Employees and Dependents

  62,371

  Marie Stopes International

  Malawi

  Man to Man—Male Orientated Child Spacing/Education

  70,487

  Marie Stopes International

  Malawi

  Community Mother and Child and Family Planning—Blantyre, Lilongwe and Zomba

  136,874

  Marie Stopes International

  Mexico

  Factory Based Health Care and Family Planning Programme

  49,501

  Marie Stopes International

  Nicaragua

  Workplace Preventative Maternal Health and Family Planning

  72,403

  Population Concern

  Ethiopia

  Training of Health Assistants

  22,965

  Population Concern

  Ethiopia

  Jimma—Contraceptive Distribution by Community Health Agents and TBAs

  19,760

  Population Concern

  Ethiopia

  Yirgalem—Family Planning Education and Outreach Services

  25,970

  Population Concern

  Gambia

  Youth to Youth IEC on Adolescent Reproductive Health Management

  19,865

  Population Concern

  India

  Women's Development (Kulasekaram and Dindigul)

  30,690

  Population Concern

  Nepal

  Nawalparasi Women's Development

  14,895

  Population Concern

  Pakistan

  Family Planning Through Community Institutions

  23,835

  Urban Aid

  Ghana

  Family Planning Project

  20,193

  OXFAM

  Pakistan

  Family Planning Project

  11,491

  Total

  741,500

  Narmada Dam
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assurances he has received from the Indian Government on public access to environmental and hydrological studies regarding the proposed Narmada dam.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are consulting the Indian authorities and the World bank about their plans to make environmental and hydrological studies relating to the Sardar Sarovar dam project publicly available.
  592
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any of the local cost aid provided by the Government to India for the Narmada dam scheme has been used to buy any British military equipment.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The British Government have not provided any local costs assistance to the Narmada dam scheme.
  593

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animals (Notifiable Diseases)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the notifiable diseases of animals.

  Mr. Soames
  The following diseases of animals are notifiable in Great Britain:

  AFRICAN HORSE SICKNESS

  AFRICAN SWINE FEVER

  ANTHRAX

  AUJESZKY'S DISEASE

  BLUE TONGUE

  BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY

  BRUCELLA MELITENSIS

  BRUCELLOSIS

  CATTLE PLAGUE in Ruminants and Swine

  CLASSICAL SWINE FEVER

  CONTAGIOUS AGALACTIA

  CONTAGIOUS EPIDIDYMITIS

  CONTAGIOUS EQUINE METRITIS

  DOURINE in Horses, Asses, Mules and Zebras

  ENZOOTIC BOVINE LEUKOSIS

  EPIZOOTIC HAEMORRHAGIC VIRUS DISEASE

  EPIZOOTIC LYMPHANGITIS in Horse. Asses and Mules

  EQUINE ENCEPHALOMYELITIS

  EQUINE INFECTIOUS ANAEMIA

  FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE in Ruminants and Swine

  FOWL PEST (FOWL PLAGUE, NEWCASTLE DISEASE AND PARAMYXOVIRUS) in Poultry of all kinds

  GLANDERS AND FARCY in Horses. Asses and Mules

  GOAT PDX

  LUMPY SKIN DISEASE

  PARAMYXOVIRUS in Pigeons

  PESTE DES PETITS RUMINANT

  PLEURO-PNEUMONIA in Cattle

  RABIES

  RIFT VALLEY FEVER

  SCRAPIE

  SHEEP POX

  SHEEP SCAB

  SWINE VESICULAR DISEASE (SVD)

  TESCHEN DISEASE of Pigs

  TUBERCULOSIS in Cattle

  TUBERCULOSIS in Deer

  VESICULAR STOMATITIS

  VIRAL HAEMORRHAGIC DISEASE of Rabbits

  WARBLE FLY

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of abattoirs in England and their combined average throughput in(a) 1970, (b) 1980, (c) 1990, (d) 1991 and (e) 1992; and what are the most recent figures available.

  Mr. Soames
  Annual statistics derived from the survey of English slaughterhouses are given in the table. Comparative figures are not available for the years 1970 and 1980—details for 1985 are therefore included:

  Year

  Number of abattoirs open1

  Average throughput per abattoir(LUs)2

  1985

  839

  10,742

  1990

  659

  12,730

  1991

  599

  14,373

  1992

  545

  15,278

  1 Open at any lime during the year.

  21 LU (livestock unit)=1 adult cattle/calf or 7 sheep or 3 pigs.

  594
  The most recent figures available show that 438 abattoirs in England are currently licensed to operate under the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992.

  Fisheries Decommissioning
  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the proposed decommissioning scheme for fishing vessels.

  Mr. Curry
  The Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1993 was laid before Parliament today.

  The Government have already announced that funding of £25 million will be made available over three years for decommissioning fishing vessels as part of the package of conservation measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister on 27 February 1992.

  This scheme allows the first tranche of payments to be made during the 1993–94 financial year. The rules may be changed in subsequent years in the light of our experience with this first year's scheme.

  There will be no preset rates of grant. Vessel owners are invited to submit tenders for the amount of decommissioning grant for which they would be prepared to scrap their vessel and surrender its licence. Applications will be ranked in terms of pounds per vessel capacity unit.

  To be eligible for decommissioning grants vessels must meet the following criteria:

  (a) The vessel must be registered in the United Kingdom. It must have been acquired by the applicant(s) prior to 27 February 1992 and must be over 10 years of age:

  (b) The vessel must have spent at least 100 days at sea on fishing trips during 1991 and at least 100 days in 1992;

  (c) The vessel must he over 10 m in overall length and hold a valid fishing licence. The descriptions of fish that may be taken under the licence must he the same or more extensive than under the license held on 27 February 1992. The licence and any entitlements associated with it will he permanently extinguished when the vessel is decommissioned.

  (d) The vessel must be seaworthy: vessels over 12 m in registered length should have had a valid Department of Transport safety certificate on 1 April 1993.

  (e) Grants will only be paid for scrapping vessels. The applicant must provide proof that the vessel has been removed from the Department of Transport Register of Fishing Vessels and has been scrapped within the European Community before and grant is paid:

  (f) An application for a grant must be approved before the vessel is scrapped or the vessel will not he eligible for a grant;

  (g) Successful applicants must have submitted proof of scrapping, de-registration and have surrendered all licences in respect of the vessel before 1 March 1994 otherwise they lose their right to a decommissioning grant.

  Decommissioning complements the measures we are taking under the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992 to control fishing effort. It will help to ensure that the United Kingdom meets its MAGP targets. I believe that the scheme represents a significant contribution to help the industry to achieve the reductions in the fleet that are necessary if we are to secure a viable future for fishermen.

  Fishermen are therefore invited to apply for decommissioning grants. Application forms and accompanying explanatory leaflets are available in local fishery offices. The deadline for receipt of application is 9 July.

  Eastern Sea Fisheries Joint Committee
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will state the reasons for the time taken to reimburse the eastern sea fisheries joint committee under EC Council decision 89/631.
  595
  Mr. Curry
  The average time for reimbursement of grant under Council decision 89/631 is at least three months after the application has been forwarded to the Commission. The committee's first application for grant was dated 25 February 1993, and the moneys have been paid into the committee's bank account.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received on radioactive pollution from Sellafield.

  Mr. Curry
  The Minister and the chief inspector of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution have received approximately 83,000 representations in response to consultation on draft authorisations to discharge nuclear wastes from BNFL Sellafield. These are currently being considered.

  Sheep Annual Premium
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many claims for payments under the sheep annual premium scheme were submitted after the prescribed date.

  Mr. Curry
  A total of 1,082 claims are estimated to have been received by my Department after the advertised closing dates of the first and second application periods under the 1993 sheep annual premium scheme. This represents about 2·6 per cent. of the total number of claims submitted. We repeatedly emphasise to farmers the importance of lodging their claims by the closing date.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to undertake a review of pesticide usage in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Soames
  Government policy is that the use of pesticides should be limited to the minimum necessary for the effective control of pests compatible with the protection of human health and the environment. This policy of minimisation is pursued through the statutory approvals system which sets maximum dose rates and tests efficacy claims and is backed by controls on use; surveillance monitoring of residues; usage surveys; and investigation of wildlife incidents. The Government also support an extensive research programme to investigate ways of minimising use. These policies have already led to significant reductions in the weight of active ingredients applied and we shall continue to pursue them in the future.

  Select Committee Recommendations
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many Select Committee recommendations have been made about, and how many accepted by, his Department since April 1989.

  Mr. Curry
  The Agriculture Committee has published 16 reports since April 1989. The Government's responses are contained in the following documents, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Supply of beer. HC 528, 1989

  Implementation of the new beef regime. HC 402, 1989

  Land Use and Forestry. HC 16 1, 1990

  596

  Fish farming in the UK. HC 141, 1990

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy. CM 1328, 1990

  Salmonella in Eggs. CM 993, 1990

  MAFF Departmental Report. HC 326, 1991

  Animals in transit. HC 45, 1991

  Microwave Ovens. CM 1482, 1991

  Disposal of fallen livestock. CM 1778, 1991

  Commodity markets in the 1990s. HC 98, 1992

  The trade gap in food and drink. CM 1982, 1992

  Arrangements for the importation of bananas into the United Kingdom. HC 452, 1993

  Peat
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on replacement of peat with alternative materials.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government are concerned to ensure that the United Kingdom horticultural industry continues to have access to efficient and economic plant growth media. Currently the use of peat is essential to enable the United Kingdom's horticultural industry to remain competitive. The Government have welcomed positive actions by the horticultural and landscape industries to examine and use suitable alternatives to peat—in particular in the amenity and retail sectors. Government Departments are supporting research into the needs of plants for growing media, and into alternatives to peat and the place of recycled materials.

  Integrated Administration and Control System
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of IACS forms were returned by 15 May; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  In order to ensure that every potential applicant received an IACS information pack, forms and explanatory booklets were distributed to all holdings in England and Wales. The number returned by 15 May amounted to approximately 45 per cent. of these despatched. We recognised that some holdings would not be eligible for aid under the CAP schemes covered by IACS but we were not willing to take the risk of missing potential claimants.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 2 April to the hon. Member for Carlisle,Official Report, column 454, when he expects to introduce the scheme for public access in ESAs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  We plan to introduce the new measures to encourage public access in environmentally sensitive areas during the coming winter.

  Science and Technology
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how his Department contributes to the Government's policy for science and technology.

  Mr. Gummer
  My Ministry is a science-based Department. It employs more graduate scientists and engineers than any other civil Department. The continual availability of reliable scientific information and expertise is essential to me for the sound formation, appraisal, implementation and evaluation of the Ministry's policies.
  597
  These are concerned with major aspects both of quality of life and economic performance, including public safety, animal welfare, environmental enhancement, and improving the economic performance of the agricultural, fishing and food industries.

  The Ministry's scientific and technical activities range over provision of timely and objective specialist advice to Ministers, monitoring and surveillance, scientific investigation, formulation and management of policy-related research programmes, and promotion of technology transfer.

  The Ministry will continue to depend on its own scientific services and those from external contractors in the public and private sectors. The Ministry's choice of supplier will in every case be determined according to its judgment of suitability, scientific capability and value for money to meet its policy needs.

  I welcome the publication today of the White Paper "Science and Technology" by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and in particular its recognition of the key role of civil Departments in determining their own needs and commissioning work from suppliers who compete to meet their specifications. I very much support the White Paper's emphasis on ensuring that the status of research establishments in the public sector is optimal for Departments to obtain the services which they need.

  My Department has been in the forefront of this process. I have already carefully reviewed the options for ownership and management of the Ministry's scientific facilities, the outcome of which has been the recent establishment of the Central Veterinary Laboratory, ADAS and the Central Science Laboratory as departmental agencies, and decisions that the food laboratories should acquire a similar status within the Central Science Laboratory. The scrutiny announced in today's White Paper will take account of such reviews which have already been completed, recognising that science and technology are integral to the missions of Departments and that changes should not weaken the effective provision of scientific expertise and advice.

PRIME MINISTER

  Domicile Status
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to amend the rules concerning domicile status in the United Kingdom.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have no immediate plans to introduce legislation on this subject.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Job Applicants (Travel Expenses)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will seek to amend existing legislation and regulations to enable job applicants in Northern Ireland who have been short listed for a second interview, after an initial interview, to claim travelling expenses for the purpose of attending a second interview.
  598
  Mr. Atkins
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. J. S. Crozier. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. S. Crozier to Mr. Roy Beggs, dated 25 May 1993:
  You recently asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will seek to amend existing legislation and regulations to enable job applicants in Northern Ireland who have been shortlisted for a second interview, after an initial interview, to claim travelling expenses for the purpose of attending a second interview. The Secretary of State has passed your question to me, as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency, for reply.
  The programme which relates to your enquiry is the Travel to Interview Scheme. This is essentially a small scheme with limited resources and it is therefore not possible to help at every stage of a selection procedure. Where an employer needs to see a jobseeker on more than one occasion the employer might be expected to help meet the cost if the jobseeker cannot do so. By conserving our resources for providing help to attend the first interview more applications can he accepted and more jobseekers helped to find employment.
  However the scheme is currently under review and the eligibility conditions are being examined to see whether, within the limited resources that are available, there are ways of helping more people more effectively.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to change the title of the RUC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mates
  I have no plans to change the title of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the adjective Royal was given to the police service in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Mates
  The prefix "Royal" was granted to the Royal Ulster Constabulary on its formation.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Roman Catholic members of the RUC have been murdered by republican criminals in each of the past 25 years.

  Mr. Mates
  It would not be appropriate to provide this information since it might lead to the identification of the religious affiliation of individual officers.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of the RUC are known to have been Roman Catholic in each of the past 25 years.

  Mr. Mates
  Statistics regarding the community background of RUC officers are not available prior to 1990.

  Since 1990 the percentage of officers with a Roman Catholic background is as follows:—

  1990

  1991

  1992

  11993

  RUC (Regular)

  7·75

  7·72

  7·84

  7·87

  RUC Reserve2

  5·45

  5·82

  5·92

  6·14

  1 As at 17 May 1993.

  2 Full-time.

  599
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the ratio of RUC average earnings to average earnings in Northern Ireland in each of the past 25 years.

  Mr. Mates
  The information is available only for each of the past 21 years and is given in the following table:

  Year

  Average earnings RUC1

  Average earnings Northern Ireland2

  Ratio average earnings (NI) v. average RUC earnings

  £s/annum

  £s/annum

  1992–93

  32,954

  not available

  —

  1991–92

  31,130

  15,705

  1:1·98

  1990–91

  28,013

  14,346

  1:1·95

  1989–90

  25,342

  13,351

  1:1·90

  1988–89

  23,080

  12,166

  1:1·90

  1987–88

  22,126

  11,334

  1:1·95

  1986–87

  19,872

  10,502

  1:1·89

  1985–86

  17,874

  9,596

  1:1·86

  1984–85

  17,004

  9,074

  1:1·87

  1983–84

  15,803

  8,642

  1:1·83

  1982–83

  14,957

  7,947

  1:1·88

  1981–82

  14,281

  7,468

  1:1·91

  1980–81

  11,648

  6,831

  1:1·70

  1979–80

  10,055

  5,993

  1:1·68

  1978–79

  7,876

  4,919

  1:1·60

  1977–78

  6,937

  4,292

  1:1·62

  1976–77

  5,891

  3,797

  1:1·55

  1975–76

  5,366

  3,613

  1:1·48

  1974–75

  4,608

  2,881

  1:1·60

  1973–74

  3,859

  2,249

  1:1·71

  1972–73

  3,421

  1,949

  1:1·75

  1971–72

  3,245

  1,696

  1:1·91

  1 RUC average earnings are for regular members of the force.

  2 Northern Ireland average earnings are as determined by the Department of Economic Development Annual New Earnings Survey.

  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects Lord Colville's report on the operation in 1992 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 to be available.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I am happy to say that Lord Colville's 1992 report has been published today. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library of the House today.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Television Reception
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what guidance he has given to(a) the Independent Television Commission and (b) the BBC about improving TV reception along the Lancashire and Yorkshire border so as to ensure reception of programmes in Pendle.

  Mr. Brooke
  It is for the broadcasters to determine the engineering priorities aimed at extending or improving reception of programmes to specific areas.

  County Hall and Battersea Power Station
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last received a report from English Heritage on the current condition of(a) County hall and (b) Battersea power station.
  600
  Mr. Brooke
  I have not received and do not expect any report from English Heritage on county hall while the building remains in good condition.

  I received a report on Battersea power station in February following a further inspection by officers of English Heritage which showed no significant deterioration in its condition. I understand that a further inspection took place at the end of March and that English Heritage is expecting shortly to appoint consultant engineers to conduct a more detailed examination of the building.

  Royal Palaces (Fire Protection)
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he will publish the report of the inquiry into fire protection measures for the royal palaces.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have today published the report and have also placed copies in the Library of the House. This follows from my announcement on 14 January that I had invited Sir Alan Bailey to chair an inquiry into the adequacy of fire protection measures at the royal palaces for which I have a financial responsibility, following the tragic fire at Windsor castle last November.

  I am very grateful to Sir Alan Bailey and to Philip Kilshaw and Donald Insall, who assisted him in his task, for producing a thorough and well-reasoned report. It contains a full and definitive account of the Windsor fire and identifies the lessons to be learnt from the fire. The main part of the report contains a comprehensive assessment of the strategy needed to protect these royal palaces from fire, while at the same time preserving their historic fabric. It properly considers the risks, costs and value for money aspects of fire protection measures.

  I am glad to hear that the inquiry team "found basic fire safety precautions generally in place, and a programme of work already in train to improve fire protection". However the report makes clear that a number of further measures are desirable. Both I and the royal household accept the general strategy recommended in the report as sensible and necessary. Indeed many of the recommendations are already being implemented or planned. Those measures which the inquiry team consider should be implemented at once will be so implemented. This includes work at the White tower, which has already started. Detailed professional surveys will be or have already been undertaken for each palace, to recommend safety improvements such as compartmentation and fire stopping consistent with preserving the historic fabric. Automatic fire detection systems will be installed in each of the palaces which do not at present have such a system. The timing of these and other protection measures will be decided in the light of the findings of survey reports, the scope for adjusting planned works programmes to accommodate additional fire protection measures, and the availability of funds.

  The royal household and the Historic Royal Palaces Agency, which are directly responsible for managing most of these properties, will now be considering the report in detail.
  601

EDUCATION

  Parents' Guide
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what expenditure there has been on the production and distribution of his Department's publication "Testing: the Facts", including the parents' guide 1993–94, "How is Your Child Doing at School?"

  Mr. Forth
  The cost of the production and distribution of "Testing: the Facts", including "How is Your Child Doing at School?", is estimated at £9,100.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects to publish the information requested on the number of telephone calls and written requests he had received by 10 May for "How is Your Child Doing at School"; and how many copies were distributed in each of the 10 languages listed in the advertisement on 27 April.

  Part of relevant income to which percent age applies

  One assisted pupil Per cent.

  Each of two assisted pupils Per cent.

  Each of three assisted pupils Per cent.

  That part which exceeds £9,059 but does not exceed £9,850

  9·00

  6·75

  5·25

  That part (if any) which exceeds £9,850 but does not exceed £10,655

  12·00

  9·00

  7·00

  That part (if any) which exceeds £10,655 but does not exceed £12,250

  15·00

  11·25

  8·75

  That part (if any) which exceeds £12,250 but does not exceed £14,707

  21·00

  15·75

  12·25

  That part (if any) which exceeds £14,707 but does not exceed £17,912

  24·00

  18·00

  14·00

  That part (if any) which exceeds £17,912

  33·00

  24·75

  19·25

  Special Schools
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list on an annual basis the number of times the procedures under section 14 of the Education Act 1981 have been used, indicating the local education authorities involved, the special schools proposed for closure, the ones that were closed and the alternative provision made for them.

  Mr. Forth
  The information is not readily available in the form requested. The following list identifies special schools closed under section 14 procedures for each calendar year 1988–1992, including those which formed part of wider reorganisation proposals, where for example the establishment of a new special school following closure proposals involving several schools. Before approving proposals for the closure of special schools the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the alternative arrangements for pupils are satisfactory.

  For the period 1983–1988, "Statistics of Education" published annually by HMSO show the total number of LEA maintained special schools.

  Special Schools closed 1988–1992 under proposals under section 14 of the Education Act 1981

  Date of closure

  1988

  Cheshire

  Torpenhow School

  31 August 1988

  602
  Mr. Forth
  The campaign to provide parents with information about testing has not yet ended. My right hon. Friend will announce the number of requests received in due course. An initial distribution of 981,000 copies of the leaflet was made to schools, libraries and local education authorities.

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about the level of parental contributions to the fees of pupils in the assisted places scheme in the next academic year.

  Mr. Forth
  Remission of tuition fees under the assisted places scheme is dependent on the level of fees at participating schools and the amount parents can afford to contribute. Subject to parliamentary approval, the parental contribution scales will be adjusted upwards for the school year 1993–94 as set out in the table. Where the relevant income for the appropriate financial year does not exceed £9,225 the tuition fees will be wholly remitted.

  Date of closure

  Cleveland

  Summerhouse Schools

  1 January 1988

  Cumbria

  Roa Island School

  31 August 1988

  Derbyshire

  Frank Merrificld

  31 August 1988

  Devon

  Withycombe House School

  31 July 1988

  Ratcliffe School

  31 July 1988

  Essex

  Branwood

  31 July 1988

  Dacre

  31 July 1988

  Hampshire

  Bursledon Hospital School

  31 December 1988

  Lancashire

  Hendon Brook School

  1 January 1988

  Derby School

  31 August 1988

  Leeds

  Armley Lodge School

  31 August 1988

  Cardinal Square School

  31 August 1988

  Inner London (before abolition of ILEA)

  Heathermount School

  31 August 1988

  Whittingdon School

  31 August 1988

  New River School

  31 August 1988

  Nathaniel Heckford School

  31 August 1988

  Winceby House School

  31 August 1988

  603

  Date of closure

  Montford House School

  22 July 1988

  Bromley

  Cheyne Hospital School

  31 August 1988

  Hillingdon

  Park Place School

  31 August 1988

  Hounslow

  Heston School for the Deaf

  31 October 1988

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  The Silverhill School

  31 August 1988

  Condercum House School

  31 August 1988

  Eastview School

  31 August 1988

  St. Peter's School

  31 August 1988

  Sheriff Leas School

  31 August 1988

  Westlands School

  31 August 1988

  Brunswick Beech School

  31 August 1988

  Castle Dene School

  31 August 1988

  St. Aiden's School

  31 August 1988

  Kenton Lodge School

  31 August 1988

  North Yorkshire

  Friarage Hospital School

  31 December 1988

  Oldham

  Greenbank School

  27 May 1988

  Oxfordshire

  Smith Hospital

  22 July 1988

  Rotherham

  The Oaks School

  31 August 1988

  Sheffield

  Northern General Hospital School

  31 August 1988

  Limb Lane School

  31 August 1988

  Todwick Grange School

  31 August 1988

  Solihull

  Swanswell

  31 August 1988

  Stockport

  Shawfold School

  31 August 1988

  Woodlands School

  31 August 1988

  Sunderland

  Maplewood School

  31 July 1988

  Milton Hall School

  31 July 1988

  Humbledon School

  31 July 1988

  Glebe School

  31 August 1988

  Copt Hill School

  31 August 1988

  Stannington School

  31 July 1988

  Wellbank School

  31 July 1988

  Walsall

  Queslett

  31 December 1988

  1989

  Bradford

  Langley School

  31 August 1989

  Cheshire

  Capenhurst Grange School

  31 August 1989

  Cumbria

  Brookside

  31 August 1989

  Devon

  Dryden School

  31 December 1989

  Dudley

  Mount School

  31 December 1989

  Hertfordshire

  Bulls Close

  31 March 1989

  Homefield

  31 March 1989

  604

  Date of closure

  Liverpool

  Crookhey Hall School

  31 August 1989

  Inner London (before abolition of ILEA)

  Shephall Manor School

  31 August 1989

  Outer London

  Newham

  Regent School

  31 March 1989

  Waltham Forest

  Waltham Forest School

  31 August 1989

  Grosvenor House School

  31 August 1989

  Nottinghamshire

  Harlow Wood Hospital

  31 January 1989

  Sheffield

  Beeley Wood Senior School

  31 August 1989

  Stockport

  Beacon School

  31 August 1989

  Surrey

  Farmstead

  31 December 1989

  Warwickshire

  St. Michael's

  31 August 1989

  Gresham

  31 August 1989

  Wirral

  Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital School

  31 August 1989

  1990

  Avon

  Highwood Hospital School

  31 December 1990

  Berkshire

  Evelyn Fox

  31 July 1990

  Bradford

  McMillan School

  31 August 1990

  Thorn Garth School

  31 August 1990

  Cambridgeshire

  Orton Hall

  5 November 1990

  Cumbria

  Roundhills School

  31 August 1990

  Hertfordshire

  Brandles Close

  1 September 1990

  Broxbournebury

  31 August 1990

  Hillside

  31 August 1990

  Knowsley

  Albert Hambleton School

  31 August 1990

  Northfield School

  31 August 1990

  Arncliff School

  31 August 1990

  Millbridge School

  31 March 1990

  Camberley School

  31 July 1990

  Inner London Boroughs

  Camden

  Holly Court School

  8 August 1990

  Outer London

  Barnet

  Mapledown School

  31 August 1990

  Oakleigh School

  31 August 1990

  Brent

  Frank Wyeth School

  31 May 1990

  Ealing

  Red House School

  31 December 1990

  605

  Date of closure

  Havering

  Havering Grange School

  31 August 1990

  Hounslow

  Martindale School

  31 August 1990

  Manchester

  Alice Briggs House

  31 August 1990

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  Freeman Hospital School

  1 January 1990

  Shropshire

  Petton Hall

  1 September 1990

  Surrey

  Rowley Bristow

  31 July 1990

  Claybourne

  31 August 1990

  Temple Court

  31 August 1990

  Leacroft

  31 August 1990

  Greystone

  31 August 1990

  Bakers Croft

  31 August 1990

  Wolverhampton

  Kingston Hall

  31 August 1990

  1991

  Barnsley

  Springwood School

  30 July 1991

  Cumbria

  Richard Brunskill School

  31 December 1991

  H. K. Campbell School

  31 August 1991

  Dorset

  Westbourne School

  30 September 1991

  East Sussex

  Hill House

  31 August 1991

  Essex

  Ogilvie

  31 August 1991

  Gateshead

  Hindley Hall School

  31 August 1991

  Hereford/Worcester

  Pudlestone Court

  31 August 1991

  Lancashire

  Valley School

  31 August 1991

  Belmont School

  31 August 1991

  Leeds

  East End Park School

  31 August 1991

  Grafton School

  31 August 1991

  Woodside School

  31 August 1991

  Elmete Hall School

  31 August 1991

  Roundhay Lodge School

  31 August 1991

  Cliff House School

  31 August 1991

  Victoria Park School

  31 August 1991

  Springfield School

  31 August 1991

  Nowell School

  31 August 1991

  Stanningley School

  31 August 1991

  Pennyfield School

  31 August 1991

  Fearnville School

  31 August 1991

  Tranfield School

  31 August 1991

  Northways School

  31 August 1991

  Redwood Croft School

  31 August 1991

  Two Dales School

  31 August 1991

  Eastfield School

  31 August 1991

  West Oaks School

  31 August 1991

  Broomfield School

  31 August 1991

  Leicestershire

  Leicester Hospital

  31 August 1991

  Royal Infirmary

  31 August 1991

  606

  Date of closure

  Newham

  Lansbury School

  31 January 1991

  Northamptonshire

  Princess Marina

  22 April 1991

  Wiston

  22 April 1991

  Northumberland

  Riverbank School

  31 December 1991

  Shropshire

  Robert James Orthopaedic Hospital

  31 August 1991

  1992

  Calderdale

  Bermerside School

  31 August 1992

  Heywood School

  31 August 1992

  Woodbank School

  31 August 1992

  Hillside School

  31 August 1992

  Durham

  Glebe School

  31 August 1992

  Salters Lane School

  31 August 1992

  Mayfair School

  31 August 1992

  Dunholme School

  31 August 1992

  Troutslane School

  31 August 1992

  South View School

  31 August 1992

  Humberside

  Carnforth School

  31 August 1992

  Trinity School

  31 August 1992

  Inner London Boroughs (following abolition of ILEA)

  Greenwich

  Rose Cottage School

  31 August 1992

  Hawthorne Cottage School

  31 August 1992

  Manormead School

  31 August 1992

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  John Aird School

  31 December 1992

  Fernhurst School

  31 December 1992

  Pine End School

  31 December 1992

  Elizabeth Burgwin School

  31 December 1992

  Wedgewood School

  31 December 1992

  Southwark

  Woodstock School

  31 August 1992

  Beormund School

  31 August 1992

  Merton

  Ravensbury School

  31 August 1992

  William Wilberforce School

  31 August 1992

  Northamptonshire

  Firdale

  I September 1992

  Sefton

  Sandfield School

  31 July 1992

  Pupil Exclusions
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will take steps to encourage headmasters to exclude disruptive pupils from school when it can be shown that the continued admission of such pupils deleteriously affects the education of other pupils in the school.

  Mr Forth
  Head teachers already have the power to exclude a pupil on disciplinary grounds where they deem it an appropriate response to serious misbehaviour.
  607

  School Inspections
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many tenders OFSTED has received for the first group of schools to be inspected; and how many of these tenders have been accepted;

  (2) how many school inspectors OFSTED has trained and registered to inspect secondary schools in the autumn; and what is the minimum number of school inspectors necessary to inspect schools in England and Wales every four years;

  (3) how many school inspectors registered by OFSTED are currently (a) based in local authorities and (b) from private consultancies.

  Mr. Forth
  The arrangements for inspecting schools under the Education (Schools) Act 1992 are a matter for OFSTED.

  I have asked Professor Sutherland to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the average cost of a school inspection by his Department's inspectors; and what is his estimate of the average cost of a school inspection by OFSTED inspectors.

  Mr. Forth
  Inspections of schools formerly carried out by Her Majesty's inspectorate as part of the Department for Education varied in cost from about £4,500 to about £35,000. The cost of inspections carried out under the Education (Schools) Act in accordance with OFSTED's framework of guidance are a matter for Professor Sutherland.

  I have asked Professor Sutherland to write to the hon. Member.

  Disruptive Pupils
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will undertake a study of the particular staffing and building requirements of schools designed to contain and educate disruptive pupils.

  Mr. Forth
  We have no plans to undertake such a study.

  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of Sate for Education what consideration he has given to the setting up of schools where disruptive pupils can be temporarily or permanently placed.

  Mr. Forth
  LEAs have a power under section 56 of the Education Act 1944 to provide education otherwise than at school where they consider it necessary to meet a pupil's needs. The Education Bill now before Parliament contains provision to convert that power into a duty but it will remain for LEAs to determine the precise nature of the provision made for individual pupils in the light of the particular circumstances of each case.

  Disturbed Children
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what advice has been issued through the Department for Education, the National Curriculum Council, School Examinations and Assessment Council or OFSTED about the teaching or modifying of the national curriculum for emotionally and behaviourally disturbed children.
  608
  Mr. Forth
  The DFE, OFSTED and NCC publications listed include advice on the teaching and disapplication of the national curriculum for children with special educational needs. DFE circular 23/89 deals specifically with emotionally and behaviourally disturbed children. The statutory orders containing attainment targets and programmes of study for the national curriculum also contain advice on children with special educational needs.

  SEAC's school assessment folders regularly include guidance on the assessment of children with special educational needs, and have made specific mention of children with emotional and behavioural difficulties.

  Department for Education

  National Curriculum—from Policy to Practice

  Circular 5/89: The Education Reform Act 1988: the School Curriculum and Assessment

  Circular 15/89: Education Reform Act 1988: Temporary Exceptions from the National Curriculum

  Circular 22/89: Assessments and Statements of Special Educational Needs: Procedures within the Education, Health and Social Services

  Circular 23/89: Special Schools for Children with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties

  OFSTED/Her Majesty's Inspectorate

  Special Needs and the National Curriculum (an annual series of reports)

  The Implementations of National Curriculum Science at Key Stage 3 in Some Special Schools

  National Curriculum Council

  Implementing the National Curriculum—Participation by Pupils with Special Educational Needs

  A Curriculum for All: Special Educational Needs in the National Curriculum

  Teaching Science to Pupils with Special Educational Needs Science and Pupils with Special Educational Needs (Key Stages I and 2)

  Oracy and Special Educational Needs—case studies across Key Stages 1–4

  Modern Foreign Languages and Special Needs

  SEN Newsletter

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools and units for emotionally and behaviourally disturbed children he has visited since assuming office.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friends and I have visited a large number of schools. As regards schools and units specifically providing for pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties, my right hon. Friend has visited one school for such pupils and four for pupils with other special educational needs. I have visited one school for emotionally and behaviourally disturbed pupils and two schools for pupils with other disabilities.

ENVIRONMENT

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in England since May 1979.

  Mr. Howard
  More than 1·1 million council properties in England have been sold to sitting tenants since May 1979, under the right to buy. In Great Britain as a whole, our policy has enabled more than 1·4 million former public sector tenants to become owner occupiers.
  609

  Market Testing
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for extending market testing to white-collar local authority services.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Last November my right hon. and learned Friend announced the Government's decision to extend compulsory competitive tendering to a wide range of local authority professional and corporate services. On 19 April this year I announced the timetable for implementation. Tendering will start from summer 1994. Detailed arrangements are now being discussed with the local authority associations and others.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what figures he has comparing council tax levels according to political control of the local authority.

  Mr. Redwood
  The average band C council tax in areas under Conservative control in February 1993 is £456. This is £107 lower than the corresponding figure for Labour areas and £19 lower than the corresponding figure for Liberal Democrat areas.

  Housing
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about unused public and private sector housing.

  Sir George Young
  The Government's aim is to bring a decent home within the reach of every family. To do this, it is important that we make full use of the existing housing stock and help homeless families by bringing empty property back into use.

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his autumn statement last November the provision of £627 million additional resources in England in 1992–93 to boost the housing market. £577 million of this, provided through the Housing Corporation, enabled housing associations to buy some 18,000 new, empty or repossessed properties.

  In addition, local authorities have been allowed to spend virtually all the capital receipts they accrue between 13 November 1992 and the end of December 1993. This represents a substantial increase in local authorities' spending power and I hope that they will make effective use of the extra receipts, particularly in the areas of renovation and maintenance which would contribute to bringing back into productive use some of the 74,000 empty local authority flats and houses.

  Resources for the estate action and housing action trusts programmes—£356 million and £87 million respectively in 1993–94—will assist in reducing the number of empty units in the larger and more difficult local authority estates.

  The Government are keen to stimulate growth in the private rented sector. Deregulation of rents and the availability of shorthold tenancies for new private tenancies has removed one of the constraints which previously inhibited potential landlords. We offer a number of incentives to private individuals and institutions to make underused property available for rent: we are making £25 million available over three years to encourage retailers to let flats over their shops; tax
  610
  incentives have been introduced to encourage householders to take in lodgers—from April 1992 gross rental income of up to £3,250 per annum has been exempt from income tax; following the success of pilot schemes last year we have expanded the housing associations as managing agents nationwide; and the business expansion scheme has realised about £1·25 billion in new investment, some of which has gone to purchasing empty or repossessed properties for renting.

  Finally, a task force on Government Departments' empty houses has been set up to agree a programme of disposals of the 26,000 empty homes identified which are not needed immediately for operational purposes and to help bring them back into housing use.

  Air Quality (London)
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the level of monitoring of air quality in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  My Department will be issuing a consultataion document in the summer on the extension of national air quality monitoring by the further integration of local authority and central Government funded monitoring.

  Meanwhile the hon. Member will be pleased to know that I am able to announce today that our enhanced urban network will be extended by the incorporation of a site in Bexley, close to his own constituency.

  Black Businesses
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what his Department is doing to help small black businesses in the inner city.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In 1993–94 the Department is providing £408 million under urban expenditure programmes, which have among their objectives to stimulate the creation of small businesses and to help existing ones thrive and grow. A proportion of those funds go to small black businesses. City challenge partnerships and inner city task forces particularly identify ethnic minorities as a target group.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Unit
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when an anouncement will be made on the future of THORP.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right hon. and learned Friend received the regulators' report on their public consultation on their proposed draft authorisations for the Sellafield site earlier this week. We are now giving it our urgent consideration.

  Revenue Support Grant
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from Cumbria county council on the level of the most recent revenue support grant settlements.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department has received a number of representations from Cumbria county council about the
  611
  level of revenue support grant in recent years. Each was given careful consideration before the Secretary of State announced his proposals for the year ahead. My Department has also received a representation from Cumbria in relation to the current review of SSAs which will be carefully considered.

  Environment (County Councils)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will be meeting the Association of County Councils to discuss environmental issues; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I regularly discuss issues of common concern with the chairman of the ACC, together with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of District Councils, in the central and local government environment forum. The next meeting of the forum is being planned for July.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider changing the calculation method for standard spending assessments in respect of education for under five-year-olds.

  Mr. Redwood
  The method of calculation for standard spending assessments is currently under review in the light of new information from the 1991 census. This review includes an examination of the education elements.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about his Department's review of the standard spending assessments system.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about his Department's review of the standard spending assessments system.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Work on our review of standard spending assessments for 1994–95 is proceeding in consultation with local authority representatives.

  We have invited local authorities to send us their views on SSAs and many have already taken the opportunity so to do. We shall consider all representations carefully, including those made to us during consultation on the revenue support grant settlement for 1993–94.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to meet representatives of the Association of County Councils to discuss local authority finance.

  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to meet representatives of the Association of County Councils to discuss local authority finance.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. and learned Friend will be meeting representatives of the Association of County Councils at the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance in July and again in October. My officials and those of the assocation meet regularly to discuss a wide range of topics related to the financing of local authorities.
  612
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the latest estimate of the extra capital spending by local authorities, generated by the relaxation of the rules relating to the use of capital receipts, over the three and a half years from the Chancellor's autumn statement on 12 November:

  (2) what is the total sum of local authority capital receipts since the Chancellor's autumn statement to date; what proportion has been reinvested in building and construction work; and what his latest estimate of the total capital receipts due to be raised by the end of December.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 25 May 1993]: No outturn information is yet available for the period since the autumn statement. I shall be monitoring the extent to which authorities are raising and spending receipts during the period of the relaxation of the capital receipts rules. No new estimate of extra receipts or spending has been made since that published in the autumn statement.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his Department's best estimates of housing capital and other receipts likely to be received in 1993–94 and the amount of those receipts estimated to be set aside as provision for credit liabilities in each region and each class of local authority in England.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department is currently receiving and processing budget returns for 1993–94 from local authorities. I will arrange for the estimates to be placed in the Library of the House when this process has been completed.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were (a) the total housing capital and other receipts received by local authorities, (b) the amount of those receipts set aside as provision for credit liabilities and (c) the total capital receipts spent by local authorities on capital projects, in each region and each class of local authority in England for 1991–92 and estimated for 1992–93.

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

  Local authority capital receipts (£ million)

  Received

  Set aside

  1Spent

  1991–92

  Class

  Shire Counties

  169

  70

  137

  Metropolitan Districts

  479

  292

  192

  London Boroughs

  504

  320

  272

  Shire Districts

  1,043

  646

  669

  Other Authorities

  68

  27

  36

  Total England

  2,263

  1,355

  1,306

  Region

  South East

  1,057

  626

  672

  South West

  159

  91

  136

  East Anglia

  109

  72

  49

  West Midlands

  224

  138

  82

  East Midlands

  149

  84

  115

  North West

  242

  144

  113

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  168

  105

  73

  Northern

  155

  95

  66

  Source:

  Capital Outturn Returns(Provisional)

  1992–93

  Class

  Shire Counties

  158

  41

  138

  Metropolitan Districts

  364

  133

  221

  613

  Received

  Set aside

  1Spent

  London Boroughs

  583

  275

  264

  Shire Districts

  924

  427

  597

  Other Authorities

  31

  15

  18

  Total England

  2,060

  891

  1,238

  Region

  South East

  1,050

  471

  591

  South West

  132

  53

  109

  East Anglia

  146

  88

  47

  West Midlands

  162

  62

  105

  East Midlands

  131

  48

  109

  North West

  184

  75

  114

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  130

  46

  100

  Northern

  125

  48

  63

  Source:

  Capital Payment Returns

  1Use of usable capital receipts to finance capital expenditure, including use of usable receipts received in previous years.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what amount of set aside capital receipts was used to redeem credit liabilities in each region and each class of local authority in England in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Local authorities are not required separately to identify the reserved part of capital receipts from other amounts set aside as provision for credit liabilities.

  The following table shows the amount of external debt repaid using PCL moneys in 1990–91 and 1991–92. Information for 1992–93 is not yet available.

  PCL money used by local authorities in England to repay debt

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Class

  Shire counties

  189

  193

  Metropolitan districts

  333

  322

  London boroughs

  406

  533

  Shire districts

  771

  577

  Other authorities

  23

  20

  Total England

  1,722

  1,645

  Region

  South East

  852

  817

  South West

  137

  91

  East Anglia

  43

  61

  West Midlands

  241

  163

  East Midlands

  130

  93

  North West

  140

  182

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  89

  143

  Northern

  90

  95

  Source: Capital Outturn Returns (provisional).

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further representations he has received regarding Gloucestershire county council's budget 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Gloucestershire county council has challenged the cap proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend and suggested an alternative in support of which it has made oral and written representations. We have also received written representations from a number of school governors and Gloucestershire residents. My right hon.614
  and learned Friend will consider all these representations very carefully before taking his decisions on the authority's final cap.

  Merseyside Development Corporation
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the level of funding to the Merseyside development corporation in the present financial year and in the past three years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The financial allocations to the Merseyside Development Corporation for these years are shown in the table.

  £ million

  1992–93

  37·50

  1991–92

  30·05

  1990–91

  24·00

  1989–90

  23·00

  Plymouth Development Corporation
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the current position of the Plymouth development corporation.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Plymouth development corporation came into existence on 1 April 1993. A chairman, deputy chairman and seven other board members have now been appointed. There is one remaining vacancy on the board which will be filled in due course. The chief executive's post has been advertised and an appointment is expected shortly. The proposed budget for the regeneration of the Plymouth urban development area is £45 million over an indicative lifetime of five years, of which £7 million will be available to spend in 1993–94.

  The corporation recently moved into its permanent accommodation in the Royal William Yard and it held its first board meeting on 11 May.

  Sewage Treatment Works
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in upgrading sewage treatment works which were in breach of their discharge consents at the time of privatisation of the water industry.

  Mr. Maclean
  The water industry's investment programme is making good progress. The latest figures available demonstrate a continuing improvement in the operational performance of sewage treatment works. In 1991 the proportion of works complying with its consent standards was 94 per cent. compared with 83 per cent. in 1988.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new initiatives he plans to take to tackle the problem of homelessness.

  Sir George Young
  The number of households accepted as homeless by local authorities during the last quarter of 1992 was the lowest for two years. We have launched a number of initiatives designed to reduce homelessness and
  615
  our spending plans will enable housing associations to provide 170,000 new social homes over the three years from 1992–93.

  TUPE Regulations
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has held with local authorities on the implications for local government of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the acquired rights directive.

  Mr. Redwood
  No specific discussions have been held on this subject, but it is occasionally raised with Ministers by local authorities and their representatives.

  Redbridge (Employees)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people were directly employed by the London borough of Redbridge in 1981 and at the latest available date.

  Mr. Redwood
  The London borough of Redbridge employed 8,446 people in December 1981 and 8,883 people in December 1992.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has held since 6 May with representatives of the Association of County Councils about the reform of local government.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  None.

  Victoria Street Premises
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 18 January,Official Report, column 121, when he expects the building contract in respect of works at No. 1 Victoria street to commence; and what is the total cost incurred to date by his Department in respect of these premises since September 1991.

  Mr. Baldry
  Negotiations with the landlord of this building are expected to be concluded shortly, which should enable the building contract to commence in autumn 1993. Costs incurred to date are approximately £3·4 million.

  Local Authority House Building
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for local authority house building.

  Mr. Baldry
  It is provisionally estimated that local authorities in England completed 300 new dwellings during the three months January to March 1993 and completed 3,000 dwellings during 1992.

  Housing associations are now the main providers of new social housing. As I said in my answer of 19 May to the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer), Official Report, column 183, the Housing Corporation now estimates that public funds have enabled housing associations to make an extra 66,000 extra homes available to new tenants last year.
  616

  Travellers
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish for consultation his new draft guidance to local planning authorities on sites for gipsies and those of a nomadic way of life.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department and the Welsh Office have today issued for consultation a draft circular containing proposed guidance to local planning authorities on the planning aspects of gipsy sites. This forms part of a range of measures designed to reduce illegal camping, including our recently announced proposals to reform the Caravan Sites Act 1968.

  The purpose of the revised guidance is to ensure that gipsies are put on the same footing as other developers under the planning system and that the system recognises gipsies' particular accommodation needs.

  Our objective is that gipsies should be given every encouragement to find, develop and run sites for themselves, as I know so many of them are anxious to do.

  Local Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of local authority expenditure was funded by central government in each year since 1974.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The available information is as follows:

  Proportion of LA revenue expenditure met by government grants. non-domestic rates, domestic rates, community charges and council taxes

  Government grants1 as percentage of local authority expenditure

  Non-domestic rates2 as percentage of local authority expenditure

  Domestic rates/community charges3 as percentage of local authority expenditure

  1981–82

  56

  25

  20

  1982–83

  53

  26

  21

  1983–84

  54

  26

  19

  1984–85

  54

  26

  20

  1985–86

  54

  28

  21

  1986–87

  50

  28

  22

  1987–88

  49

  28

  23

  1988–89

  46

  28

  25

  1989–90

  44

  29

  26

  1990–91

  42

  29

  28

  1991–92

  52

  31

  16

  1992–93

  54

  29

  17

  1993–94

  56

  27

  16

  1 For the years 1981–82 to 1989–90 Government Grants comprise Aggregate Exchequer Grant and Rate Rebate Grants. For 1990–91 to 1992–93 Government Grants are made up of Revenue Support Grant, Special Grants, Specific Grants in Aggregate External Finance, Community Charge Grant (1991–92), Teachers Pay Grant (1992–93), Community Charge Benefits and Transitional Relief/Community Charge Reduction Scheme Grants. For 1993–94 Government Grants are made up of Revenue Support Grant, Specific and Special Grants in Aggregate External Finance, Council Tax Benefit and Council Tax Transitional Reduction Scheme Grant.

  2 For the years 1981–82 to 1989–90, this represents non-domestic rate yields net of rate relief. For the years 1990–91 to 1993–94. this represents the distributable amount from the non-domestic rates pool.

  3 Net of rate rebates for the years 1981–82 to 1989–90. Net of Community Charge Benefits and Transitional Relief/Community Charge Reduction Scheme in 1990–91 to 1992–93. Net of Council Tax

  617
  Benefit and Council Tax Transitional Relief Scheme in 1993–94.

  4 The percentages do not add to 100 per cent. The difference is funding from balances and other adjustments.

  Energy Management Assistance Scheme
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the anticipated gross financial savings which would accrue via his energy management assistance scheme as a consequence of achieving the scheme's target saving for carbon by the year 2000.

  Mr. Maclean
  If energy management assistance scheme spend carries on to the the year 2000 as presently planned, the total gross financial savings in energy costs covering that period would amount to approximately £250 million.

  Geographical Information Systems
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps have been taken to make environmental data stored on geographical information systems in his Department compatible with (a) geographical information systems data stored by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, (b) GIS data stored by the United Nations environment programme and (c) geographical information systems data stored by the National Rivers Authority.

  Mr. Howard
  The Department is currently developing a geographical information strategy. This will cover the standards required for exchanging data with its associated agencies and other bodies, and will take into account the standards required for exchanging data with UNEP and other international organisations. H M IP does not yet have a corporate GIS and will be involved in the development of the Department's strategy. The National Rivers Authority has recently completed a feasibility study into geographical information systems and are now developing a more detailed specification including the necessary standards to facilitate data interchange.

  Shared Ownership Programme
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to extend the Housing Corporation do-it-yourself shared ownership programme to first time buyers and to exchange buyers suffering from negative equity.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Housing Corporation's do-it-yourself shared ownership programme is already available to first-time buyers. Sixty per cent. of the programme is reserved for tenants of housing associations or local authorities, which will release rented homes for those in housing need.

  The Government have no plans to extend the scheme to existing owner-occupiers. To help people with negative equity who wish to move, the limit on building society's unsecured loans has been raised from £10,000 to £25,000 per person, and the security of one property can now be exchanged for security of another against the original loan without losing mortgage interest relief.

  Easington (Enterprise Zone)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce enterprise zone status in Easington: and if he will make a statement.
  618
  Mr. Squire
  The statutory procedures leading to the designation of an enterprise zone normally take at least six months. I expect to designate an enterprise zone in the vicinity of Easington at the earliest opportunity. I shall make a statement at that time.

  Audit Commission
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the financial management review of the Audit Commission to be published.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 25 May 1993]: I am considering the arrangements for publishing the report of this review.

  Inner City Wards, Manchester
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those wards of the city of Manchester which are categorised as inner city wards.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 25 May 1993]: Manchester's inner city wards, for urban programme purposes, are as follows:

  Ardwick

  Beswick and Clayton

  Bradford

  Central

  Cheetham

  Gorton North

  Gorton South

  Harpurhey

  Hulme

  Levenshulme

  Lightbourne

  Longsight

  Moss Side

  Newton Heath

  Busholme

  Housing Refurbishment
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to provide new moneys for the refurbishment of old decaying houses in the public and private sectors.

  Mr. Baldry
  Bringing empty properties back into use is one of the Government's key objectives, and my Department has established a number of initiatives to tackle problems of disrepair and underuse:14 per cent. of new allocations this year from the Housing Corporation's rented programme were for rehabilitation and a further 5 per cent. for short-life housing ('mini-HAT"). The Department is currently undertaking research into the role played by housing association rehabilitation.
  £346 million has been allocated in 1993–94 to support local authority expenditure on private house renewal, including house renovation grants. Taken together with local authorities'own contribution of 40 per cent. this provision will finance a higher total expenditure on grants (£575 million) than in 1992–93.
  In addition to other local authority capital expenditure on housing, the Government make considerable resources available through the estate action programme for the refurbishment of decaying houses in the public sector through regeneration schemes on run-down local authority estates. Since the programme was launched in 1985, over £1 billion has been allocated or earmarked for over 1,000 schemes. The programe's budget has increased from £268 million in 1991–92 to £347 million in 1992–93 and £356 million this year.
  Since its establishment in 1991 the Housing Action Trust at North Hull has already spent some £25 million towards renovating houses in its designated area. Much remains to be

  619
  done and a similar amount will be spent in Hull in this year alone. Two other HATs have been established at Waltham Forest and Liverpool, and tenants at Castle Vale and Tower Hamlets have recently voted for the establishment of HATs for their estates. Apart from North Hull, HATs are concerned mainly with the redevelopment or refurbishment of decaying high and low rise blocks of fiats. The planned expenditure for HATs in this year is £86·8 million.
  Under the Department's flats over shops initiative £25 million in grants towards renovation and conversion costs is being made available through local authorities between 1992–93 and 1994–95 to bring empty space above commercial properties back into residential use. The scheme is designed to be a three-way partnership between local authorities, housing associations, and private property owners.
  The Government have set up a task force to oversee an agreed programme of disposals of empty homes owned by Government Departments which are no longer needed for operational use, and help bring these properties back into use for people in housing need.
  The Department has launched a scheme to allow housing associations to act as intermediaries between private landlords and tenants, and is funding its administration costs. This scheme, Housing Associations as Managing Agents (HAMA), is designed to encourage people to let out property which would otherwise be empty by removing the stresses usually attached to being a landlord. Following the success of five pilot schemes during 1992–93, the Government have decided to expand the scheme throughout England.
  The Government will continue to support and encourage the refurbishment of empty and decaying houses in the public and private sectors, and to welcome constructive suggestions on the balance of its expenditure programmes.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to make available in the Library the list of powers and organisations relating to environmental protection which will be candidates for deregulation.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the anwer my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities gave to the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat) on 20 April,Official Report, column 131.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in environmental protection over the last year.

  Mr. Maclean
  In the past year we have taken action on the environment at all levels: local, national and international. The United Kingdom played a leading role in the Earth summit, and we are taking an active part in the international discussions to follow up the agreements reached there. The EC Environment Council made significant progress under our presidency on environmental issues, in particular in integrating environmental concerns into the development of the different sectoral policies. We set out our achievements and targets in domestic policies in the second year anniversary report on the Environment White Paper, published in October 1992.

  Ventilation and Insulation
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to amend part F of the Building Regulations in respect of the ventilation and insulation of buildings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am today issuing a consultation paper setting out our proposals for improving the requirements 620
  of part F of the Building Regulations 1991 (Means of Ventilation). Copies have been placed in the Library. The proposals have been introduced to improve and simplify the current provisions in dwellings; and to provide builders with a wider range of options on how these can be achieved. Requirements for non-domestic buildings are proposed which generally reflect the relevant requirements of the Workplace Health, Safety and Welfare Regulations 1992 so that new building work should not require subsequent adaptation.

  EC Funding, Merseyside
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the date of the last meeting of the Merseyside support and framework committee for European Community funding; on what dates the committee met during 1992; and if he will make a statement;

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 27 April 1993]: During 1992, the directing committee for the Merseyside integrated development operation programme met on 7 July and 1 October. There were no meetings of the committee in 1993.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the names of the members of the Merseyside support and framework committee for European Community funding; and what are the names of the organisations represented on that committee by each member.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 27 April 1993]: The directing committee for the Merseyside integrated development operation programme is composed of representatives from local authorities, Government Departments, statutory agencies and other organisations which benefit from European Community funding. Arrangements for future years are currently under review.

  ReChem Incineration Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations Her Majesty's Government have received regarding complaints made to the European Commission on the prospective breach of EC directive 85/337/EEC by plans by ReChem to extend its toxic waste incineration plant at Pontypool.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have received one representation from the hon. Gentleman.

EMPLOYMENT

  Manpower Services Commission
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has to amend the 1984 Manpower Services Commission code of practice; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the employment service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange a reply to be given.
  621
  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 26 May 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to her about what plans she has to amend the 1984 Manpower Services Commission Code of Good Practice. This is something which falls within the responsibilities she has delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The Code of Good Practice has been well received by employers since it was first introduced, and is still requested in large numbers. At this stage there are no plans to develop a new Code, but my Agency would, of course, consult widely should we decide to do so.
  You may wish to know that we have recently reprinted the Code as part of a wider exercise to update Employment Service disability service literature. There have been no changes of substance to the advice and recommendations made in the Code but we have taken the opportunity to introduce descriptions of the new restructured services provided by the Employment Service to disabled people and employers. We have also included the new disability symbol which has the words "Positive about Disabled People". Some addresses have been corrected and some slight adjustments made to the text used where it had become outdated.
  I enclose a copy of the reprinted Code which I hope you will find useful.
  As decided by the Administrative Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her answer of 17 May,Official Report, column 41, how the review of health and safety at work regulations will be conducted; which organisations will be invited to take part; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have asked the Health and Safety Commission to report, by the end of April 1994, on the impact on business of the existing health and safety regulatory arrangements and especially on the scope for further repeals or simplification of legislation which would not endanger acceptable standards of protection.

  I am informed that the Commission is establishing seven business-led advisory groups to help it in this task, which groups will include members representing employer and worker interests and specific representation from the small firms sector. Through these groups and by other means such as case studies, and written consultation exercises, the review will draw on a wide range of experience and expertise from industry and elsewhere.

  I understand that the Commission plans shortly to issue an open invitation for interested organisations and individuals to submit evidence to the review.

  Unemployed Disabled People
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what level of unemployment among disabled workers was recorded in the most recently available quarter by the labour force survey; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The labour force survey asks people of working age if they currently have any health problems or disability which limits the kind of paid work they can do. Estimates based on answers to this question will 622
  include people with short-term health problems and disabilities as well as those registered as disabled. L FS estimates for autumn 1992 show that in Great Britain the unemployment rate, based on the ILO definition of unemployment for people with all such health problems or disabilities was 21 per cent.—not seasonally adjusted.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many (a) men and (b) women aged (i) 40 to 44 years, (ii) aged 45 to 49 years, (iii) aged 50 to 54 years, (iv) aged 55 to 59 years and (v) aged 60 to 64 years who found employment within the last year for which figures are available had been unemployed for (1) under six months, (2) between six and 12 months, (3) between 12 and 24 months and (4) over 24 months.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Quarterly analyses of claimant unemployed men and women by pre-specified age and duration of unemployment bands are available from the NOM IS database in the Library. The information relates to those whose spell of unemployment is ongoing. For computerised claims NOMIS also gives age and duration information on those leaving the claimant count each month. Information is not held on the labour market status of those who leave claimant unemployment. However, sample surveys suggest that the majority go into employment.

  Social Fund Training Courses
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many (a) men and (b) women were on an European social fund training course in the Greater London area at the latest available date.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Comprehensive details of the breakdown of European social fund participants are not available for the Greater London area and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Offshore Health and Safety
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many (a) improvement notices, (b) prohibition notices and (c) prosecutions have been issued or commenced by the Health and Safety Executive's offshore division (i) from 1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992 and (ii) since 1 April 1992; and what were the results and penalties in each case of a completed prosecution.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [pursuant to his reply, 12 February 1993, c. 818]: I regret that the statistics provided were incomplete. This was due to information from only one of the two Aberdeen operations units being included. The correct answer should read as follows.

  1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992

  Since 1 April 1992

  Number of improvement notices served

  Nil

  17

  Number of prohibition notices served

  2

  5

  Information on completed prosecutions is as follows:

  (i) between 1 April 1991 and 31 March 1992, a total of 3 companies were convicted and fines of £850, £20,000 and £5,000 respectively were imposed.

  623

  (ii) Since 1 April 1992, a total of 6 companies have been convicted and fines of £100,000, £1,000, £30,000, £1,000, £1,000 and £5,000 respectively were imposed. Charges brought against two companies were not proved.

DEFENCE

  Hydrographic Office
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for 1993–94 for the Hydrographic Office defence support agency.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Chief of Fleet Support, acting as the owner of the agency on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence under the terms of the agency's framework document, has set the following key targets for this financial year.

  On quality of service, the chief executive is required to continue to ensure that all urgent dangers to navigation are promulgated by radio navigational warnings within 20 hours of receipt of the information. He is also required to improve the state of revision of Admiralty navigational charts and publications in waters of United Kingdom national responsibility so that at 1 April 1994, 80 per cent. will have been revised or reviewed and found to need no revision, within the previous 10 years. The chief executive is also required to achieve his endorsed and funded programme of work as set by the Ministry of Defence Hydrographic Board.

  In respect of financial targets, the chief executive is to seek to minimise the level of Exchequer support by achieving 72 per cent. cost recovery.

  Defence Postal and Courier Service
  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Defence Postal and Courier Service defence support agency for 1993–94.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The chief executive of the Defence Postal and Courier Service defence support agency has been set the following targets for 1993–94:

  1. Improve the percentage of air mail and Ministry of Defence van service items that meet quality of service standards by 0.5 per cent. and 2 per cent. respectively.

  2. Introduce an automated financial management and information system by 31 March 1994 to produce all necessary information to support measures of output and unit costs and to meet the accounting requirements of Defence Agencies.

  3. Increase the Agency's efficiency by making a 1 per cent. saving against 1992–93 outturn net operating costs (either by imput or output means).

  4. Implement phase 1 of the Agency's market testing plan and examine the potential for areas for further study.

  Minesweepers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many minesweepers are in service with the Royal Navy; how many other vessels can be called on for minesweeping duties in the event of an emergency; and from what sources.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are currently 30 mine countermeasure vessels in service with the Royal Navy, including nine minesweepers. We do not envisage circumstances in which the Royal Navy could not meet the United Kingdom's requirements for minesweeping from within its own resources.
  624

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost to the United Kingdom of monitoring the no-fly zone over Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 23 April 1993,Official Report, column 242.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was (a) the required operational sortie height and (b) the actual recorded height of the military jet aircraft that overflew the village of Clayton with Frickley, South Yorkshire at approximately 15:12 hrs on 19 May;

  (2) what was the required operational sortie height and the actual recorded height of the military jet aircraft that overflew the village of Clayton with Frickley, South Yorkshire, at approximately 11:04 hrs on 19 May.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A number of aircraft were authorised to fly in the low flying area at about the times stated on 19 May, but we have no reason to believe any of those flew below 1,000 ft around the village of Clayton with Frickley.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the boundaries of the military low-flying transit area that covers the towns of Barnsley, Doncaster and Sheffield were last changed; and on what date a radar surveillance was last carried out to ensure that no military jet aircraft infringed the operational low-flying height requirements in that area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No changes have been made to the boundaries of the military low flying transit area that covers the towns of Barnsley, Doncaster and Sheffield since the United Kingdom low-flying system was introduced in 1979. There has been no radar surveillance of low flying in the transit area.

  Lance Corporal Gary Fryer
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 May,Official Report, column 264, if he will provide a copy of the police report and inquest reports on the death of Lance Corporal Gary Fryer No. 24792566 to his parents once they become available.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes, if Lance Corporal Fryer's parents make such a request.

  British Army of the Rhine
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British soldiers are part of the British Army of the Rhine; and what was the total cost in the last financial year.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The military strength of the British Army of the Rhine is currently about 39,000 and the total operating cost of BAOR in financial year 1992–93 was approximately £1,440 million.
  625

  Service Families
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now publish the Gaffney report on service families.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have no plans to publish the Gaffney report which was an internal Army document prepared in 1986–87; much of the data it contained will in any case now be out of date.

  British Troops (UN Peacekeeping Forces)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the figures for the total number of British troops(a) killed and (b) injured while on duty for the United Nations peacekeeping forces since the end of the Gulf war; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A total of four United Kingdom service men have died while serving with the United Nations since the end of the Gulf conflict. A further seven have suffered serious or very serious injury over the same period. These figures include death or injury from all sources, not just those resulting from hostile action. Only one death was caused by hostile action.

  British Troops (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total number of British troops (a) killed and (b) injured while on duty in Northern Ireland during 1991–92 and 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The total number of British troops killed as a result of terrorist action whilst on duty in Northern Ireland was as follows:

  Number

  1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992

  8

  1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993

  5

  Information about the number of British troops injured is not available in the form requested. The total number of troops injured in Northern Ireland as a result of terrorist action, both on and off duty, was as follows:

  Number

  1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992

  282

  1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993

  267

  Submarines
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the number and class of submarines in service in the Royal Navy on 10 May.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Royal Navy's submarine fleet on 10 May consisted of three Polaris, one Valiant, five Swiftsure, seven Trafalgar, three Oberon and three Upholder Class submarines giving a total of 22 boats.

  Landing Platform Helicopter Vessel
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, during the bid for the contract to build the landing platform helicopter vessel, personnel from Kvaerner Govan participated in the bid clarification process.
  626
  Mr. Aitken
  No. Kvaerner Govan is a sub-contractor to VSEL.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, in the course of consideration of the landing platform helicopter vessel, the VSEL bid has been comprehensively costed.

  Mr. Aitken
  The commercial aspects of both bids were assessed against our normal criteria for competitive contracts.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, during consideration of the tender for the landing platform helicopter vessel, there was a thorough evaluation of the best and final tenders from VSEL/ Kvaerner Govan and Swan Hunter before a report was made to the Controller of the Royal Navy; and how much time was taken on this evaluation before the first report was made on the outcome of the tendering process.

  Mr. Aitken
  A thorough evaluation was conducted over the period November 1992 to March 1993 culminating in an examination of the best and final offers which were received from the two companies on 22 April. The evaluation was completed in time for me to make the announcement on 11 May.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance was given to both Swan Hunter and VSEL/Kvaerner Govan during clarification, prior to the best and final offer round, on reduced standards which would be acceptable in the bid for the contract to build the landing platform helicopter vessel.

  Mr. Aitken
  Both tenderers were given the same advice on standards during the clarification process and the best and final offer response had to be fully compliant with these standards.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in considering the tender for the landing platform helicopter vessel, what checks were carried out on the ability of Kvaerner Govan to produce subsystems and the final ship to naval engineering standards.

  Mr. Aitken
  My officials visited Kvaerner Govan to verify that it was capable of producing subsystems and a ship to the required standards.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in considering the tender for the landing platform helicopter vessel, what checks his Department has carried out concerning the bid submitted by Kvaerner Govan to VSEL and the specification placed on Kvaerner Govan by VSEL.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department's contract is with VSEL and requires it to ensure that the work meets the required specifications.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the bids for the landing platform helicopter vessel tendered by both Swan Hunter and VSEL/Kvaerner Govan included comprehensive drawings and other elements required of a technical data package.

  Mr. Aitken
  Both tenderers provided the required technical disclosure.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what options from the first round bid for the
  627
  landing platform helicopter vessel were taken up from both VSEL/Kvaerner Govan and Swan Hunter in the best and final offer round.

  Mr. Aitken
  Costed options for certain equipments and facilities were taken up. The bids were compared on an equal basis.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if there was a significant price gap between the first bids submitted for the landing platform helicopter vessel last autumn from Swan Hunter and VSEL.

  Mr. Aitken
  Yes. Details of the bids are commercially confidential, but will be provided to the National Audit Office.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if, during consideration of the tender for the landing platform helicopter vessel, all elements of the tenders from VSEL/Kvaerner Govan and Swan Hunter were assessed for compliance with Ministry of Defence requirements; and if either bidder submitted a global undertaking of compliance;

  (2) if the tenders from both VSEL/Kvaerner Govan and Swan Hunter for the landing platform helicopter vessel specifically state that pipework, machinery and electrical systems will be completed to the applicable naval engineering standards.

  Mr. Aitken
  Both bids were assessed for compliance and our contract with VSEL fully meets our requirements.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further documentation is required from VSEL before a contract to build the landing platform helicopter vessel can be signed; and when his Department expects the contract to be signed.

  Mr. Aitken
  The contract was placed on 11 May 1993.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the tenders from both VSEL/Kvaerner and Swan Hunter for the landing platform helicopter vessel included all the changes required by his Department as a result of the first bidding round; and if each tender included the additional requirements specified by his Department during the best and final offer.

  Mr. Aitken
  Both tenders offered a ship to meet the same requirements.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the anticipated costs of Royal Navy overseeing teams which will have to be located at Kvaerner Govan to ensure compliance during the building of the landing platform helicopter vessel.

  Mr. Aitken
  Resident naval overseers will be employed on this task, augmented as necessary. There will be no net increase in cost.

  VSEL (Submarine Contracts)
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current level of advance payments from his Department to VSEL for submarine contracts.

  Mr. Aitken
  Payments to VSEL under submarine contracts are made in arrears on the achievement of agreed milestones.
  628

  Royal Navy (Engineering)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what comparative assessment he has made of the lengths and cost of practical applications training of engineer officers for the Royal Navy if the engineering academic studies are concentrated on a civilian university.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I announced proposals on 25 May about the future of royal naval engineer officer training. These proposals are now the subject of consultation. Practical application training course lengths and the costs involved in running them will not be affected by these proposals although there will be a relocation cost which has been taken into account.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the advantages of educating and training engineer officer undergraduates for the Royal Navy in an establishment located close to a major naval base.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As was set out in the consultation document that I placed yesterday in the Library of the House, the education and training of royal naval engineer officer undergraduates is presently undertaken by a variety of methods, in-service and by universities. There is little interaction between engineer officers reading for degrees or undertaking application training courses, and a major naval base. Ready access to the sea is, of course, an important factor in their training as naval officers.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of engineer officers in the Royal Navy do not possess an engineering degree.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Approximately 30 per cent. of engineer officers do not possess an engineering degree.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times he has visited the Royal Naval Engineering college, Manadon, Plymouth, in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None. I last visited the Royal Naval Engineering college at Manadon on 14 November 1991.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made regarding the costs and feasibility of transferring engineering training equipment and installations from the Royal Naval Engineering college, Manadon, Plymouth, to other establishments in the event of a decision to close the college at Manadon.

  Mr. Archie Hamiliton
  The proposals that I announced on 25 May were based on studies which inter alia assessed the practicalities of transferring equipment from Royal Naval Engineering college, Manadon in the event of a decision to relocate application training. Estimated costs involved would be approximately £9,000,000 and this includes costs relating to the additional building requirements at the receiving establishments.

  Royal Navy (BA Degrees)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the benefits of having an in-service Bachelor of Arts degree specifically tailored for the Royal Navy's needs
  629
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Bachelor of Arts degree in maritime defence, management and technology was introduced in 1990 to make better use of the Royal Navy's degree training facilities at the Royal Naval Engineering college, Manadon and the Royal Naval college, Greenwich. The course allows for suitably qualified officers who do not undertake degree study at civilian university to develop their educational, intellectual and personnel potential in vocationally relevant fields.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what has been the cost of running the Royal Navy's in-service BA degree for each of the last three years;

  (2) what has been the cost of setting up the Royal Navy's BA degree in maritime defence technology.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Royal Navy's BA degree in maritime defence, management and technology is conducted at Royal Naval Engineering college, Manadon with support from Britannia Royal Naval college, Dartmouth and Royal Naval college, Greenwich. The costs involved are minimal and are not readily identifiable separately.

  EH101 Helicopters
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's estimate of the total number of EH 101 Merlin anti-submarine warfare helicopters required to provide each of the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers with sufficient aircraft; and what plans he has to order a second batch of EH101s.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is not our policy to discuss numbers of aircraft deployed on individual ships. The 44 Merlin EH101 anti-submarine warfare helicopters ordered in 1991 will enable us to set up training squadrons and introduce the first squadrons of aircraft into service with type 23 frigates and one carrier. No decision has yet been taken on the size or timing of a second order.

  Royal Military College of Science
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times he has visited the Royal Military College of Science, Shrivenham, in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In the past 12 months, I have visited the college twice.

  Mines in the Next Century Project
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the mines in the next century project and United Kingdom participation in it.

  Mr. Aitken
  Mines in the next century—MINX—is the name given to the project to study the replacement for the United Kingdom's existing anti-tank mine from the year 2001. We are currently considering the options for this.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the efficiency of the contingency plan for the introduction of disability living allowance.
  630
  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 25 May 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the efficiency of the contingency plan for the introduction of Disability Living Allowance (DLA).
  Firstly, I should explain that DLA was launched in February 1992 with an extensive publicity campaign. As part of this campaign we wrote to all existing Mobility Allowance (MobA) and Attendance Allowance (AA) recipients (approximately 1 million customers). Changes in the benefit were explained and an invitation extended, where appropriate, for them to claim extra money under the new DLA rules. In the meantime other external take-up campaigns were also being run.
  It had been expected that the initial launch of the new benefit would generate large numbers of claims in the months surrounding its introduction. Whilst planning had taken place for an increase in benefit claims, the success of the advertising campaign and the various take-up campaigns resulted in a much larger number of claims being attracted in the early stages than had been expected. There was also a huge increase in the number of claims to AA during the same period.
  This sudden surge of claims occurred as staff were adjusting to the new benefit processes and procedures. It meant that a backlog of cases built up in the weeks following the introduction of DLA.
  A recovery plan was quickly instigated. This consisted of several facets and included:

  The setting up of a seniour management task force.

  An increase in the number of staff, devoted to handling claims, by over 800. This represented an increase of approximately 25 per cent.

  The use of overtime which equated to a further 300 staff.

  The establishment and equipping of four remote processing units to increase output.

  The conducting of a detailed review of procedures and organisation to speed up the process wherever possible.

  As a result of these measures the throughput of claims was increased. The first phase of the recovery programme was successfully completed by the end of October 1992. The number of outstanding DLA and top-up claims had been considerably reduced from a peak of nearly 250,000 at the end of June to less than 115,000 by the end of October. During the same period outstanding AA claims had also been reduced significantly from over 150,000 to just over 52,000.
  Further reductions in the number of claims on hand have been made and at the end of April 1993 the number of outstanding DLA (including top-ups) and AA new claims was 35,000 and 34,000 respectively. This represents less than four weeks intake of work i.e. less than the target clearance time for both benefits.
  The majority of DLA new claims received since January 1993 have been cleared within their primary target. For the month of April 1993, 75 per cent. of DLA new claims were cleared within 30 days against the Secretary of State (SoS) primary target (65 per cent. in 30 days) and 91 per cent. were cleared in 55 days against the SoS secondary target (85 per cent. in 55 days).
  The results outlined clearly illustrate the overall effectiveness of the measures undertaken. The Benefits Agency will continue to strive to produce a thoroughly efficient service for all customers of DLA and associated benefits.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. A copy will also be placed in the Library.
  631

  Pensions (Post Office)
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many senior citizens used the Post Office to receive their pensions each year since 1990.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The payment of social security benefits is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Nigel Evans, dated 25 May 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many senior citizens used the Post Office to receive their pensions each year since 1990.
  Pensioners receiving their pensions through the Post Office are paid by order book. The number of Retirement Pension customers paid by order book for each year are as follows:

  Number

  February 1990

  7,720,000

  May 1991

  7,750,000

  April 1992

  7,710,000

  May 1993

  7,570,000

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 5,000.

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

  Income Support
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many senior citizens receive income support in (a) Lancashire, (b) the north-west and (c) Great Britain.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of income support 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. Nigel Evans, dated 25 May 1993:

  Numbers of claims to social security benefits

  Benefit

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Income Support

  2,716,364

  4,196,654

  4,089,336

  4,428,866

  4,437,816

  SF Crisis Loans5

  496,360

  664,812

  596,030

  711,452

  837,043

  SF Community Care Grants5

  312,151

  524,284

  629,316

  1,028,640

  1,183,945

  SF Budget Loans5

  926,308

  1,132,448

  1,092,395

  1,360,145

  1,497,002

  SF Maternity Payment5

  1—

  1—

  234,158

  262,345

  271,598

  SF Funeral Payment5

  1—

  1—

  68,372

  77,735

  83,386

  Sickness/Invalidity Benefit

  722,321

  1,045,442

  1,053,667

  1,118,284

  1,085,631

  Maternity Benefit

  122,673

  117,752

  98,828

  106,736

  97,378

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  35,636

  56,454

  57,339

  64,513

  59,185

  Retirement Pension

  592,850

  770,567

  735,490

  749,513

  657,401

  Widows Payment

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  56,032

  Widows Benefit

  41,784

  58,769

  56,612

  56,598

  44,344

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit

  82,516

  109,886

  96,214

  95,592

  101,341

  Family Credit

  3434,138

  1,016,786

  968,587

  999,060

  1,154,478

  War Pensions

  29,216

  34,699

  46,033

  80,430

  137,567

  Invalid Care Allowance

  52,653

  53,689

  63,021

  75,266

  91,265

  Attendance Allowance

  326,734

  378,119

  391,205

  512,835

  4—

  Attendance Allowance 65 +2

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  449,510

  Mobility Allowance

  226,419

  243,851

  236,808

  268,689

  4—

  632
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security, asking how many senior citizens receive Income Support in (a) Lancashire,(b) the North West and (c) Great Britain.
  The information is not available in the form you have requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. This is because statistics that reflect the number of senior citizens (that is, those who have reached retirement age) in receipt of Income Support, either nationally or by region are not routinely collected.
  However, I am able to tell you that there are 1,570,805 Income Support pensioners in Great Britain as a whole. An Income Support pensioner is defined as a customer aged 60 or over. The source of this information is the Income Support Mangagement Information Statistics.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. A copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Benefit Claimants
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what were the target and the achieved accuracy rates for each social security benefit for each of the last five years;

  (2) how many people made a claim for each social security benefit for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of social security benefits 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. Frank Field, dated 26 May 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking for details of the target and achieved accuracy rates for each social security benefit for each of the last five years; and how many people made a claim for each social security benefit for each of the last five years.
  I have attached a list of targets and achievement at Annex A. At Annex B I attach a list of benefits and the number of claims made. I should point out that a number of these claims will have been made by the same person.
  I hope you will find this information helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also appear in the Library.
  633

  Benefit

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Disability Living Allowance2

  2—

  2—

  2—

  196,366

  457,865

  Disability Working Allowance2

  2—

  2—

  2—

  4,153

  28,385

  Legal Aid

  1—

  1—

  1—

  344,848

  371,515

  Child Benefit

  856,361

  825,095

  815,714

  821,023

  813,077

  One Parent Benefit

  166,697

  182,796

  190,451

  178,972

  193,600

  Guardians Allowance

  26,746

  25,300

  20,944

  21,752

  22,826

  Overseas Branch Long Term Benefits

  1—

  1—

  1—

  79,120

  73,031

  Overseas Branch Short Term Benefits

  1—

  1—

  1—

  3,066

  2,766

  1 No figures available.

  2 New benefit from April 1992.

  3 Figures available only from August 1988 to March 1989.

  4 Benefit ceased.

  5 Relates to the number of applications made rather than the number of actual applicants.

  Benefits agency accuracy targets and achievement 1988–89 to 1992–93

  Benefit area

  Target 1988–89 Per cent.

  Year end achievement

  Target 1989–90 Per cent.

  Year end achievement

  Target 1990–91 Per cent.

  Year end achievement

  Target 1991–92 Per cent.

  Year end achievement

  Target 1992–93 Per cent.

  Year end achievement

  Income support accuracy

  90·0

  90·3

  91·0

  92·1

  92·0

  93·7

  93·0

  95·7

  94·0

  94·4

  Short term benefits accuracy1

  96·0

  96·0

  96·3

  96·2

  96·5

  96·2

  96·5

  96·5

  96·5

  96·5

  Family credit accuracy

  96·0

  91·4

  93·0

  91·6

  93·0

  92·2

  93·0

  91·5

  94·0

  88·9

  War pensions disablement claims accuracy

  97·3

  95·3

  96·8

  93·1

  95·0

  94·1

  95·0

  94·5

  95·0

  97·7

  War widows claims accuracy

  98·5

  94·4

  98·5

  88·9

  98·5

  97·5

  98·5

  97·4

  98·5

  97·6

  DLA accuracy3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  96·0

  92·0

  DWA accuracy3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  95·0

  100·0

  Legal aid accuracy

  92·0

  92·6

  92·0

  93·5

  94·0

  95·9

  94·0

  94·8

  94·0

  94·6

  Operational targets —ie set by the relevant Benefits Directorate; not the BA Management Team or Secretary of State.

  Attendance allowance

  99·0

  99·3

  99·0

  99·5

  99·0

  98·2

  99·0

  94·7

  1—

  2—

  Mobility allowance accuracy

  98·5

  97·4

  98·5

  98·0

  98·5

  97·6

  98·5

  98·7

  2—

  2—

  Invalid care allowance accuracy

  93·0

  96·5

  96·0

  96·9

  96·0

  96·5

  96·0

  97·2

  96·0

  99·1

  Child benefit claims accuracy (s/forward)

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  98·0

  98·0

  Child benefit claims accuracy (non s/forward)

  97·0

  97·2

  97·5

  98·1

  97·5

  97·9

  97·5

  98·5

  4—

  4—

  One parent benefit accuracy

  96·0

  96·0

  96·0

  97·0

  96·0

  97·0

  96·0

  98·5

  96·0

  96·5

  Change of circs accuracy

  96·5

  97·1

  96·5

  96·6

  96·5

  97·1

  96·5

  99·5

  96·5

  98·0

  Guardians allowance accuracy

  98·0

  99·6

  98·0

  100·0

  98·0

  100·0

  98·0

  100·0

  98·0

  100·0

  Claims reserved to CPB accuracy

  97·0

  97·8

  97·0

  98·6

  97·5

  99·0

  97·5

  98·2

  97·5

  99·4

  Change of circs accuracy (OBs)

  98·0

  98·4

  98·0

  98·9

  98·0

  99·5

  98·0

  96·9

  4—

  4—

  Change of circs accuracy (periodic payments)

  96·5

  98·2

  96·5

  98·5

  96·5

  84·1

  96·5

  100·0

  96·5

  98·7

  LPG claims accuracy

  98·0

  91·6

  98·0

  99·0

  98·0

  99·2

  98·0

  97·9

  98·0

  98·5

  Agency benefit accuracy

  92·5

  91·5

  92·5

  93·3

  92·5

  95·8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Health benefit unit accuracy

  92·5

  94·1

  93·5

  97·6

  OVB Long term benefits accuracy

  97·4

  97·2

  97·0

  98·4

  97·0

  99·1

  97·0

  96·2

  97·0

  98·8

  OVB Short term benefits

  98·0

  91·9

  98·0

  99·7

  98·0

  97·5

  98·0

  100·0

  98·0

  99·6

  OVB medical benefits

  —

  —

  99·0

  100·0

  99·0

  98·6

  98·0

  100·0

  98·0

  99·8

  1 Includes Sickness Benefit, Invalidity Benefit, SDA and Maternity Allowance.

  2 Benefit ceased from April 1992

  3 New benefit from April 1992

  4 Child Benefit straight forward and non straight forward claims accuracy and Central Pensions Branch change of circs (OBs) and (periodic payments) accuracy combined from April 1992.

  Income Maintenance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has of the overall cost of provisions for income maintenance in Wales; and what are the total amounts of expenditure, or revenue forgone, on (a) benefits, (b) administering benefits, (c) student grants, (d) statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay, (e) income tax allowances, (f) income tax reliefs and (g) the total value of contracted-out rebates and two per cent. incentives in respect of personal pensions and contracted-out schemes.

  Mr. Burt
  It is not possible to provide a reply in the precise form requested as some of the income maintenance information is not collected or maintained separately for Wales. The latest information available is as follows.

  (i) Expenditure on Income Support in Wales in 1989–90 was £442 million.1

  634

  (ii) Expenditure on Housing Benefit in Wales in 1992–93 was £380 million.2

  (iii) Estimated cost of administration of all social security benefits in Wales for 1992–93 is £55.3 million.

  (iv) Estimated cost of income tax allowances on personal taxation in Wales for 1990–91 is £6,250 million.

  (v) Estimated cost of tax relief on earnings and investments (excluding MIRAS) in Wales for 1990–91 is £485 million.

  (vi) Expenditure on mandatory and discretionary student grants awarded by local authorities in Wales to students normally resident in their area in 1990–91 was £109 million.

  Additional statistical information for Wales can he found in 'Welsh Economic Trends, No. 13', published by the Welsh Office in 1992, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Note:

  1 Figures underlying Table of the Departmental Report (Cm. 2213).

  2 Table 8.7 of CSO Regional Trends 27 (1992).
  635

  Children in Hospital
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all additional benefits which are potentially available to allow parents (a) entitled and (b) not entitled to income support to visit children who are detained in hospital (i) in the short term and (ii) in the long term; if he will describe the eligibility criteria for each; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Those entitled to income support may be able to receive a community care grant or a budgeting loan from the social fund for expenses to visit someone who is in hospital. Payments are discretionary but are normally given high priority. Those not in receipt of income support will normally be better placed to meet these costs because they will have higher levels of income. Even so, a crisis loan from the social fund may be payable if the payment is the only way to prevent serious damage or risk to the health or safety of the applicant. Payments from the social fund can be made in one lump sum or at regular intervals if the visits are to continue for some time.

  Pension Payments
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what percentages of respondents opted for automated credit transfer and post office order book payment in each group of 8,000 recipients applying for pension payments involved in the test marketing of forms which took place in March of this year;

  (2) what was the total cost of the test marketing of revised forms for retirement pension payments which were issued to 24,000 recipients in March this year;

  (3) when a decision will be taken on revised forms giving those eligible for the state retirement pension a choice of payment method; and when such forms will be introduced.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Retirement pension claim forms are issued four months before potential entitlement begins and, so far, only a minority of the piloted claim forms have been returned. It is not possible to draw any statistically valid conclusions at this stage.

  Decisions on any revision of the current claim form, including when any resultant new form might be introduced, will not be made until after the results of the trial are known.

  The cost of the test is estimated to be around £22,000.

  Quarry House
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 13 May,Official Report, column 569, what part of the £55·5 million of the cost of building Quarry house was spent on landscaping.

  Miss Widdecombe
  It is not possible to put a precise figure on the landscaping costs because of the nature of the contract with the builders.

  Earnings and Expenses
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to reduce burdens on business caused by the different definitions of earnings and expenses used for national insurance and tax purposes.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have today announced the setting up of a working group to identify the options for reducing the 636
  administrative difficulties for business caused by differences in the rules for national insurance and income tax. The membership of the working group will include representatives of business as well as officials from my Department and the Inland Revenue. They will be encouraged to take a fresh look at the problems and will come forward with recommendations.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people will benefit from the 100 per cent. rebates under the council tax.

  Mr. Burt
  It is estimated that in 1993–94 some 3·19 million households will receive 100 per cent. rebates under council tax benefit, out of a total council tax benefit caseload of 5·3 million.

  Source: Figures rounded to the nearest 5,000 and based on actual council tax levels and data drawn from the 1989–90–91 Family Expenditure Surveys modelled at 1993–94 prices and benefit levels.

  Rent Deposits
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many grants for rent deposits under the single payments system were not returned by landlords in the three years prior to its replacement by the social fund; and what was the annual cost of the non-returned deposits.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many grants for rent deposits were made under the single payments system in the three years prior to its replacement by the social fund; what was the annual cost; and what were unit costs as a proportion of the total single payment spending.

  Mr. Scott
  The available information is in the table.

  Year

  Estimated expenditure (£ million)

  Estimated claims (Thousands) 1

  Single payment expenditure (£ million)

  1985–86

  3

  30,000

  335

  1986–87

  7

  49,000

  330

  1987–88

  10

  2—

  294

  1 To the nearest thousand.

  2 Unavailable.

  The table indicates that deposits accounted for an estimated 2·1 per cent. of the total single payment expenditure over this period.

  Benefits (Automated Credit Transfer)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the level of public expenditure by (a) his Department and (b) the Benefits Agency to encourage benefit claimants to have their benefits paid by automated credit transfer.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) on 26 April at columns 313–14.

  Information on methods of payment of social security benefits, including ACT, is included in a number of leaflets issued by the Benefits Agency.

  Recently, the Benefits Agency piloted three versions of the retirement pension claim form. The cost of this trial was estimated to be around £22,000.
  637
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list each of the organisations which have written to him on the subject of automated credit transfer and the implications for the viability of sub post offices; and if he will indicate which have been (a) favourable and (b) unfavourable.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have recently received a substantial number of representations about automated credit transfer, including letters from a wide variety of organisations, from right hon. and hon. Members and from a number of individuals, arguing in favour of the continuing availability of post offices for the payment of benefits. We have also received correspondence in favour of ACT being available' for a greater range of benefits.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what plans he has to strengthen the role of employees in the administration of occupational pension scheme funds;

  (2) if he will bring forward proposals to prohibit employers from having a controlling decision on (a) how occupational pension funds are used, (b) what the pension levels should be and (c) the use of these funds to pay off company debts.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The rights and interests of scheme members, pensioners and employers in occupational pension scheme are among the issues being considered by the Pension Law Review Committee. The committee was established, in June last year under the chairmanship of Professor Goode QC, to review the whole framework of law and regulation within which occupational pension schemes operate. It would be premature for the Government to comment on possible changes before the committee reports at the end of September.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to improve the position of those whose occupational pension rights have been lessened by periods of unemployment; and what age group he estimates is most affected.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Members of occupational pension schemes who become unemployed are entitled to a preserved pension which is revalued in line with rises in prices of up to 5 per cent. a year until they reach the scheme's normal retirement age. On starting work again they can either leave their preserved pension where it is, or transfer their rights into their new employer's pension scheme or into a personal pension. Information on the ages of those involved is not available. We have no plans to change these provisions.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to improve the position of those whose occupational pensions are abated because they left early.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on 9 November 1992 at column 563.
  638

WALES

  Trawsfynydd
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what weight of plutonium has been created in the Trawsfynydd nuclear plant since it opened; and what information his Department has received from Nuclear Electric and its predecessor company in regard to movements of plutonium from the plant.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since 1986–87, estimates of the plutonium contained in the reactor discharges at Trawsfynydd power station have been published as part of the annual plutonium figures. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. Estimates for earlier years could be produced only at disproportionate cost. For the information supplied by operators on shipments, I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 3 December 1992, Official Report, column 346.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give manufacturing output figures for Wales in 1976, 1981, 1986, 1991 and 1992 in constant prices, the percentage change from 1976 to 1992 and taking 1976 as 100, the United Kingdom manufacturing output change figures for the same intervening years.

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

  Index of manufacturing output, annual averages

  1985=100

  Percentage change since 1976

  Wales

  United Kingdom

  Wales

  United Kingdom

  1976

  100·7

  103·5

  0·0

  0·0

  1981

  93·0

  91·0

  -7·6

  -12·1

  1986

  104·5

  101·3

  3·8

  -2·1

  1991

  125·7

  112·2

  24·8

  8·4

  1992

  127·2

  111·4

  26·3

  7·6

  Source: Welsh Office, CSO.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of the 1993–94 council tax for Wales is to be paid for by (a) single-person households, (b) two-person households and (c) three or more person households.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information required is not held centrally.

  River Ebbw
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment his Department has made of the levels of chemical pollution in the River Ebbw.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This is a matter for the National Rivers Authority, which regularly monitors the river on a routine basis. I am advised by the authority that the results of the monitoring show water quality to be generally good and improving.
  639

  Pharmacies
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to pay professional allowances to pharmacists dispensing over 2,000 scripts per month.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) on 20 May at column 314.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what policies he has adopted to assist local pharmacies.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Local pharmacies may be eligible for a range of assistance to retail businesses which is provided through the enterprise initiative consultancy scheme, through training and enterprise councils, and through local enterprise agencies. Pharmacies in commercial improvement areas or commercial renewal areas may also qualify for assistance for commercial building improvement works under the Welsh Office's urban programme. For those pharmacies who are contracted to provide pharmaceutical services to the NHS, the arrangements for determining their remuneration are intended to give pharmacists a fair return for the level and quality of the services they provide. The essential small pharmacies scheme gives additional payments to improve the financial viability of small isolated pharmacies which provide essential NHS dispensing services to patients.

  Managing in the 90s
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many firms in Clwyd have been helped by the organisation, Managing in the 90s; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Clwyd-based companies, in common with their counterparts throughout the country, have benefited in a variety of ways from this extensive management best-practice awareness programme. Initially focusing on four areas of industrial performance—design, production, purchasing and quality—it has recently been extended to include marketing and innovation.

  The programme reaches its audience through a range of media—publications, videos and events. I understand that literature and invitations to events are regularly dispatched to some 100 companies in the Clwyd area.

  The programme was launched in Wales in June 1989 with two successful management action briefings, one of which was held at British Aerospace, Broughton, in Clwyd which attracted a capacity audience of predominantly local industrialists.

  The programme acts as an umbrella and inspiration behind a wide range of other activities such as Newtech's Transforum with membership in excess of 50 which exists to help Clwyd and Gwynedd companies take advantage of technology transfer opportunities.

  Late last year 24 companies attended a "Competing With the Best in Manufacturing" seminar in Holywell arranged under the M90's programme.

  The flagship of the programme, the strategy roadshow, has visited Clwyd twice. It was at Deeside industrial estate for a week in September 1991 and more recently in February this year at British Aerospace, Broughton where it attracted 299 visitors over five days from 149 organisations.
  640

  Support for Products under Research
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will name the companies in Clwyd that have received financial assistance from the scheme, support for products under research; what was the amount of each award; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  SPUR is a valuable scheme designed to enable small and medium size companies to develop new products and processes which are technologically advanced.

  In Wales, some 20 companies have been supported under the scheme so far. These include three companies located in Clwyd which have collectively received offers of assistance totalling £360,000.

  These companies are:

  Breger Gibson Ltd.- offered up to £150,000

  Depac Glideflare Ltd. - offered up to £119,100

  Sutures Ltd.- offered up to £90,000

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the reed beds of over two hectares in extent in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Reed bed sites in Wales covering two hectares or more are as follows:Clwyd

  Shotton Steelworks

  Dyfed

  Ynys Eidol

  Ynys Hir

  Cors Fochno

  Teifi marshes

  Freshwater West, Castle Martin Corse

  Freshwater East

  Slebech

  Goodwick, Fishguard

  Newport

  Ritec Valley, Tenby Marsh

  Kilpaison Marsh, Rhoscrowther

  Pembrey Airfield, Banc-y-lord

  Pembrey Saltings

  Ffrwd

  Burry Port West

  Burry Port East

  Ashpits, Burry Port

  Pwll

  Techon Marsh

  Fos Fach, Bynea

  Llangennech

  Kidwelly Castle

  Mid Glamorgan

  Kenfig Pool

  West Glamorgan

  Oxwich

  Crymlyn Bog

  Eglwys Nunydd (site 2)

  Crymlyn Burrows

  Gwent

  Wentlooge Levels

  Caldicot Levels

  Gwynedd

  Ynysmaen gwyn, Broadwater

  Arthod (ditches)

  Farchynys

  Penmaenpool

  Ynys

  Ystumllyn

  641

  Cors Llyferin

  Penrhydlyniog, Pwellheli

  Glanllynnau

  Aber Dwyfor

  Cors Gyfelog A'Cycich

  Aber Gwyrfai

  Dolgarrog

  Llyn Pencraig

  Chwythlyn

  Llyn Goddington

  Rhoscolyn

  Bagnol

  Cerrig Moelion

  Llyn Maclog

  Llyn Penrhyn

  Llyn Dinam

  Llyn Cerrig Bach

  Llyn Garreg Lwyd

  Traeth Dulas

  Plas Bog

  Value of new orders obtained by contractors at constant 1985 prices

  £ million

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  New housing:

  Public sector

  61

  27

  51

  53

  23

  17

  30

  36

  36

  32

  45

  34

  Private sector

  145

  100

  129

  171

  169

  153

  179

  211

  266

  188

  190

  111

  Total

  206

  127

  180

  223

  192

  170

  209

  247

  302

  220

  235

  145

  Other new work

  Public sector

  284

  292

  259

  204

  226

  214

  329

  204

  194

  247

  227

  344

  Private sector:

  Industrial

  98

  89

  54

  67

  104

  61

  67

  78

  150

  129

  134

  172

  Commercial

  82

  86

  87

  79

  98

  81

  100

  96

  166

  163

  172

  188

  Total private sector orders

  325

  274

  270

  316

  372

  295

  346

  386

  582

  480

  496

  470

  Total public sector orders

  344

  319

  311

  257

  249

  231

  360

  239

  230

  279

  271

  377

  Grand total of new orders

  670

  594

  581

  573

  620

  526

  706

  625

  812

  759

  767

  847

  Source: Department of the Environment.

  Since the fourth quarter of 1992, the divisions under which the data on construction new orders are published have been changed and no data are available for 1992 under the old headings. As price deflators are not available on the new basis yet, the following table gives the information on the new basis at current prices since 1983.

  Value of new orders obtained by contractors at current prices

  £ million

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  11992

  New housing:

  Public sector

  49

  22

  17

  31

  38

  42

  42

  61

  45

  67

  Private sector

  152

  161

  153

  195

  258

  381

  310

  335

  193

  203

  Other new work:

  Infrastructure

  61

  92

  119

  204

  117

  65

  189

  154

  372

  179

  Public

  137

  127

  105

  134

  107

  180

  154

  190

  163

  162

  Private sector:

  Industrial

  59

  98

  53

  67

  79

  162

  161

  149

  171

  76

  Commercial

  73

  92

  78

  105

  106

  200

  219

  233

  186

  109

  Grand total of new orders

  530

  592

  526

  736

  704

  1,031

  1,073

  1,121

  1,132

  796

  Source: Department of the Environment.

  1Provisional.

  Education (Special Needs)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list on an annual basis the number of times the procedures under section 14 of the Education Act 1981 have been used, indicating the local education authorities involved, the special schools proposed for closure, the ones that were closed and the alternative provision made for them.
  642

  Cors Bodeilo

  Cors Goch

  Llanlleiana

  Llyn Bodgylched

  Ty Mawr

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures showing the value of construction industry new orders according to sector at constant 1985 prices in Wales in each year from 1980 indicating the values of (a) total new orders, (b) housing new orders, (c) construction and industry new orders and (d) public infrastructure new orders.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Constant price data are available only for years until 1991 and the available information is given in the following tables.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Comprehensive information is not available in the form requested. However, from 1988, the special schools subject to section 14 procedures, together with the date of my right hon. Friend's decision, are shown in the following list. Prior to 1988, the number of special schools in Wales by county and by year are shown in the relevant volume of "Statistics of Education in Wales"
  643

  County and School Proposal

  Decision

  South Glamorgan

  Closure of Prince of Wales Orthopaedic Hospital School to form a hospital class

  March 1988 Approved

  West Glamorgan

  Closure of Maytree School, Swansea; pupils from the Maytree Autistic Unit to transfer to Penybryn School, Swansea

  June 1989 Approved

  Gwynedd

  Closure of Ysgol Gogarth and Ysgol Wern Yr Wylan, Llandudno, and establishment of a new school in the premises of Ysgol Gogarth

  December 1989 Approved

  Gwent

  Closure of St. Lawrence Hospital School, Chepstow, to form a hospital class

  December 1989 Approved

  South Glamorgan

  Closure of Pentwyn, Presswood House and Preswylfa Schools, Cardiff, and the establishment of a new school at Pentwyn

  Closures approved May 1992; new school approved subject to refurbishment work being done

  Powys

  Closure of Cyfronydd, School and, in effect, its amalgamation with Brynllywarch School

  Awaiting decision

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advice has been issued directly or through the

  Total construction output in Wales at constant 1985 prices

  £ million

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  11992

  Housing (new works):

  Public sector

  96

  64

  51

  53

  42

  26

  26

  33

  39

  36

  47

  43

  59

  Private sector

  138

  125

  90

  140

  127

  105

  117

  123

  171

  199

  200

  113

  141

  Housing:

  Repair and Maintenance

  258

  241

  238

  250

  266

  277

  298

  326

  341

  339

  334

  295

  283

  Private Sector Industrial and Commercial

  New work

  237

  236

  183

  153

  208

  197

  164

  204

  223

  350

  344

  353

  347

  Repair and Maintenance

  80

  69

  66

  81

  74

  81

  87

  100

  104

  112

  120

  109

  105

  Public Works:

  New work

  308

  281

  264

  259

  217

  202

  201

  231

  227

  216

  223

  269

  341

  Repair and Maintenance

  192

  177

  185

  159

  157

  148

  141

  149

  143

  140

  160

  153

  140

  Total

  1,310

  1,194

  1,077

  1,096

  1,091

  1,036

  1,034

  1,166

  1,248

  1,391

  1,430

  1,336

  1,416

  Source:Department of the Environment

  1Provisional

  Institute of Welsh Affairs
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received from the Institute of Welsh Affairs over the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Several.
  644
  Curriculum Council for Wales, School Examinations and Assessment Council and Her Majesty's inspectorate in Wales about the teaching or modifying of the national curriculum for emotionally and behaviourally disturbed children.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Welsh Office has issued circulars to local education authorities and schools in Wales advising on the provision to be made for children with special educational needs within the national curriculum including, if necessary, the adaptation, modification or disapplication of national curriculum requirements. The Curriculum Council for Wales has issued non-statutory guidance for teachers on how to provide for pupils with special educational needs and the Schools Examinations and Assessment Council has produced and distributed to all schools in Wales teacher guidance material on the assessment of pupils with special educational needs. Pupils with special educational needs include those with emotional and behavioural problems.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures showing the value of construction output according to sector at constant 1985 prices within Wales for each year since 1980 indicating (a) the total amount, (b) money allocated to housing, (c) money allocated to commercial and industrial work and (d) money allocated to public infrastructure.

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

  Housing Expenditure
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures showing the total gross capital expenditure on housing by (a) local authorities and (b) housing associations for each year from 1979–80, including estimated expenditure up to 1994–95; and if he will indicate the total spent on social housing (i) in cash terms and (ii) at constant 1991–92 prices.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on gross capital expenditure on housing is given in the following table. For
  645
  1994–95, local authorities and Housing for Wales will make firm expenditure plans in the light of the resources which will be announced later this year.

  The total capital amount spent, by local authorities and housing associations, on social housing for the period 1979–80 to 1993–94 is estimated at £2,800 million in cash terms, and £3,600 million at constant 1991–92 prices. The local authority element includes Housing Revenue Account capital expenditure for each year and low cost home ownership expenditure for the period 1981–82 to 1991–92. Information on low cost home ownership is not available separately for the other years.

  Gross capital expenditure on housing

  £ million

  Local authority1

  Housing associations

  1979–80

  124·5

  24·5

  1980–81

  112·3

  28·9

  1981–82

  95·9

  33·9

  1982–83

  140·6

  46·4

  1983–84

  216·2

  48·8

  1984–85

  171·2

  43·4

  1985–86

  140·3

  43·6

  1986–87

  179·9

  51·5

  1987–88

  226·2

  70·6

  1988–89

  222·1

  83·2

  1989–90

  308·1

  112·4

  1990–91

  254·4

  149·0

  1991–92

  237·5

  184·6

  1992–93

  2294·7

  4195·0

  1993–94

  3292·9

  5197·3

  1 Local authority capital outturn returns for years 1979–80 to 1991–92.

  2 Local authority December forecast.

  3 Local authority April forecast.

  4 Provisional outturn. Excludes £35m for Acquisition Initiative.

  5 Plans. Excludes transfer of local authority resources.

  Mortgage Assistance
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimates he has of the number of households assisted through mortgage rescue schemes in Wales; and if he will indicate the percentage of mortgage-holding households that have benefited from such schemes.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Tourism
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many tourists from (a) the United Kingdom and (b) abroad visited each county in Wales in each year since 1987.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information available for tourist visits to Wales is given in the following table:

  Visitors to Wales1

  Overseas visitors (thousands)

  Domestic visitors (millions)

  North Wales

  Mid Wales

  South Wales

  North Wales

  Mid Wales

  South Wales

  1987

  171·1

  76·7

  342·2

  4·0

  1·7

  5·6

  1988

  159·3

  82·6

  348·1

  3·5

  1·9

  5·6

  1989

  179·2

  83·2

  377·6

  3·3

  1·3

  4·9

  1990

  204·0

  74·8

  401·2

  3·0

  1·6

  3·8

  1991

  179·8

  74·4

  365·8

  3·2

  1·4

  4·2

  Source:

  Overseas: International Passenger Survey.
  646
  Domestic: 1987–1989 figures-British Tourism Survey Monthly. 1989–1991 figures-United Kingdom Tourism Survey.

  1North Wales:

  Clwyd and the Aberconwy, Ynys Mon, Arfon and Dwyfor districts of Gwynedd.

  Mid Wales:

  The Meirionnydd district of Gwynedd, the Ceredigion district of Dyfed, the Montgomery, Radnor and part of the Brecknock districts of Powys.

  South Wales: Dyfed (except the Ceredigion district), Mid, South and West Glamorgan, Gwent and part of the Brecknock district of Powys.

  House Prices
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest information on the number of households with mortgages in Wales that have been affected by negative equity; and if he will express the figure (a) as a percentage of all households and (b) as a percentage of mortgage-holding households.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Employment and Training Schemes
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the local employment and training systems schemes currently in action in Wales; and what encouragement is given by his Department to the formation of such schemes.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Local schemes for the benefit of the community are supported under the training for work and community action programmes (or systems) in Wales. I encourage such schemes especially where they provide opportunities for training and practising skills, but lists of schemes are not held centrally.

  Planning Decisions
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received for each of the last 10 years and for each local authority in Wales complaining about planning decisions that have been taken locally in contravention of county structure plans.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not recorded centrally and such of it as might be available could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  House Building
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures on actual and projected new dwelling starts according to tenure in Wales in each year from 1985 to 1995 indicating (a) total dwellings, (b) local authority dwellings, (c) housing association, (d) total social housing dwellings and (e) private sector dwelings.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Figures on actual new dwellings started, analysed by expected tenure, are published in the annual Welsh Housing Statistics volume, copies of which are in the Library of the House. Projections are not available.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many jobs have been (a) created and (b) safeguarded in Wales by regional selective assistance in areas defined by the Industry Act 1972, and amended in 1984, since its implementation.
  647
  Mr. David Hunt
  Information about employment created or safeguarded by regional selective assistance since its implementation is not available centrally. However information about payments of RSA and employment created or safeguarded on cumulative offers accepted since 1 April 1982 is published in the Industrial Development Act 1982 annual report. Further information is also published in the Welsh Office departmental report. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Brecon Beacons
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to secure the financial position of Brecon Beacons national park authority.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I asked the four county councils concerned to clarify their position with regard to the funding in 1993–94 of the Brecon Beacons national park and I am presently considering the response from the county solicitor of Powys county council, who has replied on behalf of all the councils. It would be inappropriate to comment further at this time.

  Local Authority Employees
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total number employed in local authorities at the present time, and the estimated figure of employment for the proposed unitary authorities.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The latest available estimate of the total number employed in local authorities in Wales is 122,513 full-time equivalents. This is a provisional figure, as at December 1992, provided by the Local Government Management Board.

  It will be for unitary authorities to decide their own management structures and staffing levels. The study of transitional costs by Touche Ross suggested that, for 23 authorities, the change in staff numbers might range from a net decrease of 490 to a net increase of 623.

  Public Libraries
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking to support and promote public libraries in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The statutory duty to provide a comprehensive public library service rests with the library authorities. The Department's activities in relation to public libraries conform with the responsibilities defined in the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964.

  Performing Arts
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking to support and promote the performing arts in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  A number of Welsh Office programmes contribute to the support and promotion of the performing arts in Wales, but this is principally a matter for the Welsh Arts Council which is funded by the Department of National Heritage through the Arts Council of Great Britain. Responsibility for the Welsh Arts Council will transfer to the Secretary of State from 1 April 1994.
  648

  Police Services
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take the necessary steps to arrange for the prefix "Royal" to be added to each of the police services in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of abattoirs in Wales and their combined average throughput in (a) 1970, (b) 1980, (c) 1990, (d) 1991 and (e) 1992; and what are the most recent figures available.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Annual statistics derived from the survey of Welsh slaughterhouses are given in the following table. (Comparable figures are not available for the years 1970 and 1980—details for 1985 are therefore included):

  Year

  Number of abattoirs open1

  Average throughput per abattoir (LUs)2

  1985

  72

  5,454

  1990

  57

  8,824

  1991

  55

  9,964

  1992

  47

  8,171

  The most recent figures available show that 41 abattoirs in Wales are currently licensed to operate under the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992.

  1Open at any time during the year.

  21 LU (livestock unit) = One adult cattle/calf or seven sheep or three pigs.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the average (a) local authority expenditure and (b) Government grant to local authorities per head of population, in Wales for the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The latest information available is as follows:

  Revenue expenditure1

  Government grant2

  £/head3

  1990–91

  773

  486

  1991–924

  869

  627

  1992–935

  930

  655

  1 Includes expenditure required to be financed from revenue in the current year and the cost of financing capital expenditure (capital charges) including the debt repayments and interest payable on loans raised to finance past capital expenditure and direct revenue contributions towards capital expenditure in the current year.

  2 Comprises Revenue Support Grant, specific and supplementary grants within Aggregate external Finance, Community Charge Benefit Grant, Transitional Relief/Community Charge Reduction Scheme Grants and Community Charge Grant (1991–92).

  3 Based on Office of Population Censuses and Surveys mid-year estimates.

  4 Revised estimates.

  5 Budgets.

  649

  Integrated Administration and Control Systems
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of IACS forms issued had been returned by 15 May; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A total of 18,447 farmers in Wales had submitted their IACS application forms by the deadline of 15 May 1993. This accounts for 47 per cent. of the 40,000 forms which were issued although it was expected that around 18,000 would be returned.

  The IACS literature package was sent to all known farmers in Wales (including sheep farmers who did not need to return a form this year).

  Cattle Identification
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what concessions farmers will receive if they fail to receive their cattle identification documents within the correct time; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Producers who submit claims for premium (on forms BEEF 5 or 5A) and who have not received the appropriate CIDs by the end of the rei.ention period should contact their divisional office immediately. Producers who have submitted applications for CIDs (on form BEEF 2) who have not received their documents within 21 days of submitting an application should follow the advice on the application form and contact their divisional office to explain their position. In both instances, divisional offices will seek to release the documents in time for marketing to proceed or premium to be claimed as appropriate.
  650

  Banw and Llanerfyl Primary School
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the future of the Banw and Llanerfyl primary school.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I have today indicated to the chairman of the governing body of Ysgol Gynradd Llanerfyl and to Powys county council that I am minded to approve the school's application for grant-maintained status subject to the date of implementation being amended to 1 September 1993.

  In Vitro Fertilisation
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people received IVF treatment in each of the last five years in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  IVF treatment under the national health service is available through the fertility clinic at the University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff. This was opened in May 1988 and saw its first patients in November 1988, but did not become fully operational until 1990.

  Information about the number of treatments given in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Number

  1988

  8

  1989

  69

  1990

  91

  1991

  153

  1992

  138

  Source: UHW fertility clinic.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Earl of Woolton—Took the Oath.
Lord Wrottesley —Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.
The Earl of Albemarle—Took the Oath.

Sub-Saharan Africa: Aid Policies
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to co-ordinate their bilateral and multilateral aid policies and their policies at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to ensure an effective strategic campaign to eliminate poverty in sub-Saharan Africa.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, poverty reduction through sustainable economic and social development is a priority for all multilateral and bilateral donors to sub-Saharan Africa. We co-ordinate our policies closely with other bilateral donors, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the European Commission.
Lord Judd: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, does she not agree that sub-Saharan Africa is balanced on a knife edge? If effective action is not taken, there could be 300 million people in absolute poverty by the end of the decade. What do the Government intend to do bilaterally and multilaterally: first, about the crushing annual debt burden of 10 billion US dollars; secondly, about the devastating impact of falling commodity prices; and, thirdly, about the World Bank and IMF structural adjustment programmes which have failed totally to produce a framework for sustained economic recovery in the region?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, to answer all the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, would take me longer than time permits this afternoon. However, I agree with him that many of the countries, although not all, are in a very precarious position. That is why I suggested at the ACP/EC meeting a week ago that we should consider further the application of Trinidad terms and the writing down of the stock of outstanding debts after three or four years of following sensible structural adjustment policies and proper economic reforms. We are well aware also of the plight which the fall in world commodity prices has meant for many of those countries. I assure the noble Lord that in my discussions next week with the World Bank and the IMF, I shall take those matters further.
Lord Judd: My Lords, again, I thank the Minister for her commitment on this issue. Does she not agree that the crisis for a number of countries in that region is one of bankruptcy rather than temporary balance of payments difficulties and that, for example, the slide in commodity prices between 1986 and 1990 cost Africa 50 billion US dollars in lost earnings? Does that not indicate that the IMF is addressing the wrong issues in the area? What is the Government's policy towards the IMF to insist that it gets its policies right?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I shall discuss those matters in great detail next week. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, will be well aware that the UK is the largest contributor to the Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility (ESAF) interest subsidy account. We are seeking to help those countries not only through our own bilateral programme of aid but also through the international institutions. However, it would be a good deal easier for us to help them if other nations were to sign up to the Trinidad terms and also tackle the issue of commodity prices as we are seeking to do.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, while the Government certainly deserve credit for putting forward the Trinidad terms, I am sure that the Minister will agree that they are by no means sufficient and that there is a great deal more to be done. Has the noble Baroness heard the story that Japan—the chairman of this year's Group of Seven meetings—is anxious that there should be on the agenda next month a discussion on aid and in particular on the way in which the sub-Saharan countries can be helped, but it is said that some countries are rather against that proposal? Will the noble Baroness assure me that that would certainly not be true of Britain and that we should support any proposal by Mr. Miyazawa to put that matter on the agenda?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as far as I know, the agenda is far from being decided although the meeting is only a month away. I assure the noble Lord that the Prime Minister certainly intends to take up the issue of debt for those countries on each and every possible occasion. I do not know whether or not it will form a substantive part of the G7 agenda. However, I know that the Japanese have looked again at the amounts which they can give in the third world and are looking to increase their budgets substantially. It is critical that many of those countries begin to spend within their limits and that they follow a sound economic programme. We must help them to do that.

North Sea: Illegal Oil Discharges
2.38 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their estimate of the quantity of waste oil discharged in the North Sea by vessels flushing or emptying tanks or bilges in 1992.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is generally agreed that the quantity of oil legally discharged each year is

275
from 1,000 to 2,000 tonnes. For illegal discharges the only measure is the number observed and reported spills and there is no technique which will accurately determine the total quantity of oil in a slick of known area. In 1992 the aerial surveillance programme of the Bonn Agreement reported 723 slicks in the North Sea.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply even though he indicates that accuracy is not possible. Do the figures indicate any improvement upon recent years? Also, if deliberate discharges are internationally regarded as offences, what measures are available now against offenders?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, there is a general consensus that oil discharged illegally from shipping has remained fairly constant over the past five years at between 1,000 and 2,000 tonnes per year, although that will be reduced under the new regulations. The detection and prosecution of perpetrators of illegal discharges is extremely difficult. If an illegal discharge is identified and the vessel is in UK territorial waters, it can be prosecuted and, if appropriate, the vessel detained.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, will the Government support the provision of recycling facilities at ports to prevent ships flushing their tanks at sea?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Department of Transport recently conducted a survey on reception facilities for oil and, indeed, garbage from ships. The results show that the facilities available in UK ports range from acceptable to good. The same is true of European ports. The department has arrangements in place which will enable ship masters to report on the lack of adequate reception facilities for oil and garbage.
Earl Grey: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the port of Rotterdam operates a green-star system for ships that have a good record in handling and disposing of waste at sea and that this can save thousands of pounds on each visit? Have the Government any similar, comparable system in mind that they think is worth operating?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I have already given details of the Government's and the department's attitude and policy as regards reception facilities for oil at ports in the United Kingdom. The Government are most concerned about the other issue; namely, illegal discharges from ships that continue to contribute to the pollution of the North Sea and other waters.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, can the noble Viscount confirm that defence-related surveillance facilities enable the vessels discharging oil into the North Sea to be identified and tracked? Further, will the Government undertake to ensure that the information obtained by such surveillance facilities is placed in the public domain?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, aerial surveillance techniques continue to improve. The subject is being discussed this week at a meeting of experts from contracting parties to the Bonn Agreement. Among other things, they will be considering whether a methodology for estimating a quantity from all remote sensing flights can be agreed.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, deplorable though acts of deliberate pollution are—and despite the fact that it is extremely difficult to trace the masters who are responsible for them—something like 85 per cent. to 90 per cent. of maritime pollution comes from land-based sources? Does he further agree that a significant proportion of that pollution comes from used car sump oil which a number of people unwittingly pour down the drain and which eventually flows into the sea? Can the Minister indicate whether the Government are taking any steps to encourage the safe disposal of oily wastes in order to help solve the problem?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that ships are not the only source of oil pollution. Indeed, oil can come from rivers, from off-shore oil installations and from natural seeps. One estimate of the annual input into the North Sea is from between 71,000 tonnes to 150,000 tonnes.

National Parks Administration: Legislation
2.43 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to bring forward the legislation which they have promised to provide for all national parks to be administered by independent boards.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I cannot pre-empt the contents of the next Session's legislative programme. We are continuing to work on all aspects of legislation to which we are committed. I can reassure your Lordships that our resolve to create independent national parks has not weakened.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that helpful answer. However, is he aware that there is considerable and increasing pressure on national parks, and that the need for legislation is becoming quite urgent? Therefore, can he take some action to ensure that it is treated as a matter of urgency? Is the noble Viscount also aware that we were hoping that the legislation would be part of an environmental protection Bill which I now understand has been dropped? Is he further aware that during the passage of the Local Government Bill, his noble friend Lady Blatch gave very firm undertakings about legislation for national parks? Therefore, I am sure he will understand that his Answer has caused some disappointment.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, that the Government

277
remain committed to the care and protection of the parks. Legislation to establish independent national park authorities for all parks remains a priority to be introduced when parliamentary time permits.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that such legislation would be largely regarded as uncontroversial, and that it would therefore take little parliamentary time? Is that not an argument for bringing forward the measure promptly?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government fully understand the anxieties expressed about national parks. However, I can only restate that such legislation remains a priority for the Government and will be brought forward as soon as possible.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the largest provider of countryside recreation is the Forestry Commission which has 50 million day visitors per annum? Is he also aware that those facilities are well and sensitively managed? Therefore, can I have an assurance from the Minister that there will be no interference with that pattern of management by any new institutions that may be created?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord about the importance of the Forestry Commission. However, what we are discussing here is the potential for the forthcoming legislation on national parks.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, can the noble Viscount say whether the Government read the very pertinent remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, during a recent debate when he spoke about the growth of unappointed quangos in the country? If we are to have boards appointed for national parks, can the noble Viscount say how those concerned will be appointed or elected? Further, can he give the House an assurance that the public will have some say in how they are appointed?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I cannot anticipate in detail the content of any legislation. However, I can say that two-thirds of the members of the boards and committees of existing national park authorities are appointed by county and district councils.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that four national parks—namely, the Yorkshire Dales, the North York Moors, the Peak District and Exmoor—will be involved in the first tranche of local government reform or reorganisation? However, the work of the local government commission does not include national parks because, as we know, the Government have promised independent authorities. Therefore, are those national parks to be administered under what the Government term "transitional arrangements"? If so, what does that term actually mean? Perhaps the Minister can enlighten the House.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, transitional arrangements will be put in place to ensure that the national parks committees will be able to carry out their
278
statutory functions to receive funding from government and local authorities and ensure that there are local authority and Secretary of State-appointees on the committees.
Baroness White: My Lords, we have been told that we are to expect a local government Bill for Wales in the next Session of Parliament. Leaving aside whether or not one approves of its main provisions, can the noble Viscount confirm that it will be possible to include appropriate proposals for the independent administration of our three Welsh national parks in the legislation? Is he aware that the option has been under consideration by the Welsh Office at least since last September when it was publicly discussed by the Minister of State, Sir Wyn Roberts? If there is to be no guarantee of early general legislation for England and Wales—which would be the more desirable—does the noble Viscount acknowledge that there can be no excuse for not giving Wales its necessary national parks readjustment to coincide with changes in local government organisation in Wales?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I must restate that I cannot pre-empt the contents of the next Queen's Speech. However, the Secretary of State for the Environment already has powers under the Local Government Act 1992 to enable him to put transitional arrangements in place if needed. The Secretary of State for Wales plans to establish new authorities in Wales by 1st April 1995. He will no doubt be taking powers to ensure that transitional arrangements can be put in place for the Welsh parks, if needed.
Baroness White: My Lords, why should we have to put up with transitional arrangements if there is appropriate legislation for including Welsh parks in the Welsh local government Bill?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, again, I can only restate the fact that I cannot pre-empt what will be in the Queen's Speech.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I noted what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter rightly said about such legislation being uncontroversial. Does my noble friend recognise that if the Government do not bring forward legislation this will cause widespread disappointment among the people who are deeply concerned about the future of national parks, among whom are many of the Government's own supporters? If the Government cannot introduce this legislation, will they perhaps at least facilitate such legislation by other routes?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we are continuing to work on legislation to which we are committed but there is immense pressure on the parliamentary timetable. There are many pressing matters which need to be dealt with urgently. I am afraid the answer to my noble friend Lord Marlesford is still that I cannot pre-empt the Queen's Speech.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the fact that these are supposed to be transitional arrangements, and in the light of the Government's

279
own ideological obsessions, as well as their shortage of money, will the noble Viscount give the House a complete and unequivocal undertaking that these steps that are to be taken are not the prelude to privatisation?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I have said on a number of occasions in answer to this Question that I cannot say what will or will not be in the legislation and whether it will or will not appear in the next Session.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is there not a strong case for giving this Bill priority as it would be far more popular than anything else the Government have in mind?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the legislation has priority but I still cannot say whether it will be found a place in the next Session.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is it not nice to find so much agreement on a subject like this on all sides of the House? In the light of that agreement, will the noble Viscount undertake at least to discuss seriously and soon with his right honourable friend in another place the possibility of introducing a brief government Bill on this issue, and this issue alone, in your Lordships' House as I can assure him that it would command wide cross-party support and could provide the national parks with a happy end to all their afflictions?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am appreciative of the cross-House support for national park authorities and for the benefits of independence on this issue. However, I must repeat that I cannot pre-empt the contents of the next Queen's Speech.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister elaborate on his reply to the important question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe? If Forestry Commission property falls within the national parks, would the Forestry Commission's general policy on its woods come under the auspices of the independent boards administering the national parks?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord asks a specific question about the relationship between the national parks authorities and the Forestry Commission. I cannot say whether that will be changed under any forthcoming legislation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Viscount has spoken a good deal about priority. Has he had the opportunity to read the 1987 manifesto of the Conservative Party in which that party promised to legislate to protect national parks? The manifesto was published in 1987, not 1992. In view of the high priority that the Government obviously place on this matter—it has only been six years since they gave that commitment—and given the feeling expressed by Members all round the House that legislation on the national parks is a matter of extreme urgency, will the noble Viscount talk to his noble friend, who I
280
understand is in charge in some measure of the legislation that might be in the Queen's Speech, to see whether your Lordships' convenience can be met?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government consider the national parks to be the jewel in the countryside's crown and will continue to give their protection the highest priority. We have already acted to introduce a test against which any proposal for major development in the parks should be set. In any case such development would only take place in exceptional circumstances.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
2.54 p.m
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether proposals for the discussion of (a) a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, (b) halting the separation by reprocessing of nuclear weapon usable fissile plutonium and (c) a timetable for global nuclear disarmament were put forward by the United Kingdom delegation to the first preparatory committee meeting for the fifth Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty held in New York on 10th to 14th May; and what was the outcome of the meeting.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the first meeting of the preparatory committee for the 1995 Non-Proliferation Treaty Extension and Review Conference was concerned with organisational issues and the committee made a satisfactory start to its task of preparing for the conference. The UK delegation leader delivered a statement reaffirming our aim to secure the treaty's unconditional, indefinite extension in 1995 and our commitment to support continuing progress towards nuclear disarmament.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that Answer. I hope that she will permit me, for the sake of accuracy, to quote from an article in the Washington Post which states:
"If America resumes testing, Russia and France will probably follow, and perhaps China. That would greatly reduce U.S. leverage to persuade North Korea and others not to go nuclear. The have-nots have always said that a universal test ban is a necessary preliminary to meaningful agreement on nonproliferation".
Does the noble Baroness agree with that article?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have read an article in the Guardian which was written by three of the newspaper's journalists. The United States policy review is still in progress. No final decision has yet been taken. The article I read queried whether the UK had lobbied for resumption. I can tell the noble Lord that we have told the US of the importance that we attach to the three tests allowed to us under the current legislation. I believe that the noble Lord asked my noble friend Lord Cranborne about this matter yesterday at Question Time. Indeed, the noble Lord has raised it with me on many other occasions. It is important that we obtain an extension of the non-proliferation treaty but we should not use that as

281
a means of achieving other measures. If a ban is to be effective, we shall have to engage in some time-consuming negotiations to go further down the route that the noble Lord favours. Regardless of what progress is made towards a comprehensive test ban, we still need to secure the NPT extension. We must work for that now.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I wish to pursue the question that my noble friend has just put, as I do not believe that the noble Baroness entirely answered it. Is the Minister aware that nuclear threshold states such as Korea and Iran would be far more likely to stop developing nuclear weapons if the Western states, including the UK, were to sign a comprehensive test ban treaty?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I do not believe that that is necessarily true. As I have explained in this House on many occasions, the most important matter we must tackle is to work for an extension of the NPT. If it is decided that work can continue towards a comprehensive test ban, that should also be pursued. However, one should not give up working towards the NPT, which needs to be extended in 1995, simply because there are people who fail to agree with it, who seek to withdraw from it or who are being awkward about it at the present time.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that, with regard to heading (b) of this wearisomely repetitious Question, reprocessed plutonium from commercially operated power stations is not suitable for weapons manufacture?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that is so to the best of my knowledge. We are extremely careful as regards reprocessing, whether of plutonium or of any other dangerous substance.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the noble Baroness say whether she feels we are likely to find many allies among the 156 signatories to the treaty for our policy of go-slow on a test ban treaty and our apparent intention to increase our strategic nuclear capability?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I assure the House that there is no go-slow. We have always supported a comprehensive test ban as a long-term goal. We are consulting with others on how we might move towards that end, but we also need to take into account the implications of an end to testing as regards our ability to maintain the safety of our nuclear weapons over time. We must also bear in mind the importance of ensuring that any ban on testing contributes as effectively as possible to nonproliferation. One cannot separate the issues and one must keep working towards an extension to the non-proliferation treaty.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the American Defense Secretary, Les Aspin, recently made a remark which seemed to me to be directly relevant to what the Minister said. Again for the sake of greater accuracy perhaps I may quote him. Mr. Aspin said:
"International co-operation is at the core of nonproliferation efforts … Co-operation is going to be difficult if the United States continues insisting on nuclear testing".
282
Is that not exactly what my noble friend on the Front Bench said today?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am not responsible for what is said by the United States Defense Secretary or, for that matter, any Secretary of State for Defence other than our own. It is very important that we do not give up the pressure that we have been maintaining on others to sign the non-proliferation treaty. It is also important that we move forward as quickly as we can down the path of getting rid of nuclear weapons. However, we should do so only when it is safe to do so. In the meantime it is the Government's responsibility, as it has been of previous governments, to ensure that we have viable defence in this country.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, do the Minister and the Government draw a distinction between testing for safety and testing for development?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the logical answer must be yes. I do not believe that my right honourable friends in another place are anything but logical in deciding an issue of such importance.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as the Minister said that to some extent she is responsible for what our Secretary of State for Defence intends to do, will she say whether the Government intend to resume testing in July?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I need to make a correction in your Lordships' House. I am certainly not responsible for the Secretary of State for Defence. Obviously, in working with him on these important matters we talk together and have a common policy. While under the current legislation there is the opportunity for the UK to conduct three tests between July 1993 and September 1996, which will allow us to complete important safety-related work—and it is safety-related work—I do not necessarily know whether we will or will not take up the opportunity.

Business
3.3 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Blatch will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the White Paper on science, engineering and technology.

Citibank International Bill [H.L.] (formerly Citibank Europe Bill [H.L.])
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

The Police Service
3.4 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich rose to call attention to the Home Secretary's Statement of 23rd March 1993 on the management and structure of the police service, and in particular to the proposal that the Government should appoint the chairman and some other members of police authorities; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Perhaps I may say at the outset how pleased I am that the noble Lord, Lord Trevor, has chosen to make his maiden speech today. It is particularly appropriate that he should do so given the fact that he is a member of the North Wales Police Authority.
When the Home Secretary made his Statement on the future of the police service on 23rd March it was described as the most important for 30 years. I certainly agree with that view. Indeed, I should go a great deal further. I believe that Mr. Clarke's Statement represented a more dramatic change of policy than anything contained in the report of the Willink Royal Commission or the Police Act 1964, which put in statutory form many of the commission's principal recommendations.
I shall deal first with the policy changes which have received a general and I believe well-deserved welcome. First, I welcome the end of the detailed Home Office controls on police manpower. That is clearly right. I remember spending a substantial amount of time attempting to work out which forces deserved an increase of establishment and those which did not. Such was the degree of fine tuning that I recall a discussion as to whether one particular force, led by a particularly able chief officer, should be allowed to have a Detective Superintendent in charge of its fraud squad. It does not seem to me to be at all sensible that the Home Office should become involved in detailed questions of that kind and, therefore, I welcome what Mr. Clarke said. Similarly, I welcome the proposed easing of the controls on capital expenditure.
I now turn to London. On 23rd March Mr. Clarke announced the creation of:
"a new police authority for the Metropolitan Police in line with the new national pattern, thereby strengthening local accountability in the capital".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/3/93; col. 765.]
When the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, repeated that Statement in this House I welcomed what he said.
Then last night we read in the columns of the Evening Standard, under the headline "New U-turn on Yard Shake-up", that the Home Secretary had gone into reverse. No longer was London to have a police authority like the rest of Great Britain; instead, it was to have what was described as an "advisory board". Apparently all its members would be appointed by Ministers. The question for the noble Earl is, I hope,
284
fairly simple: is this true? If it is true, the brave new world announced on 23rd March is in the process of being abandoned. In just eight weeks Mr. Clarke would have capitulated to the pressure of a handful of colleagues in the House of Commons. That would be an extraordinary way in which to make a critical decision affecting the future of policing in London. We look forward to hearing from the noble Earl on that particular matter when he comes to reply.
I now turn to the three issues about which, as I indicated on 23rd March, we have substantial reservations. They are the manner in which decisions on force amalgamations will be determined; the issue of performance indicators; and the character of the proposed new police authorities. I deal first with the issue of amalgamations. I am by no means opposed in principle to force amalgamations. Indeed, it would be foolish of me to say anything of the kind because I was at the Home Office in 1966–67 when my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead carried out one of the biggest programmes of force amalgamations in the history of the police service. At the time of the Willink Royal Commission there were, excluding the Metropolitan Police, 155 police forces in Great Britain. They ranged from a force of 18 officers in the Shetlands to one of more than 3,000 in Lancashire. Now there are 43 forces in England and Wales and a further eight in Scotland.
Since those changes there have been other important developments. Regional crime squads containing officers from different forces, often acting against target criminals, have had their areas as well as their size increased. There has also been the creation of the National Criminal Intelligence Service. Any further force amalgamation would take place in a situation very different to that which existed in 1966–67. Nevertheless, some further amalgamations could possibly be justified.
But the issue raised in the Home Secretary's Statement is an altogether different one. It is whether he should be compelled to justify his proposals at an independent inquiry. The procedure recommended by the Willink Royal Commission, and accepted by the then Conservative Government, is as laid down in Schedule 3 to the Police Act 1964. That requires the Home Secretary to publish any amalgamation scheme. If any police authority or council objects, there has to be a local inquiry. The report of the inspector has to be laid before Parliament, together with the draft of the statutory instrument comprising the final scheme, which may of course include modifications made to the original proposal as a result of that local inquiry.
I know of no one who was at that time involved in amalgamations who believed that that system was other than desirable. It requires the Executive to justify its proposals before an independent tribunal; and it gives representatives of the local community the opportunity to challenge it.
But now the Home Secretary proposes to sweep the procedure aside. According to Mr. Clarke—he is reported in Hansard at col. 767 it is "unduly cumbersome". It should be "simplified". Why, my Lords? What is the justification for that? What is the

285
case for that so-called simplification? According to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, when he repeated the Home Secretary's Statement in the House on 23rd March—it is reported at col. 190 of the Official Report—the procedure,
"can carry on for 18 months before any decision is taken".
I have only one thing to say about that. What will be the new procedure? Unless the Home Secretary proposes merely to impose his amalgamations without any period of consultation, there will presumably be a period of some months before the announced change and the imposition of the new arrangements. I assume that Mr. Clarke is not suggesting that there will not be even a period of consultation, or that a police force could simply be wiped out and amalgamated without local authorities and local communities being given the opportunity to make representations to their local Members of Parliament and to the Home Secretary. I assume that he is not suggesting that, for instance, the City of London Police, a force very much under threat in any new amalgamation process, could simply be wiped out by a ministerial decision.
Assuming that there will be a period in which representations will be permitted, we are talking about a difference of only a few months between one system and the other, but there is of course one very substantial difference. It is that the right of local communities to make an appeal to an independent inspector is to be abolished. Under this system the Home Secretary will be allowed to impose his own view without his judgment ever being exposed to independent analysis. I believe that that is wholly wrong. It is yet another example of the Executive running roughshod over the interests of local communities.
I turn now to performance indicators. Mr. Clarke stated that the results will be published so that comparisons can be made between different police forces. We are apparently to have league tables—and this at a time when they have not exactly been a triumphant success when applied to education. One of the key tests—it is not the only one but it is one of the principal tests—will apparently be how much crime an individual force solves. No doubt many people will say that that is a most reasonable test. But is it? Let me quote the view of one distinguished senior officer, Sir Roger Birch, who is the Chief Constable of Sussex. He said:
"Consider the amount of police time and effort, and therefore money, needed to support the investigation of, say, one major murder or terrorist incident. This will, in cold statistical terms, be merely the equal of a shoplifter caught red handed".
How can any serious person suggest that a shoplifting offence can be measured in the new league table in precisely the same way as a murder or a terrorist incident which may occupy the time of scores of police officers and need thousands of hours of investigation?
What about the many issues which cannot be measured in the league table? I refer to the hours of police time spent in sorting out people's domestic disputes, or in dealing with missing persons, lost children or the elderly or infirm, who call on the police for help; or in policing sporting meetings and major events. I refer too to sending police officers on visits to
286
schools or on foot through small rural communities to give reassurance to the public that their concerns are being addressed by the local police force.
None of those vital responsibilities will be measured in determining where a police force appears in the new league table. The more socially responsible a chief officer is, the greater will be the likelihood that his force will appear toward the bottom of the league table. I can understand at least the logic of the schools league table. However doubtful one may be about the system, parents can decide, I suppose, to move from one area to another so that their child can go to a school which appears at the top of the schools league table. But does anyone seriously suggest that on the basis of the police league table, people will move from the Metropolitan Police District, or that of the West Midlands Force—two forces which have an immense series of inner city policing problems—to that of Dyfed Powys, which polices a rural community with a settled population. On the basis of the Home Secretary's league table, Dyfed Powys, which has a high clear-up rate, will be right up to the top of the league whereas the others certainly will not be.
One has to ask the noble Earl this: what on earth is the point of the new system? All that it will achieve is a futile, ill-informed debate based on league tables which have no conceivable relationship to the real world in which police forces operate.
Finally, I come to the Home Secretary's proposed changes in the constitution of police authorities. Ever since the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act 1835, which required boroughs to appoint watch committees, the Local Government Act 1888, which allowed for the appointment of standing joint committees made up of county councillors and local justices, and the Police Act 1964, our policing has been based on a tripartite system between chief officers, local police authorities and the Home Secretary.
Of course, there have been periodic disputes between them. But they have been resolved. We now have, I believe, a system of accountability which is the envy of many countries outside our shores. Through his inspectors of constabulary, the Home Secretary is accountable to Parliament for the efficiency of the service and its overall level of resources. The chief officer is accountable to his police authority, containing two-thirds elected members and one-third justices of the peace, and to the courts of law. The police authority has to justify itself to the local community.
I believe that we have avoided the over-centralisation of power that we have seen in some Continental countries in which the police are responsible to an all-powerful Minister of the Interior. I believe that that is one of the reasons why the police service in this country, despite all the hideous problems it has faced in the last few years, continues to have such a high reputation in this country. It is seen not as the servant of central government hut, in the words of one former chief officer of police, as the people's police. That is why I so deplore the changes announced by Mr. Clarke on 23rd March. Instead of all members of our police authorities being either elected members or justices of the peace, the

287
Government propose to appoint a group of Home Office nominees to every police authority in the country. According to Mr. Clarke's briefing of the press, police authorities will have eight elected members out of 16. There will be three JPs and five government nominees. In addition the Government will appoint the chairman of every police authority from among the group.
There is another factor. We, or the local authority associations, have been told Parliament has not been told—that the chairman will be paid. In other words, there will be a paid representative of the Home Secretary presumably sitting in an office in every police headquarters in this country. The justification for the appointment of government nominees, according to Mr. Clarke, is that it would secure:
"local people with relevant management experience".— [Official Report, Commons, 23/3/93; col. 766.]
I say only this about the establishment of the new set of semi-quangos. First, many police authorities already include people with business experience, as was pointed out on 23rd March by my noble friend Lord Ross of Newport, who is unhappily no longer with us. In the case of one local police authority, 35 per cent. of the current members, or of the members prior to the recent county council elections, had business experience; in another authority, 38 per cent. had business experience. So that does not seem a terribly powerful argument.
Secondly, although I recognise, as we all do, that people with business experience can bring great value to a local police authority, it seems a little odd for the Government to imply that the record of the business community is so astonishingly and uniquely good that businessmen will always improve the quality of decision-making of police authorities. The record does not seem to me to justify that view. Two years ago, most people would have rated British Airways as certainly one of the country's most impressive public companies. Now, it is engulfed in what appears to be never-ending litigation over a so-called "dirty tricks" campaign against Virgin Atlantic. In the past few days, still further allegations have been made against British Airways as a result of, allegedly, a similar campaign against Air Europe.
Then there has been the case of Taurus, the Stock Exchange's planned paperless settlement system. That project, planned for 12 years, collapsed after the expenditure of over £200 million. It was a damaging blow to the City of London.
Then there have been the remarkable cases of two of the Government's favourite quangos: the Wessex and the West Midlands Health Authorities. Huge sums of public money have been wasted on computer systems and consultants under the leadership of businessmen who have had close associations with Ministers—just the kind of people, one suspects, they would appoint as chairmen of police authorities. In both cases, major police investigations are continuing and the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons is leading an investigation.
Finally, there is the tragi-comedy of Group 4, a company whose record in the past few weeks has given
288
new meaning to the proclaimed policy of the Government that they are continuing to develop new alternatives to imprisonment.
Of course, there are many admirable businessmen and women in the country, but it is simply silly for politicians to pretend that the record of the private sector is so immaculate that it is to be preferred to the elected representatives of the public. That is just doctrinaire foolishness.
I have found that many of our most intelligent business leaders are deeply sceptical about the suggestion that some of them should accept appointment to the new police authorities. As one chairman of a large and successful public company said to me the other day: "What exactly would be their role? They might live in the area of the police force, but they would not represent the people living in that area in any way at all". It seemed to him that all they would be doing would be representing a politician in London. Inevitably, they will be appointed, not just because of their supposed business experience, but because of their political background. Anyone who read the Financial Times report of 14th January this year on the subject of quangos knows how the appointments are made. The supreme test is not business experience, it is political loyalty.
Do we really want to travel down that road? What has it to do with creating greater accountability for the police service, which Mr. Clarke tells us is one of the central features of his reform? How can he possibly pretend that this is so? What he has announced has been the greatest act of centralisation of power in the history of the British police service. We must recognise that too. The government nominees will, of course, change as and when there is a change of government. Out will go one crowd of chairmen and members of police authorities and in will come another crowd. The reason that is so inevitable is that the nominees will be responding not to the agenda of the local community but to the views of the person who may temporarily be Home Secretary in London.
However, in the meantime, what will be their powers? The new police authorities will, according to Mr. Clarke, be free standing, precepting bodies. That means that they will be enabled to pass on what they regard as an acceptable charge to each of the local authorities in their area. Are the government nominees to be allowed to vote on that question? If they are, the possibilities of conflict between them and the elected members will be immense. For they will be doing that at a time when the Government are charge-capping local authorities. The decision on police authority expenditure could have a significant effect on whether the Government cap the council tax levels of the constituent local authorities. I can think of nothing more likely to damage relations between members of the new police authorities.
There is yet another risk. If serious problems arise, what is more natural than that a successor to Mr. Clarke will decide to reduce still further the number of locally elected members on the authorities and bring them under even greater ministerial control?
What we are debating this afternoon is, I believe, an issue of overwhelming importance to the future of

289
policing in the country. We are not being asked to sanction the creation of a national police force, but we are discussing something even more insidious—a major step towards transferring effective power over local policing from democratically accountable members of local authorities and local justices to representatives of a politician in London. That is being done, not on the basis of the report of a Royal Commission or a departmental inquiry which has listened to all the evidence, but on the basis of the whims of a single man, a Home Secretary in office for a year, who may, of course, be in charge of a different department of state long before the Police Bill, due next Session, is on the statute book.
I know that the responsible leaders of the police service are deeply disturbed by these proposals, as are many leading members of police authorities, many of them loyal members of the noble Earl's party. If Ministers want to have their protestations about becoming a listening government taken seriously, they should draw back. Unless they do so, I fear that we shall have a fierce dispute on this issue for the next year or more. How can this be desirable at a time when every sensible person in this country wants to do everything possible to assist the police in their struggle against the rising level of crime?
3.31 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches on introducing this subject. He knows a great deal about policing. He worked with two Home Secretaries and subsequently (and I believe he still does) with the Police Foundation; and—I tremble to say it because of his words about quangos—I appointed him to the Parole Board. He has raised many issues. I promise not to repeat his words, but I should like to emphasise at the beginning that his powerful words about the loss of local accountability are very important. When I visited European police forces and found the powers of the Minister of the Interior right down to the interstices of the police forces in different parts of the country, I much preferred the system for which I had some responsibility in this country.
I have a slight doubt about the value of this debate. It cannot be long before the White Paper is published. (We are nearly in June.) I grant that after the White Paper has been published there will be more time for discussion, but I wish that there had been more discussion before the White Paper was published. My only hope is, who knows what will happen in the next two or three years. Political predictions sometimes go out of the window, and we may have more time to consider this matter than we think because the police Bill, when it comes, will be a long one. I first entered the other place just after the Willink Report, and I took part in debates on the police Bill which went on and on. It was given a great deal of cover by the other place, and a very valuable piece of legislation it was. The same thing will happen again. So we may have more time than we think to influence the Government after the White Paper is published.
I should like to raise one issue in particular which underlies management and the structure of the police.
290
In this country under all governments the crime rate continues to rise. It has increased five times since 1979. It would be very easy, in the silly politics that we all engage in from time to time, for me to argue that it is all due to the change of Home Secretary in April 1979. But it is not. Whatever government are in power the crime rate will go on rising. There are real problems that the police have to deal with.
Where I live in London, a few months ago an old friend of mine nearby—I cannot say "an old man" any more, but he was an old man—was badly beaten up. A friend of mine was recently held up by two gunmen outside my front-door. His house was broken into just a week or two later. It is not the fault of the police. It is not even a matter of extra policemen on the beat. I learnt that when I was in Northern Ireland. There is something intrinsically wrong. And, of course, even though extra policemen and better policing will not solve the problem, they are a necessary part of the equation.
Perhaps it would be a very good thing if all of us who are in politics stopped making foolish claims about the crime rate. "We are the party of law and order". The general public knows that that is rubbish. If we are to get this right it needs sober analysis, looking back to the past, looking at other countries and looking to the future. I wish that there had been a Royal Commission. All parties tend to shy away from Royal Commissions, largely because often when they report we do nothing about it. But the Royal Commission on miscarriages of justice, to which a number of us gave evidence the other day, gave me a great deal of confidence in the quality of the people who sat round the table. I wish that we had had a Royal Commission on the police. From the Willink Commission, which reviewed the constitutional position of the police—which is still a matter of great concern as change takes place—and the arrangements for control and administration, came a very good police Act that has stood us in good stead.
What should be investigated? What should we begin, particularly in this House, as I have learnt in just about a year, to look at? I should like to put a few ideas forward, and only tangentially cover the points that the noble Lord has looked at.
The first point I come back to is the role of the police committees. They must be local. Once at Question Time in the House I reminded noble Lords about the miners' strike in the last decade. I had no responsibility but I took an interest in West Yorkshire. The fact that the chairman of the police committee knew the area and knew the pit villages and that the assistant chief constable had been a coal-miner in the past meant that they knew what to do in the pit villages—unlike in a nearby area, where young men from the Metropolitan Police came north, went into the pit villages and in my view behaved indefensibly. They did not know the nature of the chairman of the lodge and that he would be an important man. In the old days, though not so much now because times have changed, he would have been an important person in the local Nonconformist chapel—that may even now be the case. The fact that someone knows the local areas is important. I say to

291
the noble Lord who raised the topic under debate that the question of reinforcing police forces elsewhere needs to be looked at. It is not just a matter of having good administration; it is a question of who is in control of them and who will inform them of the nature of the areas into which they have moved. Local accountability is of the greatest importance.
I also know the man I referred to as the chairman of the police authority and the chief constable. As Home Secretary one has a police department which provides information. It may be valuable for local police forces to have their own small police department, with their own research facilities, so that they can provide information for their own force and not be so dependent on the national organisation. But as for having political appointees on police authorities—I do not want to repeat what the noble Lord has said; he said it powerfully enough—it would be fundamentally wrong for that to happen given the nature of policing in this country.
So far as the Metropolitan Police is concerned I had intended to say a word about the Statement in the House in March. Apparently that is all over. Perhaps I should have acted in the 1970s over the question of a police authority for London. But I was not moved to do so. I accept that it is not easy. But under the new arrangement—as forecast in the Evening Standard last night and in some of the other newspapers today—which comes, I understand, as the result of a briefing from the Home Office, if there is to be some sort of a police authority for London, however appointed, what will happen to the Special Branch? One would not put the Special Branch under a local police committee. One would not put the diplomatic protection group under a local police committee, or the national drugs organisation or the anti-terrorist squad. What needs to be considered is that they should be made responsible directly to the Home Secretary, as they are now because of London, and then the Home Secretary could be responsible to the House of Commons for these national responsibilities which are based in London.
With regard to the Special Branch, MI5 now has a far bigger role than before. Its role is in providing information and analysis of information that comes forward, leaving the police with their operational responsibilities. MI5 cannot do that. It may be that there is room for a different role for the inspectorate. I was talking recently to a chief constable in preparation for this debate. He said that when the inspections first started they simply added up to the few policemen in the small borough force lining up at the station and the chief inspector getting out of the train, inspecting them and looking at their medals and buttons. That added up to the inspection of the force by the inspector. It is not like that now.
It may well be that the role of the inspectorate ought to be greatly increased. That would not be very well received by chief constables. But at least it ought to be looked at. It is part of the growth in the powers of the Home Secretary with regard to these matters
292
and it ought to be looked at very carefully because those powers are increasing without legislative change.
For my part—it would not be universally approved even within the police—I would also have a look at the role of the Association of Chief Police Officers. That is not because they are bad people or do the wrong thing but because we are using ACPO as a sort of inspectorate. We are using ACPO to do a job that in other countries the inspectorate does. Maybe that is good, but let us have a look at it. For my money too I would look at the Police Superintendents Association and the Police Federation. That is not because they are bad or evil; but if it is good enough for this House over the past few weeks to have looked at trade unions and had so many pieces of trade union legislation, why should it not have a look at the bodies that organise the police?
With regard to the size of forces, the noble Lord has already dealt with one aspect in which I was interested. In the days of Labour as well as other governments, there was a great diminishment in the number of police forces—the old borough forces and the small county forces. The other day I visited Gwent, where the police feel that they will be amalgamated into the South Wales police and maybe the Dyfed-Powys police as well. It is a small force and a very good one. The point was put to me by the chief constable, Mr. Over. He contended that forces below about 2,000 in strength, which make up 23 of the present 43 forces, are not only viable but provide the highest quality of service at the lowest cost. He argued that a reduction by some 23 forces would obviously reduce the chief constable posts by the same number. The loss of those posts, together with some supporting staff, might provide a notional saving of about £2 million. Using Audit Commission figures, he argued that it could provide only six additional motorway patrol constables. If there is an argument, it is not a financial argument. The matter needs to be looked at very carefully.
In my days as a service Minister, when around us the service commands were being made bigger as the services became smaller in numbers of men and women, my worries were different. In the olden days a general of lower rank could be given a command so that he could show how good he was. The smaller police forces give the Home Office and Home Secretaries a chance to see how a young man can run a police force before he is put in charge of a bigger force. There are all sorts of advantages to the smaller forces. In any case, there are the regional crime squads and so on.
I rather liked what the Government said about finance, perhaps not in detail, but they are looking at finance because of the devastating statement of the Audit Commission to the effect that the tripartite relationship between chief constables, public authorities and the Home Office had broken down. That was a damning statement to make. Therefore the financing of police forces certainly needs to be examined.
There is one matter that I do not think has been considered. The other day I looked at my papers. In 1978 I was very concerned about a problem with the

293
Chief Constable of Lancashire. The noble Lord will remember it well. When we looked at the procedures laid down in the police Act, they did not appear very easy. Perhaps the noble Lord will remember that I asked the legal advisers whether it would be possible for him to handle the matter because I was also the appellate authority. How could I both look at the matter and be the appellate authority? I was advised that that could not be done because the Minister of State has powers only from the Home Secretary. It could not be done. In any event, I made a statement on 19th April 1978 in the other place (I have not checked as to whether it was made in this House also) saying that the present position on discipline for senior officers was unsatisfactory and that a document was being prepared. That document has never seen the light of day, though I saw it before I left office. It disappeared somewhere.
I was concerned about the disciplinary arrangements for chief constables and senior officers. I was also very worried about the minor but important cases concerning police constables in all parts of the country which came on one's desk to be adjudicated upon. There has to be an appellate authority. I understand that. However, there were so many appeals that I could not believe that that was the right way to deal with the matter. The whole thing had to be looked at. I hope that the disciplinary arrangements, which are still a problem, will be examined.
I hope that the White Paper lives up to expectations. I hope that it gives us a chance to think hard about the problem of the structure of the police. We depend upon the police. I learnt that not only as Home Secretary but also in Northern Ireland. The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, has greater experience than I in that respect. At that time one of the problems with law and order in Northern Ireland was the weakness of the police. It has greatly strengthened, but perhaps too late.
A good police force, responsible to the community, so that people are not afraid to go to the police station or speak to the constable on the beat, is one of the important glories of this country. I hope that the Government will not throw that away in the search for greater management techniques. Accountability finance-wise, important as that is to central government, needs to be looked at. I hope that we will not throw out the baby with the bath water. The police force in this country stands to the credit of this nation and has done so for many centuries. I hope that it will be able to continue.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Trevor: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to make my somewhat overdue maiden speech during a debate which affects my locality most considerably. I have been a magistrate for 33 years and a member of the North Wales Police Authority for 10 years. That force was formed by the amalgamation of the old Denbighshire, Flintshire and Caernarvonshire constabulary. It is one of the oldest and largest forces in the country. Therefore I fully support the views and
294
opinions contained in the consultative documents prepared by the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities.
The proposals put forward by the Home Secretary are drastic and many forces and authorities are extremely disturbed by them. They are considerably affecting the morale of those involved. Police authority membership is composed of democratically elected councillors and some magistrates, all of whom know their areas intimately, are experienced in many different spheres and are readily accessible to members of the general public whom they represent. The chairman of the authority is elected by the members for a two-year period of office. The office alternates between councillors and magistrates. The chairmen are accountable to the members. That system has worked most satisfactorily in the past and there is no reason at all why it should not continue to do so.
The Home Secretary proposes to appoint directly a proportion of the members, appoint and pay the chairman and decide on the total number of the membership of the authority. We believe that that will result in persons with a lack of knowledge and experience being appointed. It will reduce the mandate from local communities and transfer power and control from the authorities to central government.
Furthermore, the Home Secretary indicated that he proposes to initiate a programme of amalgamation of police forces. We believe that our force area, with a population of 643,097, with a large holiday seasonal increase and covering 629,349 hectares, and with a road system of 9,593 kilometres, is large enough in view of the terrain and the inherent communications difficulty. It would be detrimental to all concerned if it were to be expanded. I believe that that view is held by many other forces and authorities.
It is fair to say that we welcome the suggested financial freedom, local delegation of budgets and operational independence of the chief constable. But we feel that the rest of the proposals are too far reaching and that a need to make such radical changes has not been established.
3.51 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, it is my great privilege to offer the congratulations of the House on what was a notable maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Trevor. It is perhaps a shade unusual to wait for 43 years before making a maiden speech. Apart from experience in forestry and fishing problems, the noble Lord has had great experience as a magistrate, as he explained, and as a member of a police authority. He demonstrated beyond any doubt that he is well able to make a notable contribution to our deliberations. Now that he has broken the ice, I hope that it will not be too long before we hear him again.
Turning to the Motion, it is only one of the Home Secretary's three approaches to the reshaping of the police service, but it certainly raises enough problems to justify a debate on its own—whatever the timing might be. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for giving us this opportunity to discuss the Home Secretary's recent Statement.

295
I first became involved with the police in the 1930s. It strikes me that, although traditionally the police service is looked upon as a local government service, it has always stood a little aside. When I started there were over 180 forces in England and Wales. Since then, by direct legislation or by amalgamations, that total has come down to 43. I would say that when we got rid of non-county borough forces we achieved, numerically, a greater number of amalgamations than even in the days of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead.
In relation to police areas, that realignment has never quite kept in step with what was going on in local government. Given the attitude of the present administration to local government, they are hardly likely to go out of their way to bring the areas covered by individual forces into line with local government areas. Indeed, the tendency is the other way. When the local government Act of 1992 was going through Parliament, setting up the boundary commission and making provision for police amalgamation, it was made plain that whatever happened to local government there was no intention on the part of central government to go ahead with smaller police forces. To take a current example, I gather that the small print of the suggestion that Derbyshire may be split into two unitary authorities takes it for granted that a single force would remain covering both areas.
As previous speakers have said, the Home Secretary spoke of simplifying the amalgamation procedure. Although he says that he has no specific plans in mind, no one will be surprised to find the total of 43 being further reduced, whether under a new streamlining procedure or the procedure explained by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. To my mind, developments of that kind inevitably mean that the structure of the police service is likely to become even more detached from local government.
Turning to management, it is fair to say that the police authorities of the 1930s—the watch committees and the standing joint committees—were the weakest part of the tripartite system, squeezed as they were, on the one hand, by the Home Office with all the big guns and ammunition and, on the other, by the chief constable who resisted any encroachment on all the more interesting matters on the ground that they were his operational responsibility.
Things have changed since then, but perhaps not that much. It is not to be wondered at that, some time ago, the Audit Commission came to the conclusion that the present responsibilities of the police authorities are somewhat blurred. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Home Secretary should want to sharpen up those responsibilities. The question is whether the solution which he suddenly pronounces to the world is on the right lines.
It is perfectly plain that whatever else might be the case, it is not local government in any ordinary sense of the term. The police authority will be free standing. There will not be a majority of local authority members. As I understand it, there will be a paid chairman, although I have not been a party to the briefing which seems to have given to others a good
296
deal of information that was not made available to Parliament. He will be appointed by the Home Secretary, who is bound to look to the appointing authority. There will be other members appointed by the Home Secretary and special financial arrangements peculiar to the police authority on which I propose to say a few words in a moment.
The Home Secretary rightly stressed the importance of the police responding to the needs of the local community. Perhaps one can be permitted a tinge of doubt whether the composition of the authority will be such as to make the meeting of that expectation its outstanding characteristic. Nor is it entirely clear how the Home Secretary's nominees are to be identified. Being politically innocent, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I naturally accept the Home Secretary's indication that he will not be obsessed by their political complexion. But while I yield to no one in my regard for the sagacity of the Home Office, there are limits even to its knowledge of individuals and I am not sure how they will set about identifying and assessing likely local candidates. It is a much worse problem than the one I had when I was trying to find members of the visiting committees of prisons dotted throughout the country.
The Home Secretary said that although there would be greater local autonomy, national objectives would be set. I can think of some rather platitudinous objectives. However, I confess in my ignorance that I do not really know what the Home Secretary had in mind. Perhaps when the noble Earl replies he will give one or two examples. Surely there will be a host of questions which can hardly be described as national objectives but which can hardly be left entirely to local initiative; such as the scale on which police officers might be armed or the need for career planning for higher appointments.
I must come for a moment to the financial arrangements on which I touched a moment ago. I know that they are not a very enlivening subject for discussion but they are rather important. As I understand it, although I may have got it wrong, something over 90 per cent. of the money will come to the police authority from central government, either by way of specific grant up to a cash limited amount or by way of revenue support grant and non-domestic rates. Then the police authority will be able to precept on its constituent authorities for the small balance. Each police authority would have its very own standard spending assessment, subject to capping, but the Home Secretary could also intervene if he thought that a local budget had been fixed too low. This all seems to be just a little rigid. I do not quite know what would happen if a police authority were suddenly met by an item involving a great deal of unexpected expenditure, as happened, for example, over the bomb at Warrington. But more importantly, I wonder how it is proposed to calculate the amount payable to each authority at the level necessary, as the Home Secretary put it, to secure an effective police service.
When on a previous occasion (reported at col. 934 of the Official Report on 20th November 1991) we were discussing the byzantine complications of standard spending assessments, the noble Earl, Lord

297
Ferrers, explained that that part of the police expenditure not covered by specific grant was calculated by reference to the authorised establishment approved by the Home Secretary. But now there is not going to be an authorised establishment approved by the Home Secretary. One wonders what the criteria will be. When there is talk of 51 per cent. specific grant or 40 per cent. revenue support grant, the question is: 51 per cent. or 40 per cent. of what?
Like the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, I wonder a little about the role of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary. Will they be less important, given the greater local autonomy, or will they be more important, as the Home Secretary's principal agents when he comes to hold a police authority accountable for the performance of its force? Will this opportunity be taken to end the bickering about the financing of the common services such as the police college?
Finally, I should like to say a few words about London. It is a little difficult to know what to say when we are still uninformed about what is now in contemplation. All we know is that it is not what was in the Home Secretary's statement, assuming that there is validity in what appeared in the Evening Standard, which had every impression of having some authentic official background. I was anyway, I confess, a little surprised that the momentous change of handing over the Home Secretary's responsibilities as police authority was announced in such a casual way. But, evidently, that is not now to happen. The composition and role of this proposed advisory body is not clear, but the noble Earl will no doubt be taking the opportunity of giving us a further parliamentary statement about what is now proposed.
At any rate, this change of plan should cover one aspect which had been giving me some concern; namely, the future of the receiver's office, the supplies and services side of the Metropolitan Police. This has been integrated with the police set-up in London in a way which has simply not been possible elsewhere. The force has been particularly well-served by those who have held the post of receiver. I hope that there is no risk now of this efficient and unique partnership between police and civilians being abandoned simply in order that London should he brought into line with the provinces.
Speaking of London, it is, after all, a great metropolis and the nation's capital. Somehow I was never quite able to envisage the position in which the Home Secretary would stand on the sidelines if there were a major catastrophe, perhaps involving calling in the military to help, or large-scale violence—a problem with which the present Home Secretary has, happily, not been confronted—or even a hostage-taking, as recently happened in France.
We are discussing a great service with a great tradition crucial to the well-being of the community which it serves. There have been causes for disquiet and no one would dispute that there is a case for change and for improving the capacity of the service to cope with rising crime and other ills of our society. But enough has been said in this debate—and I suspect that a good deal more will be said as time goes
298
on—to demonstrate to Ministers that the package of reforms, when we have the whole package, will be carefully watched to see that what is proposed is likely to achieve the efficient servicepolicing, as it does, by consent—that we all want to see.

Science, Engineering and Technology
4.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement on government policy on science, engineering and technology which has just been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Statement is as follows:
"Following the debate in this House last June, I launched a consultation exercise about the future of science and technology in this country. This produced more than 800 responses. Many were of high quality, not least those submitted by the Science and Technology Committee in another place and the new Science and Technology Committee of this House chaired by my honourable friend the Member for Pudsey.
"Very many of the responses I received from industry affirmed the quality of Britain's scientists and engineers. I believe that I will speak for the whole House when I say that I agree with that judgment. I hope I will also speak for the whole House when I add to that my belief that on those scientists and engineers rests a very large part of our hopes for the future of our country. They represent one of our fundamental national assets. The Government now wish to build on this national strength by developing a closer and more systematic partnership between the scientific and engineering communities, industry and commerce, and government. The purpose of this new partnership will be the strengthening of the contribution of science and engineering to wealth creation and the quality of life. This is the focus for the White Paper Realising Our Potential, a Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology which we are publishing today. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
"The principal themes which emerged from the consultation exercise were as follows. First, there was a widely perceived contrast between our continued excellence in science, engineering and technology and our relative weakness in exploiting it, particularly to economic advantage. Secondly, many felt the absence of a clear statement of a national strategy in this area. Thirdly, many felt that there was a need to manage the Government's investment in science and technology better.
"The proposals in the White Paper address these themes and some others which are complementary to them. First, we have decided to provide a clear, annually updated, statement of the Government's strategy for science and technology, to be known as the Forward Look. This will give an assessment of

299
the balance and content of our own science and technology programmes over the medium and the long term.
"The Forward Look will draw on the results of our second innovation: namely, a new technology foresight exercise, to be jointly conducted by industry, the science and engineering communities and government departments. The aims of this exercise—which reflect best practice in our leading companies and in other advanced countries—are to gain early notice of emerging key technologies and to provide a systematic process for the exchange of ideas, people and know-how. It will be steered by a group chaired by the Chief Scientific Adviser and will aim to bring together working scientists and engineers with those in industry and commerce who are close to markets. Reflecting this and the other increased responsibilities laid upon him by this White Paper, I should tell the House that the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser will be paid in future at the Grade 1A level.
"Thirdly, I have decided to establish a new council for science and technology—which I will chair on behalf of the Prime Minister—to provide the Government with independent and expert advice at the highest level on research spending priorities. This will replace the present ACOST. We will also look to the newly established National Academies Policy Advisory Group as an authoritative source of independent advice.
"The Government believe that we need to clarify what we expect from scientists and engineers in universities and research council institutes in relation to the creation of wealth and improvement of our quality of life. We intend, therefore, to restructure the research councils, to reformulate their missions and strengthen their links with those who use their research, and to improve their management arrangements.
"In particular, the Government wish to build on the steps taken by the present Science and Engineering Research Council to develop structures more clearly related to the needs of users of research. I have therefore decided that the Science and Engineering Research Council should be divided into two new councils: an engineering and physical sciences research council, which will underpin key industries based on engineering and the physical sciences, and a particle physics and astronomy research council. The Agricultural and Food Research Council will be modified into a biotechnology and biological sciences research council, reflecting the increasing importance of the life sciences. The coverage of the Natural Environment Research Council, the Medical Research Council and the Economic and and Social Research Council will remain broadly as now.
"Reflecting advice given in the consultation process, the functions of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils will be absorbed within the Office of Science and Technology.
"Next, the Government's arrangements for the promotion of innovation, for technology transfer
300
and the spread of best practice will be substantially strengthened, taking account of the Faraday principles on the interchange of ideas, know-how and skills. Access to technology will be improved, irrespective of its source, for firms of all sizes. The secretariat of the LINK programme will be transferred from the DTI to the Office of Science and Technology to emphasise the importance of its role in bringing the science base and industry together.
"The Government have reviewed the dual support mechanism under which funding for research in universities is provided through both the higher education funding councils and the research councils. They have concluded that uncertainty about its future should be ended. Funding for teaching and general research should continue to flow together. We have therefore decided that the present dual funding arrangements should be retained. Arrangements for co-ordination with the science and engineering base will be strengthened to ensure that the funding councils and the research councils establish close co-ordination.
"The Government wish the research councils and universities to develop research training more closely related to the needs of potential employers and designed to encourage young people to see science and engineering careers as worthwhile and attractive. This will involve further development of the content of postgraduate courses and changes in the balance of the support provided by research councils, with a Masters course becoming the normal initial post-graduate degree in science, engineering and technology. More care should be taken to manage the careers of those postgraduates who go on to do academic research.
"Over the past 20 years the Rothschild customer-contractor principle has been successfully applied in the management of departments' spending on the R&D which is directly related to the support of their policies. The Government now wish further to strengthen the role of departments as customers for R&D and to create a fully open market for the provision of research and development to departments so that all competent contractors can compete for work. Further work is being set in hand on the best ownership and organisational arrangements for civil research establishments in the public sector.
"The Government also recognise that science and technology must now be seen in a global perspective. Co-operation with other countries is essential and the United Kingdom will play its full role while aiming to improve our take-up of research carried out overseas.
"Our future depends on the effective exploitation of science and technology. This is not just a question of producing excellently educated and trained scientists, engineers and technicians at all levels, crucially important though that is. We need also to ensure that our society as a whole appreciates the role and the importance of mathematics, science, engineering and technology.

301
The Government intend to raise the profile of the work presently done to improve public understanding of science. We will do this by extending our partnership with the charities and other bodies who are already doing much good work in the schools and elsewhere. I shall be committing additional funds from my budget to this purpose.
"This White Paper sets out the framework within which we can better develop and exploit the work of our many excellent scientists and engineers in industry, the academic community and government. It represents the beginning of a process of change, not the end. I am confident that we shall have the backing of British industry and of those who work in our science and engineering base in building the stronger partnership which is crucial to Britain's success. It is a strategy which is indeed designed to realise our potential and I commend it to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the House will he grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made by her right honourable friend on the issue of the White Paper which has been eagerly—nay, impatiently—awaited by many of us, since the subject is of central importance to the economic, academic and industrial development of this country in the coming decades.
It is, I believe, generally accepted (indeed the Minister herself paid tribute to the fact) that scientists and engineers—I stress the inclusion of engineers in this country have been responsible for most of the great scientific discoveries of the world. Even now, United Kingdom scientists are making equally significant discoveries. So, from the towering intellect of Isaac Newton, through Rutherford and Faraday to John Logie Baird and people like professors Stephen Hawking and Steve Jones, there is a clear line in our scientific community of intellect and innovation which has made British scientists, even today, the envy of the world. However, the central question of investment by the Government remains less than fully answered by the White Paper. Only too often have British scientific discoveries been developed abroad because of lack of government interest and investment.
It would, however, be churlish not to welcome the White Paper as we welcomed from these Benches the establishment of the Office of Science and Technology. Each of them is a much-belated recognition—but a recognition—of the place of science and technology in government.
Clearly, we on this side of the House shall need to study the White Paper very carefully before giving a considered response. It is a heavyweight document and it repays study. There are parts of the Statement which we on these Benches can welcome and with which, broadly, we can agree. In stressing the importance of science, engineering and technology to the national economy and the international industrial scene, it says what we would all agree, just as we would all agree about the importance of motherhood, sliced bread and the cultivated mushroom.
302
Similarly, we all recognise the importance of research and development both in industry and in the universities. Like the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, we on these Benches regret that the Government's interest did not go even further and that a similar importance was not conceded to the humanities when it was announced by the Government last week, in a Written Answer, that there is to be no separate humanities research council—a fact which, I believe, many of us on all sides of the House regret. I suppose that we must be grateful for the crumbs which fall from the Government's table but we must—if I may mix the metaphors—look this particular gift horse very carefully in the mouth.
First, we welcome the announcement that there will be a new research council for engineering and the physical sciences (which will include chemistry and materials) and a new research council for particle physics and astronomy. We hope, however, that this is not simply a cosmetic exercise and that it will not be, in the traditional words, a "rearrangement of the deckchairs on the 'Titanic' as she goes down". We understand the reasoning behind the new research councils (the importance of wealth creation), but we would beg leave to question whether they will have the resources to do anything much more in the way of applied work without damaging basic research if they do so. We would welcome the Minister's comments on that possibility.
Secondly, we are relieved that international subscriptions (such as those to CERN and ESA) are to be safeguarded. But, of course, that carries a concomitant problem with it; it means that the Secretary of State will have to fight even harder for his money in the Cabinet and while we wish him well, at this particular time we have some doubts about the extent to which he will succeed.
Thirdly, we are very interested to learn that a committee will be established to identify key technologies and to have some sort of research foresight role. Once again, the Statement does not tell us whether there will be any substantial amount of extra money for that or whether that body will be allowed to publish its reports. We hope that it will. We also warmly welcome the proposal for an annual statement on strategy for science, engineering and technology. Once again, from our point of view, it does not go far enough and phrases such as "long-term planning" have been sedulously and studiously avoided. But we must be grateful for what we can get. Although welcoming the proposal, we recall the words of ICI in its reply to the consultation exercise when it was talking about advisory bodies of this sort. ICI said:
"It will be hard to find the folk unless they feel that this time something will happen".
I commend to your Lordships those words from one of the great scientific and industrial companies of the United Kingdom. I repeat that ICI said that it would be hard to find the folk for the advisory bodies,
"unless they feel that this time something will happen".
So we urge the publication of all reports of this type. I believe that the DTI is still refusing to publish its aerospace advisory body's strategic technology

303
acquisition plan. I must ask whether there will be any money to back the new technologies when they have been identified.
We understand, too, that some sort of public understanding campaign will be put into place. We believe that it is the case that the Government have secured the co-operation of Welcome and the Gatsby Charity in doing this, and that is to be welcomed. But, of course, we have had the British Association for the Advancement of Science with us for a long time, and there are still plenty of our fellow citizens who do not know a sub-atomic particle from a sub-aqua wetsuit. There is a vast job to be done here and, while a little may well be done by a public understanding campaign, I hope that the Government will take note that the splendid work of the British Association for the Advancement of Science has still not been totally successful.
The news that the Teaching Company Scheme and LINK will be removed from the DTI and brought under the umbrella of the OST is again welcome. It is where they logically belong, but their correct placement does not guarantee their effective operation. We also welcome the news that the ABRC will be wound up and its function carried out by the OST internally. I think that it is generally agreed that the ABRC has not quite been the total success that was hoped when it was set up. Of course, the OST must still be held accountable, not just to Parliament, but also to the science and industry community. Again, we urge the publication of all reports made by it so that we can see the transparency of OST decision-making.
Our priorities on this side of the House would include many of the proposals outlined by the Government in the Statement, but we would go further and deeper, and assert those priorities somewhat differently. We believe that the Government, in co-operation with industry and the science base, should set long-term national science and technology objectives and provide the mechanisms for achieving them. We believe that an EC research office should be created to market, inform and guide the uptake of international opportunities by United Kingdom science and industry.
We note that government expenditure on science and technology is still lower than that of many of our competitors. It should therefore be a priority of the Government to increase the total spend. We fervently believe that the dual support of university funding should be maintained. Here, we appear to be at one with the Government if the words of the Statement mean what they appear to mean. It is our view that the current policy of not funding near-market research is both divisive and damaging. We think that the Government should fund research into strategic, generic technologies—as close to the market as is necessary—so as to strengthen British industry.
We would go further. We believe that a system of tax credits for research and development should be urgently considered. We believe that the creation of intermediate institutions or so-called "Faraday Centres" should be supported. We believe that the Government should support the development of a
304
national technology database. We believe that A-levels should be replaced with a broader curriculum to enable science students to continue to study languages and humanities and vice versa. We believe that there should be more support from government for continuous professional development. We believe that the Government must take the lead in developing a proper career structure that can span the research councils, government service and the universities. These are by no means the same priorities as the Government seem to be suggesting in the Statement and the White Paper. We would urge the Government to think more widely, more radically, and to agree with us that long-term planning is what the scientific community urgently needs.
On 6th May 1993 I asked the noble Baroness a supplementary question to the Starred Question of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. I asked whether the Minister could inform the House how many scientists in this country were on contracts under five years long and whether the Minister agreed that it was essential to give scientists longer contracts as they tended to do their best work in middle age and this encouraged them to stay in the profession. Quite understandably, the Minister was unable at that time to provide the figures I asked for. She asked me to absolve her from the necessity of writing to me on the question, and I was happy to provide that absolution. Clearly, she will not have any of those answers this afternoon, but I hope that she will now agree that the question is important because it bears so strongly on the long terms plans for science so vital to the health and morale of the scientific community, a community which, I suspect, will receive today's Statement with true, trained and traditional scientific scepticism.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Morris, in thanking the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. We on these Benches agree with many of the points that the noble Lord made. We agree, for example, with the proposal for Forward Look and for technology foresight. We also agree that the Government should have supported the establishment of a humanities research council. However, we shall leave our detailed reactions to the White Paper to the debate which will no doubt follow in due course.
I should like to make just one or two points about the Statement. First, the consultation exercise which preceded the White Paper was useful and interesting. There was a consensus, apparently, among the 800 well-informed replies that all was not well and, in particular, that we needed a clear statement of national strategy and that the Government's management of science and technology and of their investment in it should be better. Those matters are important and a strong criticism of the Government's record. The Government have been in office now for 14 years and those are things which good government would not have allowed to arise during that time.
We welcome parts of the White Paper, but on the whole we on these Benches find the Statement and the White Paper disappointing. The Statement seems curiously out of balance: massive attention to administration; little about innovation; nothing about funding. Will the new bureaucracy be any better than

305
the old? It is hard to judge. If it takes place, we shall have to judge by results. The White Paper seems merely to be putting eggheads into different baskets. That is the long and the short of it. It is difficult to judge what the result will be. We can only hope for the best. There is nothing about funding—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris.
Why is it that investment in R&D has declined as a percentage of GDP? Was that government policy? I am told that of all the OECD countries that is true only of Turkey and Britain. Did the Government intend that? What do they propose for the future? It is a disaster. This is one of the most important things in our national life. How has that decline been allowed to come about? What precise measures do the Government propose to take to keep our brightest people in British universities? What action are they taking to smooth the exit of talented scientists and engineers from the defence to the civil sector?
There are a number of other points that I know my noble friends would want me to make. They will be made in the debate in due course. In the meantime, on their behalf, I have to register considerable disappointment with the Statement and the White Paper.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may start by accentuating the positive.
Lord Dainton: My Lords—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Order! Order!
Baroness White: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dainton is the only real scientist here.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand that it is the convention of the House that I respond to the leaders of the Opposition Benches. Perhaps I may do that.
Perhaps I may accentuate the positive and welcome the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Morris of Castle Morris and Lord Mayhew. There is a great deal that unites us. I find it almost inconceivable that the House will not wish to return to the White Paper in considerable detail. It will almost certainly form the subject of a debate at some point, although that must be a matter for the usual channels.
Underlying much of what noble Lords said in welcoming parts of the White Paper was the issue of resources. The essential point here is being missed. We now have a coherent framework accentuating partnership and emphasising the importance of government, charities, industries and commerce working together, making much more effective use of resources, focusing what is spent on those areas that will contribute considerably to the wealth and health of the nation, and, as I said at the outset in repeating the Statement of my right honourable friend, properly exploiting, in the best sense of the word, the excellent work of the scientific community.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, was rather disappointing when he said, "Nothing about innovation; nothing about what the whole scientific, engineering and technological world is about". Everything is about promoting, facilitating and
306
making it possible for the brains of this country to flourish. We want to ensure that we have a framework that does not thwart those talents but promotes them and makes it possible for them to flourish.
The colleagues in another place of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, produced, only a matter of a few weeks ago, a document called The Challenge for Waldegrave which was a response to the consultation. Most of the material used in it was taken from the submissions made to my right honourable friend as part of the consultation process. In its introduction it said that,
"too many organisations simply stated the case for more money or influence for their own narrow interests rather than voicing broader concerns on the future of science and technology".
That is all that has been said. If I sum up what the noble Lords, Lord Morris of Castle Morris and Lord Mayhew said, what they were asking for were more resources. Of course my right honourable friend will fight his corner for his fair share of available resources, but we have to concern ourselves about the sensible and effective application of those resources. That is what is important.
I return to the introduction of that same document. It was said that the document should not be seen as a definitive statement of Labour policy on science and technology, but it then goes on to say that,
"we outline the policies that Britain's scientists and engineers wish to see and which the Labour Party has advocated repeatedly".
On the one hand, we have a document that is not definitive, while, on the other hand, we have a document that is definitive. There is a good deal of debate left in all of this.
Reference was made to the lack of the establishment of a humanities research council. I notice that my noble friend Lord Renfrew is not in his place: I know that it is a matter of great interest to him. I can assure noble Lords that the Government thought long and hard about whether a humanities council should be included in the arrangements set out in today's White Paper. We came to the conclusion that the balance of advantage lay in retaining the present arrangements, for the reasons set out in my Answer to the Question asked last week by my noble friend Lord Mountevans.
The Government have made clear their commitment to high quality research in the humanities. The 11 per cent. increase—11 per cent. at a time when the parameters for all other Whitehall departments are tight—in the British Academy's grant for 1993–94 demonstrates that commitment. I hope that noble Lords will agree that it was right to announce our conclusions ahead of the publication of today's White Paper, so allowing us today to concentrate upon science and technology and avoid the accusation that almost certainly would have come across the Dispatch Box that we had slipped it in somehow or another into today's proceedings.
We intend to strengthen the Office of Science and Technology's policy, research and analysis; improve co-operation between government, industry and the science base in pursuit of shared objectives; review the workings of the EUROPES system under which UK

307
expenditure on research projects is attributed to government departments; increase transparency—this is an important point—of how government money is spent; maintain the dual support system, something which has been welcomed; retain broadly the same research council structure; improve communications and co-operation between different research councils; wind up ABRC—I am aware that that has also been welcomed—and allow it to be absorbed by the Office of Science and Technology; and create a more diverse range of postgraduate opportunities for young people, with a growth in the role of Masters degrees. All of that will contribute substantially to the health and wealth of our nation.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Boyd—Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this interesting Statement which she read so well contains one significant omission? She made the point which I believe everyone will accept that a major factor in our troubles is that the wonderful work done by our scientists and engineers by way of research too often fails to be put into operation by industry. There is a failure by British industry, in particular, to exploit the results of that high grade research.
Is the Minister aware that one of the reasons for that is that the use and development of that technology is subjected to very severe taxation? Any profits are subject to income or profits tax and a good deal of the work is subject to charges for VAT. Will the Minister indicate that the Government are aware of that? If we are to have full value from the research carried out and full value for British industry, it is necessary to make it financially more immediately attractive for industry to invest in the development of such technology. I do not expect my noble friend to anticipate any Budget Statement but I should like an indication that the Government are aware of that. One of the most important factors in the exploitation of that research is the knowledge that those who risk their money and take the opportunities to try to develop and exploit the technology should not he stunned by heavy taxation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as always my noble friend makes several important points. I believe that I touched upon the point made about exploitation. My noble friend is absolutely right that we need a much stronger link between the work of our scientists and some manifestation of that work in the productivity of companies. That is important.
The other point which my noble friend makes is about taxation. The United Kingdom has tax incentives for research and development which are relatively comprehensive by international standards. The overall position is set out in paragraph 2.12 of the White Paper. The results of an objective study were set out in response to a House of Lords Select Committee in June 1991. However, I am sure that that does not go as far as my noble friend would like it to go because I believe that he is hinting at incentives.
308
We have almost made a culture of talking down our country, not just in terms of the practical sense of what we do as regards science and technology but also our position vis-a-vis other countries in the world. I should like to return to a very important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. He asked why, as a percentage of GDP, our spending had gone down while that of every other country appeared to be increasing. As a statement, that is absolutely wrong. If the noble Lord looks at the figures of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan or the United States, he will find that their spending has fluctuated over the past 10 years. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that in terms of civil R&D as a percentage of GDP, the United Kingdom is ahead of the United States and Japan and we fall behind only France and Germany. If we take government expenditure on R&D for all seven countries, we are fourth out of seven countries. That is not a bad record.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I apologise for the fact that I was late entering the Chamber. That is because I was chairing a meeting of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. I apologise also for the fact that the usual chairman of that committee, my noble friend Lord Flowers, is out of the country. Therefore, it falls to me, having just heard the Statement, to try to give a few preliminary views on what has been said and what I imagine the White Paper largely contains.
It is quite clear to me that this paper is not concerned in any way with funding. I understand it to be a framework paper. I believe that she used those words. That carries me back to a time 21 years ago when a White Paper called A Framework for Government Research and Development was issued which contained a report by Lord Rothschild as well as a report written by myself. Therefore, I am quite familiar with traversing matters of organisation and policy while leaving out considerations and questions of finance.
The impression that I gained from the Minister is that the White Paper is trying to stake a claim for science in the life of this nation in all its aspects; for example, as a social activity, as an economic activity and so on. At one point I believe the Minister said that the White Paper constitutes a wide-ranging review of scientific spend and the purposes for which money is spent in a whole range of departments, research councils and universities. She said also that she wanted transparency. In the sphere of science I believe that openness is absolutely essential. It is the oxygen that we breathe as scientists. Unless there is openness, we cannot criticise one another and cannot get the best out of one another. That applies to the organisation of science just as much as it applies to the scientific process itself.
My immediate and personal reaction to the Statement is one of welcome. There has been a long gestation period for the production of the White Paper; that is understandable. I know from my own experience that consultation has been extremely wide. That is a merit. However, I must reserve my position until I have had time to read the White Paper.

309
From what has been said, the following comments occur to me. First, the White Paper is very timely. In the past few years morale in the scientific and engineering community has been slipping. That is an undeniable fact. Years have slipped by with no fundamental review, with no sense of a vision for the future or the part which science and technology can play in our national affairs. There has been no sense of a planning horizon. At least we now have an attempt —and I cannot say that we have it because I have not read the paper and I shall make a judgment on it when I have—to put science into some kind of perspective in the life of the country, to see how it can best be fostered in the interest of the United Kingdom.
It struck me from what has been said that the Minister has tried to get a grip on scientific policy right across government, which is badly needed. Scientific policy is a term which is very much misunderstood by many people. There are two elements to it: there is a policy for science—how priorities are arranged, how much money should be spent and so on; and secondly, there is science to serve public policy. That is not a new thought. That distinction was made clear by Lord Haldane only 90 years ago. The point is that although those are two distinct concepts, in terms of administration they are intermingled. It is against that background and in a philosophical sense that I shall examine the White Paper to see whether the balance is right and whether the inter-relationships between those two aspects have been rightly interpreted.
Some of the devices which were mentioned seem to be sensible. The notion that there is to be a strategic council for science and technology to be chaired by the Minister, which will replace ACOST, will be an improvement on the present arrangements.
I believe also that the requirement for annual reports will be good provided that there is a mechanism for setting those annual reports against what I hope will be—I use modern business jargon which I very much dislike using but which seems to have come into general currency—the mission statements and programmes of the bodies which should be set out at the beginning of the year. Therefore, there will be a constant monitoring.
As I understood what the Minister said, that kind of monitoring will be part of the role of the chief scientific adviser and the Office of Science and Technology. That can only be good. Therefore, there is a sense of openness in the annual forward looks which the Minister mentioned. However, those looks must be compared with the performance as detailed in the annual reports. There should be an open scrutiny so that everybody knows what are the strengths and weaknesses and how best to address them.
I like the reference to a sense of research foresight being achieved by a kind of partnership between industry, on the one hand, and communities of scientists and technologists on the other. That can be very important because it could be built upon in order to develop not necessarily a national strategy but a kind of consensus. If you can develop a consensus with the troops behind you, then whatever you want to do will go forward with some speed and determination.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Dainton: Certainly, my Lords.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, we are not discussing the White Paper today. As the rule of the House is that 20 minutes only should be allowed for Back-Benchers and we have in fact thus far taken 41 minutes on the Statement, I must point out that it is grossly unfair to those who are taking part in the main debate.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Dainton: My Lords, nevertheless, I hope that I may be allowed to make a few more observations.
Noble Lords: Questions!
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I am not sure as to the ruling of the House on the matter.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I believe that when we are discussing a Statement that usually consists of questions to the Minister and the briefest of comments to enable a number of noble Lords to speak. Longer speeches are made on the debate. Am I right in that assumption?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, perhaps it would help if I were to point out that ministerial Statements are for the information of the House. Brief comments and questions for clarification from all quarters of the House are then allowed. I think it would be convenient if my noble friend replied now to the noble Lord's observations so that other noble Lords will be able to put their points.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall try to be brief because I know that the Clock is ticking over. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, is absolutely right. What we intend is, in fact, staking a claim for science; it is making science, together with technology, absolutely central in our affairs. That is not just from higher education onwards, but also in the whole of the national curriculum. Our young people from the age of four and five will be studying science as a course subject in the national curriculum. Therefore, we shall increase scientific awareness and competence, and also technological competence, in our young people leaving school, thereby enlarging the cohort of young people qualified to get into higher and further education and exploit their talents.
On the question of openness, the word "transparency" has been used. That is absolutely right. If I can paraphrase it, what we have is a manifesto for an open society. The new Forward Look will be a public document which I know will be welcomed. Again, it would be inconceivable if opportunities were not taken annually to discuss that report as it is published. The contribution made by the Director General for the research councils and his expert group will be incorporated in that public document.
The Council for Science and Technology, which my right honourable friend will chair, will be devoted to generating a top level partnership about the strategic

311
direction of science and technology in the country. Accordingly, he will fully expect that any reports which the council commissions or produces will normally be made publicly available. As I have already said, the council is also intended to turn for independent advice to the National Academies Policy Advisory Group and the other expert bodies in the field. Their reports and the Government's responses to them will also be made public.
My understanding in terms of the chain of command and how it will work is that, as the noble Lord knows, there is basically a five-year rolling programme for the councils. They will deliberate and pass the fruits of their work to the Director General who, in turn, will inform my right honourable friend Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who will then endorse it. It will become the bank of information which will inform government policy.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, as my noble friend the Minister referred to my noble friend Lord Renfrew and his unfortunate absence this afternoon, perhaps I may point out that it is perfectly clear what he would have said had he been here. He would have shared my disappointment and that of other noble Lords who spoke in the debate on the humanities research council that both the decision of the Government and the arguments put forward by my noble friend in her reply ignore that advice. What is the use of our collection of expertise in this House if the Government take no notice of the advice that they receive?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thought that I had replied to that particular point. My right honourable friend took advice from a number of areas. Simply because he did not specifically take the advice that came out of the short debate that we had in the House is not an argument for it not being the right decision. Moreover, not everyone who spoke in that debate was absolutely in agreement with the idea that there should be a separate research council.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the pleasure with which I heard her use the word "engineering"? Indeed, I heard her use it not once but several times during the Statement. That, in itself, is a step forward and an innovation. I have two questions only and, I am happy to say, they will be brief. I do not think that I heard any mention of the engineering council among the many bodies and organisations that were referred to in the Statement.
First, is the Minister aware of the current discussions that are taking place between the engineering council and several of the engineering institutions in an effort to reorganise the council? Do the Government have any view in that respect at present? My second brief question is one that I have raised several times previously in the House. Is there any possibility of the Government funding the engineering council in the same way that they have, for many years, funded the Design Council, which carries out work that is not dissimilar?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, now is not the time to go into any detail on that particular question. Perhaps
312
the noble Lord will read the document and then, if he finds his questions are still unanswered, he can return to me. I can tell him that the Science and Engineering Research Council will be converted into an engineering and physical sciences research council. I am also absolutely assured that there is no aspect of science, technology or engineering left out of our plans; absolutely every aspect of it is subsumed.
Moreover, although I have given the broad subject headings for the different research councils under the new arrangements, there may well be some modification at the margins where one aspect of science may belong with another.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the concentration this afternoon on science and technology will be welcome to many of us who feel that perhaps over the many decades humanities has had more than its fair share of a place in the sun and that it is time that the importance of science, technology and engineering was fully recognised? Did my noble friend say that the role and status of the Chief Scientific Adviser is to be enhanced? Perhaps I may pay tribute to the current holder of that position, my fellow West Highlander Professor Stewart, who I know has been heavily involved in writing the White Paper.
Is my noble friend further aware that a great deal of work will be needed if we are to enhance the status of science, technology and engineering in our schools? That does not just include the curriculum; it also includes making youngsters and their parents aware that there are positive and meaningful careers to be had in science and, in particular, engineering. Will my noble friend ensure that her department underlines the difference between engineering as a generic name and graduate engineers in civil engineering, electrical engineering and chemical engineering who are so vital if we are to translate fundamental scientific research into productive manufacturing capacity?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend raised a number of important points. However, on his final point, there is certainly an awareness programme which will be funded. It is absolutely essential to put status back where it belongs; that is, in properly qualified engineers. We know the casual way in which that terminology is used.
As regards humanities, it must be a question of equal value and of a proper balance between what is important in the humanities and what is important in science and technology. My noble friend also made the important point about the raising of awareness and understanding the importance of science and technology. He also mentioned competence in science, technology and engineering. That is now absolutely central for all our community, especially for our young children starting school, throughout their school life and going on into higher and further education. On that society depends.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we have now passed the 20-minute time limit allocated for Back-Bench speakers.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I should like to make a point about the procedure of the House. We have just experienced the fact that many noble Lords have been frustrated because of the lack of recognition of the Standing Order which governs the proceedings following a ministerial Statement. I wonder whether, in looking at ministerial Statements in the future, we could do the same thing as we do with five-hour debates or short debates and give some guidance to the House on the disciplines involved before the ministerial Statement begins.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I think that the principle which has been agreed by both this House and, if I remember correctly, the Procedure Committee, is that there should be 20 minutes for questions and answers from the Back Benches. That is a simple fact. When 20 minutes have elapsed, for the convenience of the whole House we have to draw the discussion to a conclusion.

The Police Service
Debate resumed.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, I wish to join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Trevor, on his admirable maiden speech. As I rise to speak in this debate I must declare an interest as I am the representative in your Lordships' House of the Police Superintendents' Association of England and Wales. I must also pray for the indulgence of the House as I am getting over rather a bad cold.
There has been a great deal of media coverage and public debate recently on our beleaguered police service and whither its future. Indeed, we all await the delayed publication of the Sheehy inquiry into the future of the police service with keen anticipation, not least police officers themselves. The contents of this report are the subject of much speculation, uncertainty and concern among police officers, which is having an adverse affect on morale. The fact that the report has been further delayed compounds this effect and lowers morale even further.
Noble Lords cannot have failed to notice the tone of the recent conference in Blackpool of the Police Federation. The mood there was a mixture of anger, despair and disbelief at some of the dottier proposals put forward by the Home Secretary in his Statement to the other place on 23rd March. Among other things he was accused of being an arrogant, rude social snob with no concept of the problems of policing. He also stands accused of having sinister designs on the police due to his plans to introduce new disciplinary procedures which would make it easier to sack officers on the word of criminals without bothering about such expensive inconveniences as the burden of proof of misconduct. In other words, the police would undoubtedly be much more vulnerable to malicious complaints being made against them than they are now.
314
It is not just rank and file police officers who are most concerned and worried over Mr. Clarke's proposals. Their concerns are shared and mirrored by the Association of County Councils. Indeed my own county of Somerset has expressed to me in no uncertain terms its grave and serious objections to the Home Secretary's plans. They and the ACC feel that there has been little, if any, prior consideration given to the subject before the publication of the Statement on 23rd March. The proposals contained in it, they say, raise important constitutional issues which should have been widely canvassed before any public Statement was made. They regard his plans with deep suspicion and mistrust and see them as further positive proof of this Government's determination to undermine local democracy by removing as many of its functions as possible in order to reduce its power and influence and increase that of Whitehall. One has to look no further for proof of that than to the 23rd March Statement in which Mr. Clarke clearly states his intentions to take as his right the nominations of 50 per cent. of police authority membership including the nomination of the Chair. That seems to me a decidedly curious way of devolving more responsibilities to local managers. In fact I believe it is irreconcilable with another part of the same Statement where he states that he proposes to strengthen local police authorities, give them greater autonomy, ensure that policing responds to "local needs and concerns", and to consult local people in setting "the local policing agenda". Surely that will be rather difficult to achieve from Whitehall and Queen Anne's Gate?
Although we have seen big increases in police pay since the recommendations contained in the Edmund Davis report—quite right too when one considers the difficult and often dangerous duties we expect them to perform on our behalf—we have also seen considerable obstacles placed in their path, albeit unwittingly. Nevertheless those obstacles often hamper their given and expected roles and duties. Those obstacles could have been avoided with a little more mind-jerking and a little less knee-jerking from Westminster.
I find it a bit rich to say the least for this Government to claim to be the great preserver of law and order, thereby insinuating that other parties are against law and order, when the same Government have presided over the worst set of crime figures in our history, and have been responsible for placing those same obstacles in the path of the police. I accept that it was not done on purpose, or with any malicious intent; nevertheless it was done, despite the Government having available to them the very best information and advice. The sooner the Government recognise this sorry state of affairs, admit to it, and take steps to rectify the mistakes made as a matter of considerable urgency, the better it will be for our struggling and demoralised police service.
I will mention but a few of the obstacles I have referred to. Probably the largest of these is the enormous increase in paperwork that has taken place since the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill became the Act in 1984. I include in the term paperwork the cascade of forms that are required to be filled in for every arrest made, and the transcribing of audio taped

315
interviews conducted by police officers at the time of the arrest into written statements. That process consumes vast amounts of valuable and expensive police time. This veritable rain forest of paperwork-demands indicates that it is the modus operandi of the Crown Prosecution Service that has been the largest single factor in removing police officers from the streets of our cities and towns.
For example, I refer to a simple case of shoplifting, pre-Police and Criminal Evidence Act, where the shoplifter was caught red-handed and confessed the crime to the shop and to the police. The person was charged, all details were noted in the officer's note book, the case went to court the next morning, a fine or whatever was imposed, and that was that. The officer who was called to the incident was most likely off the street for 60 minutes or less, plus the time needed for him to make a brief court appearance.
Now under PACE, and with the various demands made by the Crown Prosecution Service, a simple case of shoplifting is anything but simple even when the same conditions of being caught red-handed, followed by a ready confession apply. All must be recorded on audio tape with the arresting officer doing the interview in the presence of a solicitor. Then a transcript of that tape must be made by the same officer and sent to the Crown Prosecution Service. This officer is not a trained audio typist and that task alone can take him up to five or six hours to perform, often on an antiquated, semi-derelict typewriter. I know that is the case as I have seen those typewriters. That is quite simply ludicrous.
Another problem we have to consider is that of a police officer being injured in the course of her or his duties. I agree that this has always been a problem. Indeed it is an accepted hazard of the job. However, while it used to be possible to find either a desk job, or to put an officer who had sustained injuries which left him or her in some way incapacitated and unable to carry out full operational duties onto light duties, now a period of recuperative duties is the order of the day for a period of time considered to be reasonably flexible. If after this period of around six months or so the medical officer's opinion is such that the police officer will never be able to return to full duties, that officer will be asked to leave the service. It goes without saying that the chances of an officer being injured have increased enormously in recent years.
Officers need to carry adequate protection against assaults made on them. The present truncheon is pathetic and totally inadequate. What I find encouraging, and quite remarkable when one takes into account the numbers of assaults made on police officers every year and the often extremely vicious nature of those assaults which tragically frequently result in serious injury to the officers concerned, is that in all my travels around England and Wales where I have listened to what police men and police women have had to tell me, I have not heard one demand for the police to be armed with guns. I am sure there are those who make those demands but they must be in a very considerable minority. In fact, I have frequently heard the reverse: "We don't want guns. They don't
316
solve anything. They just encourage more and more guns until you finish up with a deplorable situation such as that which exists in the USA which no one can now do anything about". What I am told though is that they urgently need something other than the present truncheon which in the face of a knife attack is virtually useless. No doubt your Lordships will be interested to know that here at the Palace of Westminster the number of knives that are taken away from ordinary visitors to this place is quite staggering, so many people seem to be carrying them these days.
So what can we do about removing some of these obstructions that we have placed in the way of the police without making them less accountable to the public they try to serve? I believe that there are some relatively simple remedies available to us that would certainly be cost-effective. One of them would be to allow civilian audio typists to do the transcriptions from the audio interview tapes to the written statement. Often such civilian personnel already work at the police station and it is only the insistence of the Crown Prosecution Service that prohibits this from taking place. I understand its reasoning for insisting that the police officer does this work as it says that only he or she would be capable of putting the correct emphasis on words, sentences or phrases. But surely that would be done by the police officer when reading the written statement that the audio typist had transcribed. At least to allow this to happen would make one contribution towards achieving what everyone wants; namely, to see more uniformed police officers out on our streets. They cannot be in two places at once: out on the streets keeping the Queen's peace, giving advice and assistance, communicating with the general public, preventing crime just by being there, arresting criminals and apprehending ne'er-do-wells and at the police station coping with mountains of paper and going mad in the process.
Another thing that we could do is to hand out much stiffer sentences to those who are convicted of assaulting a police officer; often these people get away with it altogether or else are fined piffling amounts, which gives the impression to the assaulted officer that the system favours the criminal rather than the victim. It is not just assaulted police officers who feel this. The general, law-abiding public feel exactly the same way, which is what prompted the comment from the Police Federation in Blackpool which queried this Government's priorities of putting carpets in prisons and cardboard boxes on the streets.
Perhaps I may close by suggesting that an early end is brought to all this uncertainty surrounding the police service. Many of the changes that have taken place since the Brixton riots have been welcomed by the public and the police alike. Many have not and I have mentioned a few this afternoon. What I think is vitally important for the future health of our police service is that we stop tinkering with it and that much more consideration and consultation take place before changes are initiated rather than after, when it is often too late. I also think it is high time that the views of all serving police officers are sought and listened to, as it is they who are out there dealing with the day-to-day

317
grimy and hazardous business of keeping law and order as best they can given the operational strait-jackets which we have issued them with.
The public are anxious for the police to succeed but they will be able to do so only if they are supported by the government of the day rather than undermined by them. Public support for the police, although still high, is slipping. And who can blame the public when the system forces the police to reveal the names of those who are to give evidence for the prosecution, thereby subjecting them to intimidation, threats of physical violence and worse, while the criminals brought to trial often get away with it completely, leaving their victims with nothing except the bitter memory of the police telling them that there is nothing they can do? Victims of crime do not need that; they need support, like the police. I think that it is more than time we gave that support.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I wish to identify a couple of problems related to the control and management of the police, to give three examples which emanate from those problems and to identify the emergence of some good practice. I wish finally to comment on the Government's proposals and to suggest an alternative structure.
Before I begin my contribution today it is worth pointing out that I have arrived at my views as a result of listening to professionals in the field and my experience as a member of the local community watching what is happening. When I say "listening to professionals" I do not mean only those professionals who are currently in the job and who, therefore, may have an axe to grind in terms of their own advancement. I am sure that we need to listen to professionals who have retired from their positions and in doing so to listen and say, "Yes, that is a considered professional view, but from what point of view does it come? Is it held to substantiate their previous existence or professional expertise or does it come from their knowledge and experience?"
One of the most significant pieces of advice was given to me by a professional during the mid-1970s. I had a conversation with a retired deputy chief constable of the Salford police force. It was shortly after the amalgamation of the Greater Manchester police force, the Salford police force and a number of smaller forces into the Greater Manchester Police. I asked him why we were experiencing the rising crime rate and difficulties with policing. His explanation was two-fold. He said first that we had given all the young policemen panda cars to run around in and that therefore they lost contact with the community. That was perhaps the kind of comment an old policeman would make. However, his second explanation was significant; that we had created large police forces in which the chief constable no longer had any knowledge of the personal capabilities, strengths and weaknesses of individual policemen.
The first problem which we need to address, therefore, is the size of our police forces. Once a force is more than 1,000 strong, the chief constable effectively loses track of the individual strengths and
318
weaknesses of members of his force. Another point is that with an increase in size comes an increase in the geographical area. There then arises the problem of police officers who live in one particular area being called upon to police a totally different area. They have no common bond with the local community.
The second problematical aspect is the lack of accountability of the police force. My noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees earlier identified the problems that he, as Home Secretary, had with the Chief Constable of Lancashire. Perhaps I may explain that I come from Manchester, where we had "God's own cop". Noble Lords will appreciate that our experience was not amenable to the police committee, the chair of the police authority, successive Home Secretaries, or the combined might of the Home Office. Noble Lords will appreciate the reason why I and many citizens in Manchester and across Britain have grave anxieties about the accountability of police forces to the local community.
I cite three examples. They may explain the problems which emanated from the large size and lack of accountability of the police force. The first example arises from the situation that obtained in the mid-1970s in Manchester. James Anderton was fairly recently appointed chief constable. One of his initial activities was to require his officers to seize what was described as pornographic material. So far as I am aware no prosecutions were ever brought but an immense amount of goods was seized from newsagents' shops across the conurbation. That was at the personal whim of the chief constable. So far as I and many other citizens of Manchester could see, it was totally outwith the rule of law. However, because he was waging a campaign against pornography, very little public criticism could be attached to it, and in some quarters it was supported.
He then ordered his officers to raid the working men's clubs. Those are clubs in which local community and working men can drink after hours. Such clubs have membership requirements. The custom and practice was that the membership requirements were not strongly enforced. James Anderton determined, again personally, that such a practice should not be tolerated. His officers raided the working men's clubs and threatened closure of those in which non-members were allowed to drink. Because of the distribution of the Labour Party working men's clubs in Manchester, that was seen to be an attack on working men and on the clubs of the Labour Party. Again, some circles in Manchester almost applauded—until the police began then to raid the Conservative clubs. Those are similar organisations with late night drinking for local Conservatives and other members of the community. Conservative politicians then realised that this was a person who would not just have a go at working men and pornography but who was intent on doing his own thing. They realised that he was out of control.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. Is he aware that he is making a personal attack upon an individual outside this House

319
who has no chance to answer him? If he were in another place, he would be made to justify every remark he passes on the honour of a public servant.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I appreciate the point that the noble Viscount raises. One of the difficulties in dealing with the subject is not to bring personalities into it. I take the advice of the noble Viscount. In my subsequent remarks I shall endeavour not to bring individual personalities into it. The noble Viscount is right.
In the early 1980s, this country was subjected to a fairly vicious recession. Vast swathes of manufacturing industry in particular were laid waste. Mass unemployment resulted, in particular in northern areas and in London. We had riots in Brixton, Toxteth and Moss Side. Living only a mile and a half from Moss Side, my experience was that those were not spontaneous riots. Subsequent information is that what started as a smash and grab incident—a shop window being broken and someone reaching in to grab something—developed into generalised criminality because of the lack of police response. It was described as a riot. Subsequent police actions effectively made the situation worse.
Subsequent information is that it was a deliberate act by the police to signify to the local community—local councillors and MPs—that the police were necessary, important and significant public servants. They deliberately did not initially attend the incident for some hours on the basis that the problem would escalate and then the civil authorities would demand that the police take action. The police would take action and the position of the police would be justified.
That attitude equates poorly with the argument on the accountability of the police. Perhaps I may tell noble Lords of my own experience. Standing in my front garden, I saw vanloads of police driving past on their way to Moss Side with officers shouting through the windows and leaning out of the back of the van, saying, "We are off to give them another good hiding". Those are not experiences that I wish ever to see repeated.
My third example refers to the miners' disputes. In 1984–85 many policemen across the country thought that it was Christmas, birthday time and Easter all rolled into one. They were making money hand over fist and seemingly indulging in the exercise that they like best, which is running around in vans and beating people up. Allusion has already been made in the debate to the miners' dispute and the damage that it caused in certain communities.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. On reflection would he like to withdraw the statement that what the police most like to do is to run around and beat people up?
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I am sorry if I was misunderstood. I hoped to explain that that was the impression given to a number of people: that that is what the police like doing. I do not believe that that is
320
true of the vast majority of policemen in this country. Unfortunately it appeared that way to a number of people at that time.
Those three experiences demonstrate to my mind the problems due to the size and the lack of accountability of the police force. It is interesting that over the past few years, the attitudes and views of police forces, police officers and chief constables seem to have shifted. I give an example of what I described earlier as positive good practice. Wythenshawe, in the south of Manchester, has been described as the largest council estate in Europe. It was an overspill, built on the outskirts of Manchester just before and just after the war for slum clearance purposes. It is a homogeneous community; people think of themselves as Wythenshawe people. It has all the characteristics of the inner city, with poverty, unemployment and, until a couple of years ago, a rising crime rate such as has been experienced right across the country.
A few years ago, the police force local boundaries were reorganised within the Greater Manchester police and a particular division came to cover the whole of the local conurbation of Wythenshawe. At the same time, a new chief superintendent took up post with fairly radical ideas on relationships with the community and the public. He engaged in a dialogue with his senior officers, with local councillors and members of the local community. He developed an atmosphere of trust and respect, to a certain extent.
The result has been a reduction in the crime rate in Wythenshawe. It was not terribly significant, but set against the increase in the crime rate nationally, bearing in mind the increase due to the latest recession, with unemployment and poverty, we can see that it has been a considerable achievement. To my mind, that is a positive and significant result of a specific action by the police who related to the local community and became accountable, and were seen to be accountable to the community.
I am sorry I have spoken for so long but we now come to the Government's proposals for the police which seem to take them in completely the opposite direction from the one which our experience and advice, received over the past few years, would suggest. The idea of creating larger and larger police forces, with the Government appointing chairs of police authorities and significant numbers of members of the authorities, runs totally counter to the concept of local accountability which can be so beneficial not only for the crime rate but for the stature and status of the police, and also for aspects of the local community.
I argue that we should go in the other direction. We should not seek to reduce the size of the police force, because that would be misinterpreted. We should increase the number of police forces and improve their accountability to the local community.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating and thanking the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, upon his initiative in raising in his Motion and his speech important constitutional issues. I regret that from time to time we

321
have appeared to drift away from the main theme. I have a high regard for my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and my noble friend the Minister of State. I know that, for their part, they have a high regard for the police and the service they render to the community.
However, I feel that, while their proposals for reform of the structure of the police authorities are no doubt prompted by the best of intentions, they have unfortunately met with a degree of criticism which might largely have been avoided. Of course, no change, not even change for the better, is accomplished without difficulty. But not all change is for the better and it is certainly unwise to attempt it when one has nothing more than—with due respect to those who occupy such high positions—the blessings of the mandarins in Whitehall. The introduction to the House this afternoon of the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, reminded me of what happened after the noble Lord, Lord Jay, as President of the Board of Trade, made his famous observation that, "The gentleman in Whitehall really does know best". That prompted the first Earl of Woolton to coin the slogan, "Town hall, not Whitehall". Like this debate, I believe that the Conservative Party and the Tory Party have drifted away from that original slogan.
The purpose of the Motion is to draw attention in particular:
"to the proposal that the Government should appoint the chairman and some other members of the police authorities".
Like the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I particularly regret the proposed reduction in the number of locally elected members of the new police authorities and the appointment of the chairman by the Home Secretary. I regard that as yet another regrettable erosion of local accountability.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to continental practices and reminded me of how Professor Hayek, in his famous book The Road to Serfdom, said:
"You cannot have real, effective democracy without real, effective, local self government".
He spoke from his experience of what happened in Germany before the war, when the duly elected mayor of Cologne, Mr. Adenauer, was not thought to represent the people as. well as someone like Mr. Krupp, for example, who had, no doubt, local managerial expertise at his disposal.
I share the view of those who believe that locally elected democratic accountability is fundamental for effective policing by consent. I should like to quote from a letter which Mr. S. J. Day, Chairman of the Police Committee of the Association of County Councils, sent to the Home Secretary on 8th January. It seems to me to summarise the position more effectively than I can:
"In any reorganisation of the constitution of police authorities there should be no dilution of the scale of responsibilities of democratically elected local authority members, who should predominate in at least the present proportions.
Elected members do of course come from all sections of the community, including the business sector, although in their capacity as members of local or police authorities they represent the community as a whole, rather than their particular sectoral interest. Voluntary bodies and local business communities have a legitimate interest in the work of
322
a police authority, and can make a valuable contribution. However, if representatives of those sectors were to be members of police authorities, as such, as distinct from local consultative committees, measures will be necessary to guard against the exercise of self-interest in their decisions. Subject to this qualification, the [Association of County Councils] accepts that such representatives could be included among the non-elected members, together with representatives of the Magistracy. Non-elected members should however be co-opted or appointed locally as is presently the case with magistrate members and not centrally appointed, in order to preserve the local aspect of policing".
That is to say nothing of the danger of appointments on a political basis by whatever party may happen to be in power.
There are just one or two other matters which cause me concern. One is taking any action which might anticipate or predict the Local Government Commission's recommendations. For example, any eventual review of force size should not be restricted to possible amalgamations. It should take a broad view of other possibilities such as smaller forces which might better reflect local communities.
The noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, made the point that he came from Somerset. I too have been approached by the Somerset authorities, since I now live in that part of the world. Also, because I represented Hexham for some time in the other place, the Northumberland police authority has made much the same points to me. It says that an all-party attitude has been adopted. There is very grave concern about the increase in crime, particularly in rural areas, and the often inequitable sharing of resources between urban and rural areas. That is arguably the case in relation to the Avon and Somerset police authority. Perhaps that authority should be split rather than amalgamated with another body.
I do not want to dwell on the changes to be made in the finances of police authorities, to which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, referred. I have made my views on standard spending assessments and rate capping known on many other occasions. Certainly the finances of police authorities need reform. I took particular note of what the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, said in his very powerful speech about the observations of the Audit Commission. I hope that the Home Secretary will take account of the more recent report of the Audit Commission, appropriately entitled Passing the bucks, which finds considerable faults in the standard spending assessment system, which both confuses the public and leads to cosmetic and not very satisfactory accountability.
I noted with considerable satisfaction that the Home Secretary, at the conclusion of his Statement in the other place on 23rd March, indicated that government policy had not been finalised. I am sure that the Minister of State will confirm that again this evening. He went out of his way to ask interested parties to make their views known. I believe that in this case, as in many others, real and effective consultation is vital to the success and the acceptability of any reforms of this nature. I hope that this debate and the other representations that have been made by, among others, the Association of County Councils and individual police authorities will

323
help the Home Secretary to find a satisfactory conclusion to his deliberations of a kind that will command general support.
5.42 p.m.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, it is a very great pleasure and privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, with whom I served in another place. For the first time today I heard the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, speaking in this House. I listened with respect to him in another place, as I have today. I join with noble Lords in expressing deep gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for the masterly way in which he introduced this subject today. He had obviously done careful research. All of us have been approached by many bodies about this subject.
I should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Trevor, who is from North Wales and who made his maiden speech today. It was a speech well worth hearing. Unless I am very much mistaken, one of his distant forebears was once Speaker of the House of Commons. If that is true, it means—if I may digress for just one second—that the House of Commons has had two honourable Members with Welsh constituencies elected to the Chair of the House. The first was the forebear of the noble Lord, Lord Trevor. After the Commons had been meeting for 300 years it decided that it would choose a Welshman. After him it took another 300 years before I had my turn. I listened with pride to the way in which the noble Lord spoke in the House today. I hope that we shall hear him very often.
The first job I had was that of junior Minister at the Home Office. That was 19 years ago. It was a very different world then. When the allocation of duties was shared out among the junior Ministers, I found that I had the general department, immigration and police. That gave me an insight into the problems of our police service.
Secondly, I should inform the House that so far in this debate I am the only former policeman to speak. I had the privilege throughout the war years of serving in the police force. I reached the height of sergeant. We voted on such matters in the Rhondda Valley. That was why I was there. To have worn the uniform and looked at one's community through the eyes of a policeman is very different from sitting here and pronouncing in very serious tones on what policemen are like and what they should do. I say to the noble Lord who was critical of van-loads of police going to where there was trouble, that of course there are policemen who are not of the same high standard as is generally accepted. Not all Members of this House are the same. Our virtues are not the same—and, thank goodness, neither are our vices. The police force is not a matter for party consideration. It would be a dreadful day for Britain if the police force became a party football, or if either side tried to make it appear to be on its side.
It takes a clever man to upset the police force and local government at the same time. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, I do not underestimate the Home Secretary. He has a rare gift—one which is very
324
important in politics—for arousing emotion, as well as for challenging the intellect. There is no doubt at all that throughout England and Wales the police are now anxious. That is bad for the country. It cannot be good. As for consultation, as the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, reminded us, the White Paper is due in June. We shall be listened to a great deal, I am sure. I wish that the Government would resort once again to Green Papers, whereby they could garner opinions before they finally formed their own. After all, both this House and the other place have accumulated wisdom. We have a contribution to make. Every government department, in my experience, will take more powers to itself if these Houses do not themselves assert an opinion.
I do not want to be at all unfair to the Home Secretary. I might have sounded a bit rough on him. I know that he is well capable of looking after himself, but I do not wish to do him an injustice. But I want him to listen and to move cautiously. In the judgment of the county councils, under the guise of managerial reforms major changes to the British Constitution are proposed. If we weaken local responsibility even further, we shall change the very character of British public and social life. Local government is much older than parliamentary government. There was a Lord Mayor of London 200 years before there was a Speaker of the House of Commons. Today, local government is under fire. The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, naturally loyal and kind to his own side, indicated a certain unease about the attitude toward those who carry local responsibility.
The proposed new police authorities will be highly unresponsible bodies. As we have been reminded, they will draw 90 per cent. of their finance from Her Majesty's Government. They can precept the other 10 per cent. and make councillors add it on to the rates that have to be paid.
To whom are they responsible for even a penny? They are responsible only to the Government. All that the local authorities will be able to do is accept their demand—the Minister can correct me if I am wrong. They will have to accept the precept which the new police authority will be able to put upon them. That being so, there are bound to be fierce rows and arguments.
When I prepared for this debate, I reminded myself that every bobby has a number on his shoulder. I recall an occasion when a policeman had been helping me on the M.4 motorway. As I was writing down his number, he looked at me and asked, "What are you doing?" I said, "This is a free country. I am writing down your number. You know that your number is for us and not for you. It is for the public to be able to identify the bobby with whom they have been dealing. As a matter of fact I always send a letter of thanks to the chief constable if anybody has helped me. So you will not lose out on it." I hope that he did not.
I know that our democracy depends on the quality and the loyalty of the police force. Without it the bully boys would take over. Democracy is possible only because we have a police force which has the feel of the community. I agree with the noble Lord that it is

325
dangerous beyond measure to play with that. The proposals to which the Home Secretary referred on 23rd March are not little proposals. These are major proposals. I wish that he would delay until further consultation has taken place.
5.56 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, following
that impassioned plea on behalf of the police, I shall obviously have difficulty in rising to such heights of eloquence. I made a speech about this topic only a month ago, on 21st April. Inevitably I shall repeat many of the points that I made then about the democratic deficit and the Home Secretary's plans.
The Home Secretary has declared that the objectives of his proposed reforms are to encourage the devolution of responsibility to local police units and to make force headquarters co-ordinators and supporters, not commanders, of local policing. That devolution of power and decision-making to the local level is a highly desirable objective since it is only at the local level, as has been said by numerous noble Lords, that policing can be responsive to the needs of the local community.
During the past 10 years, since some of the events described by my noble friend Lord Monkswell, considerable progress has been made by the police service in the direction toward greater community policing and greater local accountability. Chief inspectors and superintendents in charge of police divisions have been encouraged to be more autonomous and more flexible in their response to local needs and problems. Most problems occur at the level of community needs on housing estates, in shopping centres or in other urban equivalents of villages. Above that level patterns of crime, traffic or drunken hooliganism become averaged into apparent homogeneity.
Mr. Clarke, however, sets out to achieve his objective of greater devolution through the contradictory mechanism of seizing all power over the police service and transferring it to the centre of government, as the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, said. To place the police service effectively under the control of the Home Office seems to be a totally paradoxical and contradictory way of achieving his objective. It removes all local accountability and democratic communication. I fear that that will be a recipe for either anarchy at local level in the police service—what is known as front line deviation—or dictatorial control from the centre. One cannot determine what is happening locally if' one is as far removed as the Home Office from the local beat or the local community. I therefore fear that Mr. Clarke will set out to achieve dictatorial control but will inevitably produce anarchy within the police service.
To underpin his plans the Home Secretary intends to set national objectives. Those will inevitably be meaningless at local level if they are as bland as, for example, injunctions to reduce crime or to improve the flow of traffic. Objectives set at that sort of level are quite pointless. Only local objectives set within the context of local policing can be effective.
326
For the past few years Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary have been trying to develop common performance indicators for the police service. What is new about the Home Secretary's plans is that he now proposes to convert those indicators into league tables, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. One would have thought that the problems that occurred in the education system through attempting to introduce league tables for schools might have given him pause for thought; or is it intended that the police force will have to compete for customers, like schools and the gas boards?
In the past there have been problems with the tripartite system of accountability set up by the 1964 Police Act. But at least that system was arrived at after a Royal Commission and has stood the test of time—nearly 30 years. Some police authority chairmen in the past clashed with chief constables on openness and accountability and the limits of operational independence. Some chief constables perhaps resented having to provide information to police authorities. But during the past few years those problems have largely been eliminated. Increasingly effective and fruitful partnerships have developed between police forces and their police authorities, leading to initiatives in the community which have reduced crime and improved the quality of life for local people.
Some police authorities are still too loosely constituted. They meet infrequently and rarely ask for special reports from their chief constables. Some chief constables still have too high an opinion of their own unaided judgment. However, those are problems that could be overcome while retaining the essential principle of local democratic accountability. For example, the Home Secretary could legislate to limit the size of the police authority or allow it to co-opt non-executive members with particular skills of accountancy or personnel management. He could lay down rules about sub-committees and the regularity of meetings. A study made in 1980, for example, found that more than half the police authorities met only four times a year.
I cannot but view the Home Secretary's objectives as being other than part of the present Government's long-standing and vindictive vendetta against local authorities—all the more so, if the report in yesterday's Evening Standard is to be believed, if the Home Secretary has already abandoned his ideas to have local authority representatives on the proposed police authority for London.
For many years I have been an advocate for having some democratic accountability for the Metropolitan Police. When we still had the Greater London Council it was possible to imagine some such body with constituent members from the GLC and the London boroughs. It is much harder, without a strategic authority for the whole of this great city, to imagine a police authority for London. Nevertheless, what the Home Secretary was originally planning seemed to have some small element of local democracy in it. If he is now to have an entirely appointed advisory board of the Metropolitan Police, that is extremely sad. His original plans were welcomed by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and I imagine that he will be as

327
disappointed as I am that all that the Home Secretary will do is to reinforce his own hand and not to increase democracy for the people of London.
I believe also that the Home Secretary's attack on the police service and on police authorities is largely intended as a smokescreen to divert the attention of the public from the real underlying cause of crime, which is the encouragement of greed and selfish self-centredness that have become the national ethos over the past 14 years.
In outlining his plans to police representatives, I was amused to notice the Home Secretary's tactics. When addressing chief constables he stresses the measures he will take to eliminate lazy and incompetent constables, implying that crime levels are so high because they have failed to catch the criminals. When addressing constables and sergeants at the Police Federation conference last week, however, he suggested that the problem was the dead weight of ineffective and democratic management that was inhibiting their crime-fighting abilities. When addressing the nation at large he suggests that the whole police service needs reorganising.
When I spoke last month of the Home Secretary's plans, my chief concern was the loss of democratic accountability of the police authority through his appointment of five out of the 16 members and of his choice of the paid chairman. Since then I have realised the extent to which his plans would also undermine the position and operational independence of chief constables, thus transferring even more power to the Home Office.
Chief constables will be undermined in the following ways. First, it is proposed that they will be appointed on short-term contracts which will be renewable on the say-so of the police authorities—not exactly a recipe for independence of thought or action, especially when the chairman is a paid Home Office appointee. Secondly, there will undoubtedly be regular meetings between the Home Secretary and the 22 or so paid police authority chairmen if the proposed amalgamations go ahead. That will exclude chief constables from real influence and strategic decision-making. Thirdly, if for some reason the chief constable and the police authority chairman disagree, the Home Office will no longer be able to act as a neutral referee and will undoubtedly support the Home Secretary's appointee.
At present the relationship between the chief constable and his police authority chairman is crucial. If it breaks down, the chief constable can appeal to the Home Office or to Her Majesty's inspectorate for support. That would no longer apply, and chief constables, who may have more regard than politicians or businessmen for the rule of law and the practicalities of policing, will be in a greatly weakened position.
The proposed police authorities may also work to the disadvantage of the public in other ways. Combined police authorities—presumably there will be more of those if amalgamations take place—already experience stresses and strains due to competing demands. Curiously enough, it is Avon and
328
Somerset with which I have most contact, as has already been mentioned by previous speakers. I know that Somerset County would like to have its own police force again because its officers are continually being removed to deal with crises in the policing of Bristol, such as riots, murders or football matches. Force headquarters and their police authorities tend to be based in large conurbations and therefore see the problems of urban policing as more important than those of policing the countryside. That imbalance would be exacerbated in larger forces.
Rarely have I seen such unified opposition to a Home Secretary's plans for the police service—not just the municipal authorities but also the county councils. The Police Federation, the Police Superintendents Association and the Association of Chief Constables are united in their condemnation of this seizure of power by the centre. Perhaps I may quote from the paper issued by the chief constables after their spring conference this year. It states:
"it is vital that … great care is taken to retain those important elements which underpin the constitutional position of policing in this country—which enables the police to be of the people, not of the state … the relationship between policing and the community, made legitimate through the authority's accountability to the local electorate, must not be lost".
It is that relationship which is being jeopardised by the Home Secretary's plans. I ask the noble Earl when he replies to say how he expects that degree of local democracy and accountability to be retained.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I shall resist with difficulty the temptation to answer some of the highly politicised remarks of the noble Baroness. The speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, made me extremely sad. I am a quarter Welsh and it seems that perhaps I should not have taken the voluntary decision to leave the other place; I might have stood a chance of being the third part-Welsh Speaker in that House. But he put an idea into my mind and I am grateful to him.
Like many other noble Lords, I have had close contact with the police since I first became a member of Hampstead Borough Council in 1949. Many rising stars passed through Hampstead; for example, Richard Wells, who is now the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. Another was Alison Halford, whose career was sadly cut short by some small-minded vicious people in the Merseyside area. The police service sadly misses someone of her calibre.
I too received the briefing paper from the AMA. I do not see the proposals of Mr. Kenneth Clarke with quite the degree of horror that it does. For example, it says that:
"The Home Secretary will appoint and pay a member to chair each force, who will as a consequence be accountable to him rather than to the authority".
I was deputy chairman of the old AMC. Any chairman of an authority will act under statute, not under the direction of a specific Minister. I believe that that is a degree of unnecessary scaremongering and does not do credit to the AMA.
That is one reason why I do not object to many of the proposals in Mr. Kenneth Clarke's suggestions to reduce the number of local authority representatives.

329
However, I positively welcome his apparent change of plans regarding who will control the Metropolitan Police. Those of us who have spent a lifetime in local government in London recognise that the prospect of some form of elected body to run the Metropolitan Police would be anathema. I held that view long before the rise of the Lambeth phenomenon. I hope therefore that my noble friend Lord Ferrers will be able to say that the rumour in the Evening Standard is correct. It will be welcomed by the vast majority of Londoners. Those who believe that Londoners sadly miss an elected body ought to know that in the marginal constituency that I represented over the years I received only seven letters from people objecting to the disappearance of the GLC.
I want to concentrate for a moment on one specific aspect, the City of London. I do not believe that it would be right for me not to mention to my noble friend that I hope that, for the sake of tidiness, no one is going to suggest abolishing or amalgamating the City of London Police. That would be a grave mistake. I remind your Lordships that the Royal Commission in 1962 said this:
"The City of London has an importance and position out of all relation to its size. In the field of policing, its problems arc unique and specialised. It has to contend with a daily influx of three-quarters of a million people; it has to protect some of the most valuable property in the world; and it has been forced to develop in a very high degree means of combating crime in technical fields, such as company fraud".
I believe that one needs just to look for a moment to see how far that should go. Besides reasons of tradition, there are many practical reasons why the City of London Police should not be touched. First, there is the question of uniqueness. It has to carry out many difficult tasks. It has special protection responsibilities, a point mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees. Events of immense international prestige attract members of royalty, overseas leaders and many other people. All of these events have security implications which require rigorous pre-planning.
Furthermore, because of the high degree of tension over many trials-2,000 of them in 1992—the Old Bailey requires special police protection, and on the occasion of trials involving terrorism, additional policing is required. The force has to combat terrorism. Anyone who watched the City police after the Bishopsgate bomb would have nothing but the highest admiration for what they did. Perhaps I may say, incidentally, that I hope that the events that followed the Bishopsgate bomb will kill any idea of not leaving Bart's with a 24-hour accident and emergency service.
There is also the problem of fraud, which centres, obviously, on the City. Here again the City police have responded with immense sophistication to combating fraud. Whether one looks at the success rate they have had in actual numbers or whether one looks at what they have achieved, I am sure that your Lordships will be interested to know that money lost or at risk from fraud in the City in 1992 amounted to some £514 million, of which, thanks to the efforts of the City police, £493 million was actually recovered.
330
Is the force effective? The Inspector of Constabulary in 1991 referred to a very busy force, with far wider operational commitments than the casual observer would actually anticipate. I believe that the case for retaining the City of London police as a separate force is made out over and over again, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will go a little further than the Home Secretary has gone. The Home Secretary has not actually said that he completely rejects any idea of amalgamating the City police. Precedents exist for special legislation covering the City of London. I believe that it should be possible for my noble friend to give some comfort to me on this issue.
Other occasions will arise when one can talk about the interaction of local government and the police force in various parts of the country. There have been examples of very good co-operation; there have been examples of very bad co-operation. I need only mention Derbyshire to point to your Lordships that it is not always a good thing to have a majority of local authority representatives on a police authority. In the City one has the ideal combination that the Home Secretary is asking for. I believe it is important to have that kind of mix available when one is considering a new police authority.
Of course, it is always better to wait to see a White Paper. I agree with those who have said that perhaps a Green Paper would have been even more helpful. The trouble nowadays is that Green Papers take a long time to prepare. They require an even longer time for consultation. A White Paper, therefore, has some advantages if one is looking for a sensible way of changing the police structure. Changing the police structure does not, in my judgment, involve tampering with the Constitution. Those who say so have not, I believe, examined Dicey or any other expert on the British unwritten Constitution. No one has suggested the creation of a national police force.
Of course it would be ideal if the various police authorities were able to concentrate on some of the most important issues. For that reason meetings between the Home Secretary and the new chairmen of police authorities must be invaluable. As a former health Minister, I found meetings with health authority chairmen extremely valuable, but it was not laying down for them a national policy that they had to follow. It was pointing out the strategy that was acceptable in the field of the resources being allocated to that service. There is no reason why the Home Secretary should not have meetings similar to those he has now with chief constables, so that one gets the interplay of the professional and, as it were, the political, with a small "p", chairmen of authorities. I have no doubt at all that those chairmen will be selected on the basis of their merit
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Finsberg Lord Finsberg:—and of a wide cross-section of political opinion.
Perhaps I may say to those on the other side of the House that when I became the junior environment Minister, one of my tasks was to look at appointments to various bodies. I took one chunk and found that in

331
that chunk there were three times as many known Labour supporters as Conservative supporters. I do not remember any abject apologies from the party opposite on that point. I have enough faith in this Government, and in the next Conservative Government which I hope will follow them, that they will select people on their abilities to be good chairmen of police authorities.
One message must go out from this House. It is that we are all united in believing that the police in this country, an unarmed force, do a first-class job. They deserve our full support and I believe that the public would want us to give that message of support.
6.16 p.m.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, one advantage of being low down in the batting order is that one can have one hit and can be brief. That I shall attempt to do. I think that the hit might be against the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, because I disagreed with virtually everything he said.
I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, on bringing this debate to the House, and it was wonderful to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, and the noble Lords, Lord Merlyn-Rees and Lord Rippon, speak from three sides, united in their views.
I was vice-chairman of the police committee of the County Council Association and at one time I was on the Police Council. My main claim to fame was getting the boot allowance incorporated into the wages structure. In Hampshire the police authority has 24 elected members; 20 from Hampshire and four from the Isle of Wight; and there are four magistrates; eight from Hampshire and two from the Isle of Wight. The chairman is always a member of Hampshire County Council; the deputy chairman is from the Isle of Wight; and the vice-chairman is from Hampshire. Not only the police authority itself but also the Association of Chief Police Officers remain committed to being accountable locally and to being an integral part of the local government system.
It is perfectly reasonable to accept the concept of co-opting a small number of members but this should be done by the authority itself. They should not be nominated by the Home Secretary. Local accountability, however, can be assured only if elected members continue to form the majority of the authority's membership. I believe that it is very important—underline "very important"—that the chairman be appointed from among the elected members and not by the Home Secretary. I hope very much that the Minister, when he winds up the debate, will give us some indication as to whether he sympathises with the view expressed pretty well unanimously all round the House today.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for introducing this debate. There was only one slightly discordant note which jarred on me because he made reference to the Government giving
332
in to pressure from a few MPs in the other place. I must say that as a former Whip I do find that rather deplorable. I draw your Lordships' attention to the latest edition of the House of Commons Weekly Information Bulletin which, being the 500th edition, takes a little trip down memory lane. On page 5 it gives the state of the parties in the House of Commons on 2nd November 1978. Out of a total of 635 Members there were only 308 Labour MPs. But we still formed the Government and we still kept going. I certainly did not allow my colleagues to give in to the pressure of a few Members of Parliament. So I hope that that will stiffen up the Government's arm.
Like so many others who have spoken, I too have been approached by the Avon and Somerset police. I am very glad to lend my support to them, particularly as I live in the area and I need to keep in good standing with them. But they say that they support the general remarks made by the Association of County Councils. I shall not weary your Lordships by going over a number of points which have already been made more than adequately. But, clearly, the question of more local control is going to enhance confidence. Although I am not well versed in financial matters, I understand that local financial control is also to be welcomed because it is possible to have the money disposed to the best advantage.
One thing which I am not so sure about is the question of league tables of performance because it seems to me to be a two-edged sword. If it is seen in one particular authority that there is a fairly low clear-up rate of crime, then surely there will be a migration of criminals to that area because they will know that they will stand a much better chance of getting away with it. It is almost like the pre-war days when I was told as a boy that tramps and other mendicants going around well-heeled areas used to put signs on gateposts indicating information for others of their kind either that there was a vicious dog on the premises or that the people were a soft touch and always good for a cup of tea and a wad. As my noble friend Lady Hilton said, it is a very great difficulty to equate one area with another because inner city problems cannot be put on a par with those in rural areas.
I would like to reinforce the plea for the retention of a number of locally elected councillors on these authorities because I believe that it is very important that this link is maintained. I do not know whether it is generally known, but from conversations with Members on my own side and with others on the Government side of the House, I understand there is much more difficulty now in getting people to go onto panels of potential candidates for local government service. I shall not go into the possible reasons for that, but I believe that to be a fact. Anything which tends to devalue the contribution of the locally-elected councillors is to be resisted very strongly.
Other noble Lords have dealt with the difficulties of more central control and the possible threat to the service. I wish to dwell for a moment on the question of the police as a whole. If the police are not seen to be involved with the local community the effects can be disastrous. I am told that in the United States—in

333
Los Angeles, for example—the police are not involved so much with local affairs and therefore the opinion of the police is very much more moulded by the sort of incidents that we see on television and the accusations which are made against them.
The burden on the police is very much increased by such incidents. In a sense they have been used as a tool by the extreme Left and the extreme Right in recent years because we know that in industrial disputes, where there has been perfectly legitimate picketing, members of extremist groups such as the Workers' Revolutionary Party and various Trotskyite splinter groups have gone along deliberately to try to cause trouble and involve the police in unpleasant incidents. Similarly, I showed a map to the then Minister of Sport in the other place some time ago showing that there was a direct correlation between the football ground in London where there had been serious trouble and the votes obtained by National Front and British National Party candidates in the adjoining constituencies. So we have to realise that the police have a very difficult job.
When we talk about the police we are not actually talking about an amorphous mass, or just an anonymous body which can be pushed and prodded into whatever shape we fancy. We are actually talking about some 180,000 men and women who have consciously and deliberately taken the decision to join the force and to render service to the community. We have to ask ourselves whether we are going to go on getting people who are prepared to give that kind of service to the community if the current tendencies in society become worse.
I am told that regularly on television in the United States in the commercial breaks advertisements already appear, from law firms, that are particularly directed against the medical community. Those advertisements say—and I have been given this as a quotation:
"If you or a loved one think that you may have been the victims of medical negligence or wrongdoing, give us a call".
There is then mention of a particular firm.
"We will fight for you until you have been awarded everything that you deserve in a court of law".
This tide of litigation against professional people and those who are making a conscientious decision on the basis of the best available knowledge is a very serious threat to the structure of our community services. I believe that the police are no exception to that danger.
Already there is difficulty in recruiting people to go into the specialism of gynaecology. There are other branches of medicine where increasing litigation is occurring. I am told that in the United States, and to some extent in Canada, some professional consultants now have to pay out something like one-third of their income in order to get insurance to cover possible medical claims. That cannot be a healthy state of affairs. Nobody wishes to deny the right of redress to someone who has suffered a wrong, but that can be carried too far and become a positive deterrent to people entering a service such as the police. The medical profession, the social services, and all other services where there is a sense of vocation and purpose, are in jeopardy because of this increasing litigation.
334
Personal litigation is on a micro-scale—I have to be careful with these technical terms. On a macro-scale I believe that we are beginning to get more use of people forcing public inquiries and using all kinds of objections to hold up economic developments in various parts of the country. The irony is that the people who organise these things are usually prosperous upper or middle class people who have already reached a good standard of living by economic developments elsewhere in the country.
We must always bear in mind that the police are individuals: they have taken the decision to join the force. We must make sure that they are not the victims of persecution by various elements in society, but if there are to be changes in their conditions and organisation we must make sure that it is done with the fullest consultation with them and, wherever possible, with their fullest consent.
6.28 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for instigating this most important debate today concerning an area in which he has great experience. As a fellow Welshman and JP, and a fellow member of a police authority, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Trevor, on an excellent maiden speech.
This is such a fundamental issue that when it was powerfully brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, in the debate on local democracy in April, I, like many others, was surprised and disappointed when the Minister involved failed to touch on the topic at all in his summing up. After today, I believe that there will be no doubt in the Minister's mind of the importance that the House attaches to the subject.
I should make my position clear at the outset. As I said, I am currently a member of a large police authority and, as a magistrate, a non-elected member—which your Lordships may feel is not entirely a new experience for a Member of this House. However, I hope that it is not just through feelings of guilt that I oppose so vigorously the concept that the control of such authorities should in future lie in the hands of non-elected members, answerable only to the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
I propose tonight to confine my remarks to the proposals concerning police authorities. I am aware that, coming as I do at the end of an innings, most of the plums have already been pulled out of the pie, but important facts sometimes bear repetition. The practice of policing with the support and consent of local communities has a long and honourable tradition behind it in this country. As has been said, it is also almost certainly the chief reason why, despite some latterday hiccups, the police continue to be held in such high esteem. If that were to be removed in the misguided belief that it would increase efficiency, something very precious would be removed with it. I need hardly add that at a time of continuing high levels of crime in both urban and rural areas, that would be a considerable misjudgment on the part of the Government.

335
There were, it is true, some helpful initiatives in the Home Secretary's Statement in March, but one of them has been removed. There was the greater freedom of chief constables to establish their priorities rather than the Home Office doing it for them; there was the monitoring of performance against objectives. It was also a considerable relief to see the importance of the operational independence of chief constables emphasised, but there, I am afraid, the plaudits peter out.
What is being proposed is, in effect, the removal of police authorities from the area of local government—nothing more, nothing less. First, authorities are to become autonomous—that is, as far as their former county council parents are concerned. To the Government's credit, no attempt is made to disguise the fact that in future all strings will be pulled in the Home Office. It is yet another example of deadening central control where once there was healthy local independence.
Secondly, 91 per cent. of the authorities' money —and I must apologise to my noble friend Lord Tonypandy because I really do think that the figure is 91 per cent..—will come from central funds, with only 9 per cent. coming by way of council precepts.
Thirdly, finally and most devastatingly, local, democratically elected members will be reduced to a parity with non-elected ministerial appointees. Of course, elected councillors can be an irritant at times and in certain places. I have experienced what I may perhaps call "erratic behaviour". Somewhere, in this country of ours, at any one time, there is the "Ridiculous Right" as well as the "Loony Left". But that is the price that we pay—albeit through gritted teeth—for democracy.
Perhaps I may deal with the point about elected councillors in more detail. The Secretary of State said in another place of authorities:
"Their job will be to ensure that policing responds to local needs and concerns".—[Official Report, Commons. 23/3/93; col. 766.]
In my own county of Hampshire, the proposals will entail a reduction from 24 elected members to eight. That means that a member who currently represents the equivalent of 60,000 people will in future have to represent some 200,000 people—that is, three times the present number or, if one prefers, three times what might be regarded as the size of the electorate of an average parliamentary seat. Some response, some feedback!
Perhaps I may now turn to the appointees: five businessmen/managerial experts and true. I hope that noble Lords opposite will not mind when I say that this Government appear to have something of an obsession about businessmen and businesswomen. Supermen and Superwomen all, they can provide all the answers whether they serve on police authorities or magistrates' courts committees. Banish the thought that they might be better employed sorting out the problems of their own companies, many of them, it must be said, brought about by this very Government. No, their country needs them in foreign fields and, for many of them, they will undoubtedly be very foreign fields indeed. Like all good obsessions, however, it
336
ignores fact. Not all magistrates are antediluvian buffers. The House must not take me as an example. Some actually are businessmen and women—and quite good ones at that. As for police authorities, I can speak only for my own. Almost 50 per cent. of its members are drawn from the business world—not a good enough reason surely for removing democratic control from its proceedings.
The Government are also proposing that the chairman of an authority should in future be appointed by the Secretary of State. The chairman will have a casting vote on all but fiscal matters, thus ensuring endless problems between policy and resources. He will be answerable to the Secretary of State for the efficiency of the local force, but, quite rightly, must leave all operational responsibility to the chief constable. And to cap it all—rather an appropriate word in the circumstances-9l per cent. of its funding will come from central government. In any case, however, the chairman will not be able to vote on the 9 per cent. precept from local sources. As we are dealing with chairmen who are businessmen first and foremost, perhaps I should say that any businessman who accepted such a job in the hard-headed world of commerce—a job not of power without responsibility, but rather of responsibility without power—might well be thought a candidate for what is euphemistically known as the "funny farm".
We are told that these are only proposals and that a White Paper will follow. It is to be hoped that before then some of the following questions will be answered. Indeed, the noble Earl the Minister may, with his customary courtesy, of which I have had much experience, even supply some of the answers in the course of his summing up of the debate. Have the powers-that-be taken into account the funding implications of depriving authorities of the back-up services currently provided by county councils? Are appointed members to be reimbursed for their trouble and, if so, by whom? How are the authorities' reserves, critical in meeting the peaks and troughs of expenditure which are always a fact of life in the police service, to be built up? That is a particular concern in Hampshire because of the problems with New Age travellers. What new formula will be devised to set the standard spending assessment fairly, so that authorities such as my own, which have historically underspent, are not penalised? What are the legal implications of putting ownership of the police estate and the increasingly important employment of civilians under the chief constables? Those are just a few of the questions.
The debate has underlined two of the Government's most dominant characteristics. The first is their inherent belief that Whitehall knows best, and not the people on the ground. I really believe—and it pains me to say this—that this is the most centrist government of my lifetime. Secondly, this Government have surely developed patronage to a fine art. Let us, by our reasoned irrefutable arguments today, ensure that on the question of the future of the police authorities, the tide will be rolled back and local democracy preserved.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords—
Lord Rennell: My Lords, I apologise for speaking unannounced. I missed the inclusion limit by two minutes, and I shall be brief. The greatest worry and fear in our society today is the threat of violence to our families and the threat to the security of our possessions and our homes. I therefore welcome the proposal of my right honourable friend the Minister to reform the police service. My heart bleeds for the bobby on the beat. It seems to me that he is abused from every angle. He can expect it from hardened criminals, young and old, but why should he face that abuse from so many other quarters: New Age Travellers, football hooligans, political extremists, and even from households where it is assumed that the policeman is the enemy and not the friend?
Whenever dirty, unpleasant, unexpected and dangerous situations occur, it is the police who are called in. They do a wonderful job, and deserve every penny we can give them. Furthermore, they deserve and welcome the reforms which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will be proposing. A policeman spends 70 per cent. of his time on duties not directly connected with crime and the fighting of it. Police training costs are, and so they should be, high. It is absurd that, after all their training, only 30 per cent. of their time is spent fulfilling their proper role. That type of problem will be tackled.
Many of your Lordships have expressed concern over plans for the composition of the new police authorities. One wonders from where the five or so members of the local community will come, and how competent they will be. On the other hand, the de-politicising of the police authority can be no bad thing. It will give a broader representation of the local community. I read nothing sinister into the fact that the Secretary of State should nominate the five local people and the chairman of the police authority. The Government have, after all, been elected to govern. Indeed, in the event, in the distant future, of a change of government I am sure that noble Lords opposite, or wherever, will be delighted to take over a strong health service, a flourishing education system, and a modern and effective police service.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, for rising to my feet at the same time as he did. One is usually informed if someone is going to speak in the gap. Something must have gone wrong with the machinery.
Speaking after the gap is usually a nice job. One has an opportunity to pick up what one's opponents have said, and to contradict it. But in this debate we have had virtual agreement, with the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, whose arguments were slightly flawed since the only authority that he wanted to keep democratic in London was that of the City of London. The rest of it was not to be kept democratic. I did not see the logic of that argument or that the chairmen would not be biased by having been appointed by the Home Secretary, because they would
338
have been appointed under statute. The problem is whether they would be re-appointed if they differed from the Home Secretary. There was not too much in that argument that I need to answer.
Those of your Lordships who know Dickens's Our Mutual Friend will remember the character Sloppy. His great virtue was, as his guardian said:
"He do the police in different voices".
It was a remark taken up by T. S. Eliot, and used later in, I believe, Sweeney Agonistes. It comes originally from Dickens. It is one of the problems we face when we are dealing with the tricky system of the police. The police are seen by people to be speaking in different voices. It is not that they do, but that they are seen to do so. When I was last arrested some 10 years ago, the officer arresting me assured me, in front of witnesses, that he was not arresting me. He took me to the police station and made me surrender the contents of my pockets and put me in a cell. I was already a Member of your Lordships' House. I had, therefore, some self confidence. My criminal record was relatively minor. (The first time I went to jail I was bailed by the noble Lord, Lord Dacre. The second time I went to jail I was defended successfully by my noble friend Lord Hutchinson.) I did not have a great criminal record. On this occasion I was innocent of any offence. Indeed, the police were unable to find any offence with which to charge me. What happened was that I was responsible for collecting evidence which is now being examined by your Lordships' Select Committee on Medical Ethics. That was considered to be a dangerous operation.
Yet, although I knew that I was innocent; I knew that I had only a minor criminal record; I knew that I was a Member of your Lordships' House; and I knew that I was an ordained member of the clergy of the Church of England, I was frightened. I imagine that if any of your Lordships had been arrested in a similar way you would also have been frightened. The police seem suddenly menacing. If I, with my advantages, was frightened, what about other people?
The police are seen by the general public to be speaking with different voices. One voice is that of nanny: helpful, moral and protective. Another, probably irrationally, is seen to be rather more frightening. The relationship of ordinary citizens to the people who govern them (to us, to the police, to whoever it may be) is always subject to traumas caused by the awareness of those different voices. The ordinary man in the street, on the whole, trusts members of the Cabinet, although he may disagree strongly with what they do, and hate the laws they pass. Nevertheless, he does not think of them as terrible villains. The reason that he does not is that we have a chain of connections through society so that we all know someone who knows someone who knows someone who says, "Despite what you say, Norman Lamont is not a villain from outer space. He is really quite a nice man and he is kind to his dog". It is upon that that democracy depends. It is all the more important that it depends upon that when one is dealing with the police, because the police are seen as rather more threatening than Mr. Lamont. One

339
therefore has to have the connection of being in touch with whoever knows the police and whoever is in charge of them.
That is the basic importance of the democratic control of the police authority. Everyone in the House, with two possible exceptions, has talked in favour of that democratic control. The proposals which have been put forward, and are being put forward, touch upon that sensitive area. The proposals are dangerous. Such changes should go forward only after a depth of examination similar to that which was given in 1964. They are not to be thrown off at the tail end of a decaying government when something must be seen to be done and no one can quite think what. The case for the suggested changes are unproven. I suffer from the disadvantage that I have not yet heard from the noble Earl and I am sure that he will produce a manful defence of some kind. However, like many noble Lords, I cannot visualise what such a defence may be.
One case which is sometimes put forward is that local government is subject to extremism. I believe that that was the view of the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, as regards London; namely, that there may be extremists in charge. That might be so. As one of my noble friends has just remarked, that may be the price that one must pay. However, that price need not be paid because a small matter of electoral reform in local government would make certain that extremists were never in charge of any local government. (Perhaps I may say in passing that it would make certain also that Conservatives are properly represented on a number of local authorities. An example of that is Richmond, where only three out of 60 councillors are Conservative although the Conservatives have 47 per cent. of the vote. Conservatives might consider that such a measure would be to their benefit.) More importantly, it would be a safeguard against the only objection advanced against community control of the police force.
We should trust the people and the community. It is a system which has worked over a long period of time and, as I say, there are methods of making it work better. It should not be overturned at very short notice at the drop of a hat in an ill-considered measure.
6.52 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that at one or two stages of the debate I detected a hint of criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for introducing this Motion at this time. If that were so, I am bound to say that I believe that his initiative for bringing forward the Motion has been amply justified, not only in the timing but also in the subsequent content of the debate. As has been pointed out, only the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, gave any comfort whatever to the Government. I do not refer to the noble Lord who spoke in the gap because he did not give any notice that he was going to speak and I do not believe that that is in accordance with the customs of the House.
340
It is not only that there has been no active support for the Government in the debate but also that the opposition to the Government's proposals has come from all parts of the House. I refer in particular to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Trevor. His seemed to be the authentic voice of conservatism in the community. He made a very valuable contribution and did so in only four minutes. I suggest to the noble Lord that he has an oratorical credit in his cheque book and that if he cares to use up the remainder of his account, that would be extremely welcome.
Rather than criticise the timing of the debate, it is more appropriate to look at the timing of the Government's White Paper and the way in which it was trailed in the Commons Statement in March of this year. As I understand it, the Government are now proposing to issue a White Paper—not a Green Paper: there is no element of consultation involved—in the middle of June. The Sheehy Report into the organisation of the police force is to be published in late June and the report of the Runciman Royal Commission on Criminal Justice on 30th June. Therefore the Government are expressing their opinions on those extremely important matters before the public have had an opportunity to see the conclusions either of the lengthy and detailed Sheehy Report on the way the police is to be organised or—and I suggest that this is equally germane—the views of the first Royal Commission which we have had for many years on criminal justice. That seems an extraordinary piece of timing. That the Government are prepared to act in that way shows a considerable degree of contempt for public opinion.
The Motion before us concentrates on the organisation of police authorities and their political control. I shall devote most of my attention to that because it is important that we should not be diverted. At the same time, that cannot be done without referring to some extent to the way in which an effective and accountable police force can be achieved.
I am always rather suspicious of those who say about any issue with which they are concerned that it should be a above party. I believe that that is an excuse for saying, "My view should prevail regardless of whatever anybody else thinks". But my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees is right to say that it would be wrong for any political party to claim to be the party of law and order. Crime has been rising in this country since the war. It has risen under Labour and Conservative governments—I dare to think that it might even rise under a Liberal Democrat government—because the causes are social and too fundamental to be addressed readily by government action.
However, that does not mean that there are not ways in which the Government can help to improve the efficiency of the police force and help to secure that the police force devotes its efforts to matters which will enable it most effectively to combat crime. I say that not because I propose to embark on a debate on the efficiency of the police force but because the Government are proposing a particular measure; namely, a reduction in the number of police forces.
It is not just that smaller police forces cannot be shown to be less efficient than larger police forces. I

341
rather believe that the reverse is the case. My noble friend Lord Monkswell and the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, argued effectively for smaller and more locally accountable police forces rather than larger police forces.
It is also the case (is it not?) that the nature of the argument for larger police forces is distinctly fallacious. The Home Secretary applies what he calls the "helicopter test". He says that a police force should be of the size that when it has a helicopter, it does not spend most of its time sitting on the ground. The use of a helicopter is determined by the number of occasions on which it must be used, which will vary from one part of the country to another, and the distances which it must travel. There is a trade off between those two which has nothing to do with the size of the police force. If a police force is either too restricted, too small geographically or too peaceful to have a helicopter of its own, it can share it with another police force. That is what happens as regards the RAF air-sea rescue. That is what happens with most uses of complicated equipment. Many of the examples which have been given—notably that of the regional crime squads—show that it is possible to have that co-operation without allowing the size of the police force to be a determining factor. I am afraid that the helicopter test, as applied by the Home Secretary, is simply a vulgar error in argument.
We have had a lot of discussion about the structure and financing of police forces. It has always been my experience in local government that those who start to talk about structure before they start to talk about functions have it the wrong way round. It has always been my experience that until you have determined what is the job of any organisation—a local authority, a police force or a health authority—and the limits of its responsibilities, it is irrelevant to talk about structure. The Audit Commission's comments on the tripartite system, which I take seriously, as I take seriously all the views of the Audit Commission, simply do not address the issue, as I suggest they would normally do, in that way.
So we come to the most important issue of the debate; namely, the issue of the political control of the police force. Of course, there were good elements in what the Home Secretary said in March. My noble friend Lady Hilton referred to the proposals for delegation as being sound in objective. But the financing of a police force—and this is critical to the nature of the composition of the police authorities—is not the financing of a well controllable organisation.
By its nature, a police force has to be reactive. For example, there may be hugely expensive activities, such as the disturbances at the time of the miners' strike, the IRA bomb in Warrington or that in the City of London or, indeed—I know that some of my noble friends would not care for this to be said in the same breath—at large football matches, which cannot be isolated or anticipated. Yet, we have the curious situation proposed where the Home Secretary appoints a considerable part of the police authority. As has been said, he is responsible for 91 per cent. of the expenditure of the police authority on the police
342
service. He appoints a paid chairman to the police authority. The police authority, now out of the control of the local authority, sets its budget for the year. That budget goes into the local authorities' budgets for the area. If it exceeds the standard spending assessment, the Secretary of State for the Environment starts to take action and to cap the expenditure of the local authority, including the expenditure of the police authority.
Can we not cut out the middle man? Can it not just be done in a direct confrontation between Mr. Clarke and Mr. Howard? Do we need to have local people involved in the matter? The whole idea of having a paid chairman of a police authority, appointed by the Home Secretary, confronting, as my noble friend Lady Hilton rightly said, a chief constable—that is, if we expect the Sheehy recommendations on contract to be adopted—is inconceivable to me. It is inconceivable that there will not be the kind of conflict between policy and resources to which the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, referred. That is even if we assume, as we were invited to do by the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, that those appointments will be made without regard to politics. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, described himself as a political innocent. The noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, is certainly not politically innocent. If he believes that there will be anything other than Conservative Party members as chairmen of police authorities, he has another think coming.
There was a nice little article in The Times on Saturday in which a senior Minister was asked the question, "How will these chairmen of police authorities be appointed?" He replied, "No problem. He will go round to the Whips' Office, as we all do". That is exactly what will happen. It happens now with the training and enterprise councils; it happens with the health authorities, both regional and district; and it happens with all government appointments. We shall see it happening again. The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, was not exaggerating when he referred to the situation in Germany before the war when Konrad Adenauer was not acceptable as mayor of Cologne whereas Herr Krupp was considered acceptable.
The noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, who I am sorry to see is not in his place, made an effective plea for the chairman of the police authority to be appointed from among the councillors. I am afraid that that does not go far enough. Under a Conservative Home Secretary—if there is one—the danger is that there would be a Conservative councillor from County Durham or from Northumberland appointed there as chairman of the police authority, or in South Wales if that were possible. I fear that under a Labour Home Secretary there might be the same temptation. I hope that it would be resisted, but I do not think that anyone can be sure.
The debate goes to the heart of the relationship between central and local government. A number of speakers quoted the words of the joint declaration by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities (Labour led) and the Association of County Councils (then Conservative led) in February of this year. The local authority associations said that policing had to be carried out with the involvement and consent of the

343
community. I put it to your Lordships that, under the conditions proposed, the chairmen of the police authorities will be appointed centrally. They will have an enormous degree of authority over contract chief constables, and they will be able to rely on a considerable number of members appointed centrally from among local residents to represent the business community. Under those conditions there can be no involvement and consent of the community in the sense that the local authority would wish.
In a very effective speech, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred to the fear of extremists in local authorities. I have at least as good a reason—in fact, probably greater reason than he has—to know about extremists in local authorities. But I know where the extremists are now: they are in Queen Anne's Gate and they are attempting to take away democratic responsibility from a critical part of our national life.
In the years immediately after the war, the communist parties in Eastern Europe, where they had control, and in Western Europe, where they had participation in government, were very clear about their priorities. Where they were in government, they made sure, wherever possible, that they took control over the Ministry of Justice and over the Ministry of the Interior. That is exactly what this Government are proposing to do to what has been an independent police service. It must be resisted.
7.7 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is not surprising that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, worked himself up into a lather at the end of his speech and came to totally the wrong conclusion. He knows perfectly well that there is no thought or consideration of politicising or taking control of the police force. If that is the conclusion which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has drawn, it just shows the lack of depth with which he has considered the problem. However, I shall try to put him right in due course.
The House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for providing us with the opportunity to debate such an important matter as the future of the police service. Your Lordships expressed many views which will be especially helpful to the Government and which we shall take into account. The debate was notable for the speech made by my noble friend Lord Trevor who, if I may say so, made a remarkable maiden speech. It is always the maxim that maiden speeches should be brief, knowledgeable and non-controversial. I believe that my noble friend scored 10 out of 10 for being brief, 10 out of 10 for being knowledgeable and eight-and-a-half out of 10 for being non-controversial. But, after all, as he has taken 43 years to make his maiden speech I think that he is entitled to express his views with a little force. I only hope that we do not have to wait so long before hearing him again. I am really sorry that it was the matter of the police that stimulated my noble friend to break his vow of silence. Nevertheless, I am glad that he did so.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, enlightened the House on his experiences as a priest in
344
Holy Orders and the various occasions when he was arrested by the police. Speaking for myself, I am bound to say that it put my imagination into overdrive. But I am quite certain that, in both capacities, the noble Lord is well equipped to speak from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench on police matters.
The noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, also enlightened the House by telling us that he had been a policeman but that he only reached the position of sergeant. That is a very elevated rank. I am glad that he achieved that position. I can only say that he went slightly higher up on what one might describe as the Richter scale in another place, where he eventually achieved the position of Speaker of the House, than he did in the police service. I am not quite sure whether that is a reflection on the noble Viscount's ability as a policeman or whether it is a reflection on the ability of the police to determine what one might describe as nascent ability when they see it.
I admired the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees. He made a broad and thoughtful speech which was non-partisan. That is what one would expect from an ex-Home Secretary. The noble Lord was right to say that no governments can be blamed for crime. Crime is a matter that every government has to deal with. That applies in this country and throughout the world. It is not an easy matter to tackle. I was sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, with all her knowledge, succeeded in making a highly controversial political speech.
As your Lordships will be aware, the Government will set out their proposals for the future of policing in detail in a White Paper. The noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, said he would have liked a Green Paper. I can assure the noble Viscount that the paper will have green edges. It will contain plenty of matters that can be discussed. The Government have not made up their mind on many issues. Anyone would imagine, after having listened to noble Lords speaking this afternoon, that the Government had made up their mind on this matter. The Government are open to people's views. Sometimes noble Lords say the Government should listen to people. We must listen, but it is important that the Government should set out some proposals for the public upon which there should be discussion. This matter has been considered for a long time. People from every quarter, and the police, have given their views about what steps should be taken. The Government must produce some proposals, set them out in a White Paper and then leave that open for discussion. I believe that to be the right procedure.
As this debate is being held before the White Paper has been issued I am in a somewhat difficult position as regards being able to reply to all the points that have been made in the debate. However, I shall do my best to reply to those points. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, festooned me with questions. One moment he accused the Government of being centralist and not listening and the next moment he asked what we were going to do. As I said, it is difficult to provide answers before the White Paper is

345
published. I am sure the noble Viscount will find some of the answers to his questions when the White Paper is published. No doubt if there are still worries about this issue there will be opportunities to consider it further.
I know that some of these matters are considered to be controversial. It may be helpful if I set out briefly the role which we envisage for each of the three parties to the so-called tripartite structure on which policing is based and the reasoning behind the changes which we propose. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, that it would be quite appalling if the police were to become a political football. I believe those were his words. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who referred to political control of the police. The Government have no intention of assuming political control of the police.
In the 30 years that have passed since the previous police Act became law the old tripartite structure, which consisted of police authorities, chief constables and the Home Secretary, has provided an effective police service which can still truthfully be described as being not only the best in the world but also the envy of the world. However, society has changed beyond recognition in that time. The structure of the police service must now be changed to reflect the demands of today. I wish to make it perfectly clear that this is not a criticism of police officers or of policing. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, paid tribute to the police and I agree with that tribute. I, for one, have an almost boundless admiration and respect for our police officers and for what they do and how they do it. Of course, from time to time things go wrong. I suppose that is inevitable in any large organisation, even if it is not excusable. When things go wrong they become subject to what one might describe as the "heavy metal" of the media.
However, I have no hesitation in saying that we—in the current jargon we are the customers of the police—owe a great debt of gratitude to the work, the loyalty and indeed the bravery of the police who are sometimes subjected to the most appalling violence. I agreed with the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, when he said that much of the success of the country has depended on the loyalty and the quality of the police. I am sure he is right.
We consider, however—this has been a common expectation, even within the police service—that the time has now come to bring up to date the structures within which the police operate. Many people have said that the structure needs reforming. There seems to be a unanimity of view on that, but there is no agreement on how that should be done. As soon as the Government suggest a course of action everyone says, "You cannot possibly do that". Inevitably, change is controversial. It is bound to be controversial. Everyone is apprehensive of the unknown. My noble friend Lord Rippon made a most helpful speech. I agreed with him when he said that no change is possible without upheaval. Those might not have been his exact words but I believe that was what he inferred.
The Home Secretary, chief constables and police authorities all have different roles to play in achieving good policing. What we are proposing to do is to
346
adjust the roles of all three to meet the changed circumstances of today. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, said the Government were taking all power over the police and local authorities and that the police would be under the control of the Government. If that were the case, I would be the first to say it would be a disaster. I do not believe that is the right thing to do and I do not believe that it will be the effect of what we are going to do. The basic underlying principle of these reforms is to release some of the power which is at present in the hands of the Home Secretary and to give it to the police authorities and to local chief constables whose business it is to provide proper policing for their local communities.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said our proposals are the biggest piece of centralisation he has seen for ages. I am sorry the noble Lord feels that way as that is the reverse of our intention. We are devolving much of the power which the Home Secretary has to localities where that power will be used. I can assure your Lordships that we do not wish to centralise the control of the police. We intend to do the opposite. We do not intend to impose control by central government of local policing. What we want to do is to strengthen the role of police authorities so that local people clearly know who is responsible for policing in their area. We also want chief constables to have greater freedom to manage their resources to meet their own local needs.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, that police authorities must be local. He was right to say that. I do not believe there is anyone who is better placed than local police officers and local people to know best what kind of policing is required in their local area. However, if the Government are to provide 90 per cent. of the funds for the police authorities, amounting to some £6,000 million a year, and if the Home Secretary is to release much of his control over how that money is spent, it is not unreasonable that he should have some assurance—as should the public—that that money is being spent wisely. To achieve that we are proposing that the Government should set a small number of key objectives for policing. These will be national objectives and they will highlight those areas of police performance which the Government consider are crucial to the provision of a good police service.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, was worried about that matter. Establishing key performance indicators will assist in focusing police efforts on fighting crime. The detail of the indicators will need to take account of the points which the noble Lord raised and due weight will need to be given to the more serious offences. The publication of results will be considered on the basis of comparisons between similar police forces and similar areas. The success which the police have in meeting these objectives will be published. That will enable people to see how their force is performing and how it compares with other forces. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. did not like that proposal. However, I do not understand why people should not be able to see how their local force is performing. The noble Lord, Lord Cocks, said that that would encourage criminals to go

347
to the areas of worst clear-up rates. I thought that that was slightly fanciful but, if it is so, that is exactly the kind of pressure that will be put upon chief constables to ensure that it does not happen.
The new police authorities which we are proposing for the provinces will therefore play a very important part in local policing. The existing police authorities often have a large membership and, as a consequence, they can be unwieldy and unbusinesslike. Often they have prolific and complex structures and therefore the Government believe that they need to be smaller and more workable. They need to have clear tasks that they are required to perform, to have the right people to perform them and to have a local voice.
A number of your Lordships were anxious about the smaller authorities and the appointing of the chairmen. The noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Trevor, the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, and my noble friend Lord Rippon were anxious about that. I am not surprised to hear that noble Lords have been lobbied by local police authorities. Of course they have, because they are about to be changed and no one likes change. Therefore, it is understandable that those who are about to be changed should lobby some of your Lordships and obviously they have done so effectively.
My right honourable friend is proposing that the new authorities should have a maximum of 16 members. The noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, was wrong about that because he said that the Home Secretary would nominate 50 per cent. of the membership. That is not so; half the members will be local councillors and half will consist of a mixture of local people, who will be appointed by the Home Secretary, and of magistrates—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House who will appoint the magistrates?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will wait until the White Paper he will see—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Oh dear!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there is no point in the noble Lord, Lord Graham, saying, "Oh dear". The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked many questions which will be answered in the White Paper. It would be wrong of me to anticipate the White Paper. That is the kind of issue about which the Government have no particular fixed views—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, forgive me, but the Minister was attempting to respond to the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham. He was denying that 50 per cent of the members of the police authorities would be appointed by the Home Secretary. In order to give substance to that denial the Minister will have to deny that the magistrates will be appointed by the Home Secretary.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the people who will be appointed by the Home Secretary are the five to whom I referred. The way in which the magistrates become
348
members of the authority has yet to be decided either by—it is difficult to reply when the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pouts. He asked me many questions. The debate has arisen before the publication of the White Paper but the noble Lord expects me to answer all the questions. The Government are accused of railroading the whole lot but as soon as I say that there is an area in which we should welcome people's views the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, becomes sour. He will have to wait a little longer.
In an admirably brief speech, the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, asked about the appointment of the chairman. He will be appointed by the Home Secretary from the overall membership of the authority and it is intended that he should receive a suitable remuneration for his responsibility. The chairman will have the key role in leading the authority and in maintaining the effective working relationship with the chief constable. I do not assume that the chairman will have his office in the police headquarters. He will probably be busy enough dealing with the running of the police authority and it is right that he should be properly renumerated for that work. One must remember that the chairman runs the police authority and the chief constable runs the police force.
My noble friend Lord Finsberg was right in saying that it would not be difficult for the chairman to operate in such a way because he will operate under statute and not as an appointee of the Home Secretary. Many noble Lords have said that the appointment of the chairmen by my noble friend could be seen as being controversial. I accept that that is the case but the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, claimed that my right honourable friend is seen to be taking power for himself rather than relinquishing it. Therefore, it is essential to understand the reason behind the decision.
Of course some people say that the Government's nominees for the police authorities will be under the patronage of the Home Secretary of the day and that party politics will be the deciding factor in making the appointments. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to that. However, the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, interestingly informed the House that when he was Home Secretary—and a privileged position it was—he appointed the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, as chairman of the Parole Board. In those days the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was a member of the Labour Party, which happened to be the same party as that of the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees. Since then the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has moved around the political arena and now graces another party. However, I am certain that when the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was chairman of the Parole Board he never considered that he was a lackey of the then Home Secretary and that he was not free to run the Parole Board in the best way he thought possible.
That will be the case with chairmen of the police authorities of the future. It is certainly not the intention of my right honourable friend that chairmen should be appointed on a political basis. I am bound to say that I was horrified to hear the noble Lord,

349
Lord McIntosh, say, "Oh, we know how this is done. We just go round to the Whip's office and ask for names". If that is a reflection of the way in which the party of which he is a distinguished member carries out its business it is a revelation, but it is not the attitude which we take. I do not believe that it is the attitude that any responsible government would take.
My right honourable friend believes that it is necessary that police authorities should have a different relationship with local government. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, said that it was a vindictive vendetta of Her Majesty's Government against local authorities and that it was a smoke screen to divert the public's attention away from crime. I thought that that was an excessive description of the problem. Of course one does not deflect the public's views and worries about crime by making alterations. That is not the reason for making alterations. The reason for making them is in order to try to deal with crime even better in the future than we have in the past and in order to take account of future problems.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, was concerned about the level of funding for the police authorities. The Government propose to retain a system of joint local and central funding. The central government contribution will be cash limited. As the noble Lord said, a new mechanism will be needed to distribute it to police authorities and work will begin shortly to develop a distribution formula. Under the new funding arrangements which we have proposed local government will continue to make a contribution to the funding of the police service.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, were anxious about the precepts. The idea is that the full authority will vote on the budget. Special arrangements will apply in any vote to determine the size of the precept so that if the eight council members of the authority unanimously take a different view to the other eight members the local councillors will have the deciding vote. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, was also worried about the police authorities' reserves. The new police authorities, as free-standing bodies, will be able to build and hold financial reserves to deal with contingencies. The noble Viscount also asked me a number of other questions but I am afraid that I do not have time to answer them.
In future, all police authorities will be independent of local councils. They will be separated wholly from local authorities. They will be organisations with the power to run their own affairs and they will be able to set their own budget. The police authorities will have a number of new tasks to perform. They will be involved in setting the budget and in publishing costed plans for local policing. They will have to know the requirements of policing their areas, to consult local people about them and to ensure that the police force meets those requirements.
If part of the job of police authority members is to act as a means of communication between the police and the local community it follow that the members must be active in the community. They must also have the skills necessary to enable them to discharge the
350
functions which the new police authorities will be performing. My right honourable friend is anxious, therefore, to be able to tap all the ability and talent in the area and not to have it confined only to that which is found in those who have been elected to the local authority or who are magistrates.
Some noble Lords have described it as "appointing business people". The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, did so. The noble Viscount seemed obsessed with businessmen. It is not so. In some areas many local councillors and many magistrates are business people, as the noble Viscount said. In other areas that may not be so. By appointing some members of police authorities we aim to build on the existing skills and to draw in a wide range of other experiences.
Suggestions from organisations or individuals who think that a particular person would bring something of value to the police authority in their area will be welcomed. Such people might be a teacher, a vet, a farmer, a member of Victim Support, a member of the Samaritans, or whoever. It would be bizarre to suggest that only people who run local businesses or who have been elected to a local council have the skills which police authorities need.
My noble friend Lord Finsberg was right when he stated how he understood that the system would work. He was chivvied for supporting the Government. I advise him not to be worried about that. It was Shakespeare who said,
"the fewer men, the greater share of honour".
My noble friend is in that happy position today.
The direct appointment of some members of the police authority is, of course, as I readily recognise, an innovation. The principle which underlines the role and the composition of police authorities will remain exactly the same as that which was set out by the Royal Commission on the police in 1962. The Royal Commission said that the police authority should, "…constitute a body of citizens concerned with the local standing and well-being of the police, interested in the maintenance of law and order, and able to give advice and guidance to chief constables about local problems."
That is a principle which we have no intention of changing. It is one upon which our proposals will have no effect. I have tried to emphasise the importance which the Government attach to the local voice in policing. That is the cornerstone on which good policing is built, as the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, said.
Because the Home Secretary will be loosening his own direct control, the new police authorities will have an important task. The Government are determined to help them to perform their task as effectively as possible. The chairman must have good leadership qualities and be someone in whom the Home Secretary can have complete confidence. It is just as likely that the chairman will be one of the local councillors or magistrates as one of the Home Secretary's nominees. He or she will he chosen simply as being the best person for the job. That is what my noble friend Lord Finsberg said.
By setting objectives, and by publishing the results, the Government will be giving local people a yardstick by which to judge whether their needs are being

351
addressed. If they are not, then the buck will stop firmly with the chairman of the police authority, and with the authority itself.
To the noble Lord, Lord Harris, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and others who are concerned about the future of the Metropolitan Police, I say this. London is a special case. It is huge. It is the capital city. Its problems are often unique. The Metropolitan Police has a number of special responsibilities and functions which are not seen in any other force. I refer to royal and diplomatic protection, the national counter-terrorist work, war crimes and record-keeping functions. Policing in London is not simply the clear-cut, local matter which it is in the provinces. Of course, Metropolitan Police officers catch London's criminals. They walk the streets of Tottenham in just the same way as their counterparts walk the streets of Taunton. However, policing London also involves special responsibilities which arise because London is the capital city. I refer, for example, to the policing of demonstrations and the need to protect Parliament.
Even so, the Government intend that, so far as is possible, London will benefit from the reforms which we are proposing as in a similar way will the remainder of the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, and my noble friend Lord Finsberg referred to newspaper articles. I can only say that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will be publishing a White Paper outlining the Government's proposals for police reforms next month. That will set out the detailed plans for London. It will take full account of the national and exceptional responsibilities of the Metropolitan Police.
Contrary to what some newspapers have suggested in a blaze of publicity, my right honourable friend has given no specific undertakings as to the membership of the police authority for London. At present the Home Secretary is the police authority for the Metropolitan Police district. The day-to-day work of the police authority is carried out by his officials. However, my right honourable friend intends in future that there should be a police authority for London outside the Home Office and he will delegate to that authority many of his existing responsibilities. Our detailed proposals for London will be set out in the forthcoming White Paper. They will take account of the national and other exceptional responsibilities which the Metropolitan Police has.
The overall aim of the Government's proposals is to improve the structure of policing. It needs to be adjusted to take account of the vast changes which have occurred since the last police Act. All those changes require changes to the structure of policing. However, they do not need a change to the principles of policing. Those are to fight crime and to see that the law is upheld by a constable whose authority comes from Her Majesty.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, first may I express my thanks to all who have participated in the debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Trevor, on his maiden speech. I agreed with everything that he said, and indeed with the other two Members of this House, both members of police authorities, who took precisely the same view as the noble Lord—namely, in flat opposition to everything that the Home Secretary suggested in the Statement at the end of March.
I do not propose to go over the arguments again. That would be unduly wearisome. However, perhaps I may make one or two brief comments; first, on the policing of London. Last night we were presented with a story in the Evening Standard which has not been denied by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Perhaps we may recall what was said at the end of March in the Home Secretary's Statement. It was stated that the character of the police authority in London would be exactly the same as in the remainder of the country. Last night the Evening Standard said that that had been dropped. What is significant is that the noble Earl has not denied the truth of that report. We can therefore draw our own conclusions—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may‐
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I shall finish the sentence. I think that the House will draw its own conclusions as to what the Home Secretary has decided. The noble Earl wishes to intervene.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not like interrupting the noble Lord, but when he misquotes my right honourable friend I think it right to put the record straight. My right honourable friend said:
"I propose to establish for the first time a police authority for the Metropolitan police on the new national model separate from the Home Office and with essentially the same tasks as police authorities elsewhere".—[0fficial Report, Commons, 23/3/93; col. 766.]
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Earl has confirmed the accuracy of what I said. That is exactly what the Home Secretary said.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may just finish. Perhaps the noble Earl will contain himself for a moment. All I say to the noble Earl is that last night the Evening Standard announced, and it is confirmed in this morning's newspapers on the basis clearly of guidance from his own department's press officers, that there has been a major change of policy by the Home Secretary. The point that I put to the noble Earl, I hope in a most agreeable way, is this. The fact that he has not denied the truth of what was said last night and what is said in every morning newspaper today, is in itself highly significant.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord kindly gives way. I took issue with the noble Lord because he used the word "exactly" and I do not believe that that word was used. He stated also that what appeared in last night's papers and today's papers must therefore be right. I know that the noble Lord is an avid reader of newspapers, but he is wrong to suggest that any

353
substance of that must necessarily come from the press office in the Home Office. Newspapers have their own sources. They are not always accurate. I leave it at that.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not propose to pursue the noble Earl. He and I have both been Ministers in the Home Office. He and I know perfectly well that if a totally inaccurate statement appears in newspapers one gives instructions to the press department to deny it in the most emphatic terms. That has not been done. We now know perfectly well that the Home Secretary has retreated within a period of eight weeks from a fundamental position on the policing of London; and we have to wait for the Evening Standard to tell us the truth of the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, undertook the heroic responsibility of being the one Member of your Lordships' House who was apparently in favour of what the Government have decided upon. He spoke eloquently about the quality of policing in the City of London. He appeared to be satisfied, as my noble friend Lord Beaumont indicated, about the fact that the City of London police authority consisting exclusively of elected members was wholly acceptable. However, he added that any form of elected authority in the rest of London would be wholly objectionable and would be opposed passionately by the entire citizenry of London. That seems to me a slightly exaggerated point, if he will forgive me saying so.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I did not interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, because I have known him for many years. For the sake of brevity, I must say that I did not go on to explain that the composition of the City has all the elements for which the Home Secretary is looking: local government, business and others. That is why it is different.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am glad to have that explanation because until the noble Lord produced it I had not followed the full subtlety of his argument. All I say to him is this. As I tried to indicate in my speech, there are a substantial number of business people on police authorities throughout the country. The idea, therefore, that for the first time ever a benevolent Home Secretary will appoint business people to police authorities is a little far from the truth.
The only other point I wish to make was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, with whom I very much agree. This is one of the most ominous proposals in the Home Secretary's policy announcement. Given that there will be national government appointees as chairmen of police authorities, those new creatures will have substantial influence in every police force area. They will be divorced from local government, as the noble Earl pointed out. They will operate entirely either within a police headquarters or a building immediately adjacent to police headquarters. Both the chairman and the other nationally appointed members will be the Home Secretary's representatives.
354
This is being considered at the same time as it is suggested that, for the first time, chief officers will be on short-term contracts. In other words, the police authority—the chairman and members—will decide whether to renew a contract. All I put to the House and to the noble Earl, if the Government are seriously prepared to look at matters again, as I hope they will, is the dangers involved in such a situation. It is all very well for a chief officer to say—as I am sure the overwhelming majority would if asked to do something which they regard as unacceptable by one of the new nationally appointed chairmen—"Chairman, I am afraid that I cannot contemplate doing that. It is an operational matter for which I must take responsiblity". However, is there not a possibility that if, six months later, that chief officer's contract is coming up for renewal, one or two might in the future be tempted to give a rather different answer to the chairman of the police authority? The difficulty with this set of proposals is that they have not been carefully thought through. There has been no departmental inquiry, no Royal Commission. The department is making it up as it goes along, without realising the full implications of what it proposes.
We shall clearly spend many months arguing over the contents of the police Bill, when it appears in the next Session of Parliament. I close by saying that I agree very much with what the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, said in his striking speech. It will be dreadful if the police service in this country is dragged into a major political confrontation. The noble Earl knows the position as well as the rest of us. He is opposed by a united police service: the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Superintendents' Association, the Police Federation and by many of the most prominent members of his own party who are members of police authorities. It seems to me that the Government should now consider their position extremely carefully before proceeding with highly divisive legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

New Towns (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.44 p.m.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
When I became deputy chairman of the Commission for the New Towns in 1992—and here I declare my interest—having had ministerial responsibility for the new towns a decade or so before, I found that there was a problem facing the commission arising out of a gap in the 1959, 1981 and 1985 Acts. No specific delegation powers exist for the commission.
Sections of the statutes require the commission to make certain judgments to carry out its functions. For example, the legislation states:
"as soon as it considers it expedient to do so";
"due regard being had to the considerations specified in subsection (2)";
or

355
"consideration which is less than the best reasonably obtainable".
There is an implied power to allow officials to carry out the day-to-day administration of the commission, but where an Act of Parliament imposes major functions on it, only the commission's full board of members can exercise them.
In 1987 the commission took two counsels' opinions. A further conference was held in 1992 with another Queen's Counsel, and all three confirmed the legal position as I have summarised it. Those opinions were made available to the department. The possibility was raised of what is known as a "letter of comfort" for the Minister, but that was not acceptable and the advice given to the commission was that it would not cover us at all.
We met the Minister, who agreed that delegation was required but that there was at present no appropriate government Bill and no time for such a Bill. We rather naively thought that the Housing and Urban Development Bill seemed right, but the Long Title prevented an amendment being put forward.
Perhaps I may explain the background. The commission's board meets 11 times a year. Its membership is selected from persons who have expertise in the world of property or who have held government or local government office and who have special knowledge of the matters with which the commission deals.
The position is that the commission holds extensive property throughout 21 new towns in England and Wales, valued at over £1 billion. There are many tens of thousands of separate properties owned by the commission. We have a staff of about 750 and we make extensive use of outside consultants. Typically, over 100 property transactions are entered into every month. All of those are presented to a property committee of members of the commission whose deliberations have to be confirmed by the board meeting.
The net effect is that members' time and attention are wasted on receiving reports and endorsing recommendations on many hundreds of minor matters during a year; for example, the sale of garden extensions, the sale of free-standing garages, grazing agreements etc.
More importantly, as your Lordships will understand, the commission is operating in a difficult and competitive property market. Without the necessary authority to approve deals between board meetings, there are considerable difficulties in letting premises and closing deals when at the conclusion of negotiations the potential customer is told that there will be a wait of several weeks pending approval of the deal by the commission's board. Therefore the effectiveness and efficiency of the commission is unnecessarily impaired.
What I ask for in the Bill is not unusual. It has been recognised by Government and Parliament that it is appropriate for public bodies such as the commission to delegate routine matters to officials or committees, as appropriate. Those of us who serve in local government know that only too well. It is illustrated in
356
the terms of appointment of accounting officers for non-departmental public bodies. It is also illustrated in the constitution of the National Rivers Authority, as set out in the Water Resources Act 1989, as well as the constitution of the proposed urban development corporation, as set out in Schedule 16 to the Housing and Urban Development Bill, which received its Third Reading only yesterday. The omission, therefore, in the New Towns Act 1981 can be remedied only by primary legislation. All we require is the same power as the urban development corporations have been given. I trust that the Second Reading will be granted.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Finsberg.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, first of all I do not profess to be a good substitute for my noble friend Lord Williams, who is not here to deal with this matter. Nevertheless, I am not unfamiliar with the general background, having served on many local government and new town Bills in another place. In this House I have spoken for my party on local government matters for many years.
I share with the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, the feeling that this is a proper matter—namely, delegating authority from a major body to a smaller body—for an amendment to an Act of Parliament. I just take it as, if that is how it has been done, that is how it has got to be done. Therefore our job tonight is to listen very carefully to the persuasive arguments, which undoubtedly are greatly relevant. We all understand. We all served in local government, and we recognise the importance not just of delegated authority but of the terms under which that authority is given.
I read the Bill very carefully. Looking at the power of delegation under sub-paragraph (a), the important words are:
"who has been authorised for the purpose, either generally or specifically, by the Commission".
In other words, there is a proper procedure, a proper proposal, a proper undertaking, a proper liability and a responsibility, codified properly.
When one looks at the powers of the committee or sub-committee which needs this procedure tonight, they have been properly authorised. The noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, does the House a service by pointing out some of the minor matters which have had to be delayed simply because the terms of the Act needing to be complied with did not allow a speedier process.
We on these Benches, certainly in this matter, do not enter at all into the demise of the new towns or the eventual demise of the New Towns Commission. We recognise that tonight we have been asked to approve a speeding up of power, properly controlled, properly documented, and properly the subject of scrutiny by other people.
If the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, intends to make even the odd comment at the end, I should simply be interested to ask what kind of consultation there has been outside the commission itself, perhaps with the other local authority associations, with local communities or in any other way. I do not say that that is required. But this would be done by a normal board of directors or management. My experience is

357
in the Co-op Society. If we wanted to delegate power we should not have to go back to the membership. But I should be interested to know whether any steps have been taken simply to get a feel that this is right. Certainly I believe that it is right, both democratically and in a business sense. Therefore we support and approve this very modest measure.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it may be helpful if at this point I gave the Government's view on this Bill. I understand that the need for the Bill has arisen because, as the New Towns Act is silent on the matter, the board feels constrained to deal personally with every minor issue relating to the disposal of the commission's assets. The commission feels that this is not an effective use of board members' time and prevents them from deploying their staff in the most efficient way. It is making it difficult to conclude sales of property and potentially impeding the rate at which the commission can dispose of its assets.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment has discussed with my noble friend Lord F'insberg the proposals contained in the Bill and we are broadly sympathetic to its purpose. I hope therefore that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading so that it can proceed in the usual way for more detailed consideration in Committee.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for what he said, and also the noble Lord, Lord Graham, who outside this Chamber I would call my friend, for what he said.
There has been no consultation because no consultation was possible. The board of the commission is in the position that unless it gets these powers, it has to continue with this time-wasting process. We were advised by no fewer than three sets of legal experts (the people who usually make the money in these matters) that for safeguarding the public purse and ourselves we had to get this addition to the statute, so on this occasion there was no body that could be consulted. Had there been one, we would certainly have done so. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it does satisfy me. There is also the very great stop-gap that the Department of the Environment continues to have an oversight of the activities of such bodies as the New Towns Commission. I cannot believe that the propriety of what has been proposed as an amendment, as the Minister has said, is not seen as sensible and realistic. So the point is well taken here.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I have responded to the debate, and I therefore commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Juvenile Offenders
7.55 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, in the light of their Statement of 2nd March, what proposals they have in mind for the treatment of juvenile offenders.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, just before I came to the House, I received a letter from someone whom I revere very much—if possible, even more than most of my colleagues, and that is saying a lot. That is the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I regard him as having done more than anybody I can think of for the distressed in our time. Unfortunately, he cannot take part in this debate. But I should like to quote a passage from what the noble Lord would like to have said:
"I am sure noble Lords understand the vulnerability of offenders who have learning disabilities. Juvenile offenders with learning disabilities are not only vulnerable by their intellectual impairment, but by their inexperience of life through their lack of years which … is not a fault of their own making! It is crucial that their special needs are recognised immediately and that they receive the attention of trained specialist stall".
I am sure that the noble Earl should be regarded as something of a hero in that, having argued about something else all afternoon, he should join us again this evening to look after our debate. I cannot expect him to respond to what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, says. I have only just been notified myself. I am sure, however, that he will be sympathetic to what the noble Lord says.
I wish to concentrate on what I might call the narrow aspect of my Question in other words the proposals brought before the House of Commons, and repeated here, on 2nd March by the Home Secretary, Mr. Kenneth Clarke. But before doing so I wish to say a few general words about young offenders. Perhaps I may be forgiven for mentioning the fact that I have written a book on the matter. If any noble Lords are still in this country on 26th August they may want to buy it at that time. But that is a long way on. I should like to say something about juvenile crime and its background. I do not want to restrict anyone. This Motion throws the whole question of juvenile crime and young offending open to everybody.
I shall make just a few observations before coming to the main issues that I wish to raise. I do not know how many of my colleagues—there are not all that many of them here—have visited a Conservative conference in recent times. I had the pleasure of visiting a Conservative conference last October. I was suitably decked up with a little card on a chain round my neck which described me as a Catholic Herald reporter. Whether noble Lords want to go in that particular disguise or otherwise, I recommend the experience to them in their search for truth. I had the pleasure of hearing Mr. Clarke speak. I shall not discuss that aspect. I heard him say with justifiable pride—worth bearing in mind when we hear the comments on juvenile crime, although it was last October:
"You will be as surprised as I was to be told that overall the number of young offenders is happily declining".

359
That is the aspect that he wanted to present at that time. It was presented as a credit to the Government that they were managing to reduce the amount of juvenile crime. That was last October. A lot might have happened since then. I appreciate that one would have to embark on a statistical survey, which other noble Lords may wish to undertake, to analyse the figures. I shall not do that now. The fact is there.
On the other hand, there is also the fact, according to the criminal statistics, that overall crime in this country has been increasing over the past 10 years—and long before that—by about 6 per cent. That is the background to our discussion. It is an unfortunate fact about our society, which also has so many delightful features. It is a fact that crime is steadily increasing and it is difficult not to feel that young offenders play their part. On the evidence I would say that they play a smaller part than they used to play, even making allowance for the fact that they are a smaller proportion of the population. However, I shall not become involved in those issues tonight. I have been warned by the Home Office in a letter:
"We do not have any accurate measure of youth crime".
That is the official view. I say that to try to preclude any suggestion that we are facing a situation of appalling youth crime.
I come to the Government's proposals. On 2nd March Mr. Clarke produced his proposals. The main feature was that a small number of secure units would be set up which would take care of persistent young offenders. There was also, it may be said, a wider philosophy involved; namely, that more discipline ought to be introduced into schools and children's homes. Tonight, I shall deal with the particular proposal that there should be a small number of units made available.
I do not think it was in the original statement but one way or another it became understood that the Home Secretary had in mind five units with 40 people in each. That is quite a small number: 200 compared with more than 300,000 young offenders who are convicted of small or great crimes during the course of a year. That is what he said: that there was a small number of young offenders and those units should be set up.
The proposal was immediately denounced by the leading penal reform and children's organisations. There was widespread criticism also in the serious—I suppose one might also say dispassionate press, most of which would normally favour our Conservative friends. The leading article in The Times was typical. Under the heading "Panic Over Crime" The Times greeted the proposals which the noble Earl, no doubt with extraordinary skill, will defend later this evening. The Times recognised the recent public alarm as a result of the murder of a two year-old boy allegedly by two boys of 10 and 11—and there have been one or two other appalling incidents. The Times concluded that the Home Secretary's statement had all the hallmarks of being conceived and announced in panic—I repeat, panic. It added that,
"the best thing Mr. Clarke can now do is to cast about for ideas from the public".
360
I hope and believe that our debate tonight will play a part in providing those ideas from the enlightened public.
I am personally rather wet among penal reformers in regard to the proposals. I am not one of the people who denounce the whole idea of some new units. I am very strongly opposed, as I shall show as I proceed, to an important aspect of them. If that aspect is not corrected the proposals will do more harm than good. But in general I am not against the idea that some units of some kind are necessary.
I therefore approach this Question in the form of questions to myself and answers first provided by myself. Then, no doubt, other noble Lords will tackle them. The first question to myself is: do I agree that a limited number of young offenders aged 12 to 15, who have committed grave crimes or who have persistently offended, should be removed from home and put into some kind of secure unit? To that question I give a qualified yes. I believe that some people should be removed from home. I am sure that the number is very limited. I shall come to the question of how many we are talking about later. At the moment the Home Secretary appears to be talking about a figure of 200.
I would say that 200 may be more than is necessary at the moment. We must bear in mind that penal reformers—at any rate a leading penal reform organisation such as NACRO—would like to see the age raised to 18 and no one under that age referred to any kind of penal custody. That means that a lot of people aged 16 or 17 who are not given penal custody would have to go somewhere else. Very few people would say that they all ought to be let loose in the community.
If we are looking ahead, certainly as penal reformers we must ask ourselves what will be the future in the next few years of those people who are not going to go to local penal custody, to Feltham and such places. One has to ask where they would go. That means that more than 200 people will eventually have to be catered for in that way. That is the future. If we are discussing the issue and making plans for the next few years, we must think beyond the immediate situation for 12, 13, 14 and 15 year-olds.
The children we are talking about are all boys. Apparently, the question of girls does not arise. I do not think that anyone will complain about that. No one, however feminist (and I of course am a feminist and think all enlightened people are) will ask, "What about the girls?" We are able to discuss this matter in terms of boys. When we remove a child from home, we take a heavy responsibility. We must all agree with that. We are under a powerful obligation to provide a better environment for the child than is provided at his home. We know that in some, perhaps many, cases the home environment may be very unsatisfactory. We know that a large number of children in residential homes are abused in one way or another. Nevertheless, taking a child away from home certainly involves a heavy responsibility on those who undertake it, and it should not be undertaken lightly.
Foster homes may be part of the answer. I shall leave that over for the moment. Let us assume that we are not just saying to these people, "Well, we know

361
what prison is like. Let us make it another form of prison or even another form of young offender institution." Something better has to be provided. It has to be something educational and therapeutic. That is the responsibility that we take upon ourselves when we remove these people from home.
The next question concerns which government department should accept responsibility for these young people. I hope that the Minister will not give the final answer tonight. I hope that he will keep a constructively open mind about the whole question. I hope that he will not say, "The Government's and Mr. Clarke's reputation depend on the Home Office doing it, so they have to do it". I hope that that will not be his answer. I would rather have no answer at all than that answer. But we must consider which government department will accept the responsibility.
Initially, on the face of it, the Government indicated that the Home Office should do it. That would be a grievous mistake. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who is to follow me, knows much more about the world of the social worker than 1, though I try to keep in touch. I do not believe that any social worker or former social worker would think that the Home Office was best equipped to do it. We shall hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, with her experience on the matter.
The approach of the Home Office at its most high minded is bound to be penal. It may just be a word but it represents in the minds of social workers an entirely different approach from their own. I cannot express sufficiently my own horror at the thought of the Home Office taking responsibility. I hope that it will not come about and there is no reason why it should. Mr. Clarke could go down in history as having invented a helpful idea as long as he did not claim the credit for himself or his department.
The situation today is that local government secure units—I have visited a good many of them—come under the Department of Health. It would be ludicrous for the Home Office to provide some units and the health department to provide others. Total chaos would result. That is all that one could expect. When I visited an exceptionally progressive local government secure unit, social workers were present. I was told that it had been assumed until recently that the Department of Health had a strategic plan for increasing the number and quality of local government secure units. Then, suddenly, Mr. Clarke emerged with a scheme of his own.
I sympathise with Mr. Clarke. People say to him, "You are the Minister for law and order. That is what you stand for. What are you doing about all these juvenile crimes?" What does Mr. Clarke say? He replies, "I am opening a lot of units. It is entirely my own idea." That is a difficulty he faces. I am not saying anything unpleasant about him. I am giving him credit for rising above that personal situation and joining in consultation with other Ministers to find the right answer.
The question then arises of whether the existing local government secure units provide the answer. I say that to a limited extent they do. I have visited quite a few. They vary dramatically in size, from two in
362
some cases to 45 in the case of Aycliffe, which is an impressive and famous institution in the north of England. The units are scattered higgledy-piggledy throughout the country. There are only seven units with more than nine inmates, so they are usually small units. The south of England is badly represented.
One must recognise the point of view of the police. That is why I am not as unsympathetic to Mr. Clarke as it may be thought. If one talks to the police, for instance in Oxford, one finds that young people who are found joy-riding are picked up but laugh at the magistrates. They say, "We know that there is nowhere you can send us." Taking the country as a whole but the south of England particularly, there is nowhere that we can send these persistent young offenders at the present time. That is the situation.
The question arises further in relation to how large the units should be. In that I would not like to be dogmatic. The one that I mentioned earlier was exceptionally enlightened and had eight beds. On the other hand, it hopes to have 15 later. Is that the right answer? I cannot be dogmatic on that point. I am sure that in any plan drawn up by the Home Secretary—I will take this up with other Ministers—there will be the wish to consider carefully how large the unit should be. If one intended to send a young person away from home for a few months—say three—a unit with eight beds may be sufficient. But if it is to be one or two years, an extremely therapeutic task will need to be performed and something much larger will be needed. I am not dogmatic about it. It needs to be looked at in the context of a national scheme.
One or two questions arise to which there can be no perfect answer. First, how do we ensure that these people are kept in touch with their homes? We are talking of only a few hundred people out of thousands of offenders; I do not want to mislead anybody. If there are only a few units, with a few hundred people being taken away from home, then clearly every effort must be made to keep those people in the closest touch with their families. The obvious answer is to make it easier for the families to visit, and that is done in the case of one unit that I have in mind. It should also be made possible for the young people to visit their homes at weekends or whenever the occasion arises. There is no perfect answer. There are only a few units in existence and they cannot be situated next door to everybody.
There may be no answer to the second question regarding how we make sure young delinquents do not corrupt each other. There can never be an answer to that question. When people are taken away from home because they have gone wrong and are put with other people who have gone wrong, difficulties arise. The secret must lie not only in the dedication, but also in the human understanding and skill, of the social workers.
We require what are called specially trained staff in the units which are dealing with the most vulnerable people in our society. There are only a few hundred and we must have people specially trained to look after them. That training may take different forms. In

363
a place like Aycliffe some of them are trained educationally, some in the social services and some as nurses.
I repeat that we must make sure that somehow or other the social workers involved with these exceptionally vulnerable people are specially trained for the job. I have gone on rather longer than I expected, but I reach one practical conclusion: we need a national plan. I might add that I do not like the word "unit"; I hate the thought of anybody being sent to a "unit". People hate the phrase "approved school" because schools have a bad name too. We must find a suitable name for these places.
Somehow or other, if a system of this kind is to be brought into existence, it will depend on a national plan. It will not happen through incidental initiatives from local authorities. It will certainly not happen through some brilliant intuition of a Home Secretary who has reasons for wanting to take positive action. We must have a national plan. It will need a great deal of working out, but that is what we must have.
These sound like administrative questions but they are deeply human questions. That is how I approach them. I suppose that social workers generally, whether they are Christian or non-Christian and whether consciously or not, are committed to the message conveyed in Matthew: 25, where Jesus Christ said, "I was in prison and you came to me. In as much as you have done it to the least of these my brethren you did it to me". That is the spirit which animates social workers, Christian or non-Christian. However feebly, that is what animates me.
8.20 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. He has sat through a long debate for the whole afternoon. We are all grateful to him for being on the Front Bench for this important debate this evening. I am sure that those on these Benches and noble Lords on other Benches would wish to thank him.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, this debate on juvenile crime, initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, to whom we are indebted, asks Her Majesty's Government what proposals they have for the treatment of juvenile offenders. It is not clear in the Statement made by the Home Secretary on 2nd March 1993 whether he has put forward recommendations set in stone or whether they are proposals as a basis for consultation and discussion.
The Home Secretary stated:
"The courts will be provided with a new sentence, which for the present"
is this therefore a suggestion only or a policy?—
"I am calling a secure training order. The order will be available for 12 to 15 year-olds who have been convicted of three imprisonable offences and have proved unwilling or unable to comply with the requirements of supervision in the community while on remand or under sentence … The order might"—
the Statement did not say "must" or "may"—
"last for up to two years".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/3/93; col. 139.]
364
It is stated that the new secure training centres will be set up to provide high standards of care and discipline and opportunities for the juveniles to develop as individuals. It is further stated that the secure training orders will be different from anything that has been provided before. Does this apply to the order or to the type of secure training centre?
The Home Secretary went on to say that the Government had established a £10 million programme to help schools in 74 authorities to get to grips with the problem. It is not clear how this £10 million is to be spent. Is it to be spent on the secure training centres? Who is to administer such centres? Which are the 74 local authorities; and how were they chosen? Does this £10 million cover short-term, small local secure units, where a child's needs would be assessed and a plan made for greater co-operation with the parents? Does it cover the training of staff?
There are positive and commendable assertions in the Statement. The Statement says that parents should be involved in the responsibility for their children and that there must be a joint approach with the educational authorities, police, probation services and other agencies. On the assumption that the Home Secretary's Statement on 2nd March sought views and invited consultation, may I ask on what grounds the Home Secretary considers setting up secure training centres? These cannot be much different from the old approved schools where care, discipline, training and education were given.
Home Office Research Study No. 32 (1965–73) carried out at Kingswood Approved School, which was thought to have been the best of its type in the country, showed that in one house 70 per cent. of boys were reconvicted within two years, 69 per cent. in' a second house and 68 per cent. in a third house. In 1979 the University of Lancaster carried out research at Rochdale. It found that two-thirds of the boys from community homes with education were reconvicted within two years. In 1978 the Dartington research study headed Locking Up. Children showed high reconviction rates after discharge. Furthermore, the Department of Health and Social Security, as it then was, Research Report No. 5 (1979) also showed a high reconviction rate. The authors of the research wrote that,
"for the majority of boys the secure units"—
the approved schools—
"provide a brief sojourn in an expensive ante-room to the penal system".
I think it is accepted by us all that there must be local secure units where a child's individual needs may be assessed and a plan made for each individual child in co-operation with the parents. The children are all different. They are all individuals and their needs should be met individually and not by way of every child having two years and then being discharged.
What is going to be different in the composition of the secure training units? Should the country be spending £10 million on a scheme that has been proven to have failed by the Home Secretary's own department and other research units? On the assumption that the Home Secretary seeks the views of those whose work lies with juvenile crime, he must be aware that most young offenders can be best dealt

365
with in the community. In 1983 the Department of Health and Social Security made available £15 million to finance intensive supervised activity schemes for juvenile offenders who would otherwise have received custodial sentences or care orders. The research shows that only 15 per cent. of juveniles attending those projects appeared in court for further offences. Such programmes allowed the boys to live at home. Attendance at the community centre involves training, sport and counselling.
I could take noble Lords to many good centres; notably, in Hampshire, Kent and up and down the country. I visited one of these centres run by Barnardos. I met a boy who had a long history of juvenile crime. He was living at home and attending the centre. He was helped through clubs, various recreational activities and also work. He also received counselling. I asked him why he was no longer involved in crime, as he had been for so many years. He said to me:
"I receive counselling two days a week. My counsellor has asked me about my home. My father drinks. He knocks my mother about. We are all very unhappy at home so the only thing for me to do is to get out, commit crime and get myself away from home. Now that I have had counselling I understand how unhappy my mother must be and how difficult my father is. The counsellor has suggested to me that I might help my mother and bring her sometimes to the club".
The boy is no longer committing crime. That story is true of many other boys receiving counselling, support and help.
I was worried about the criminal justice legislation, approved schools and the fact that they were very expensive and achieving very little. Ten boys who had been in approved schools visited your Lordships' House. They came before a group of Peers, one of whom I believe was Lord Seebohm and another the noble Baroness, Lady Serota. Lord Seebohm asked a boy, "While in the approved school, were you happy?" The boy replied, "Well, it was good food and it was very comfortable". Lord Seebohm said, "What did you do when you came out?" The boy said, "I had learnt to pick a lock, I had learnt how to get out of a window and I had learnt to steal and not be caught. I was fit so that I could run away". That is what the approved school gave the boy. I suggest that it will be the same with the secure units which we understand are to be set up.
Furthermore, with community-based work parents are involved. Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 recommends that the welfare of the child is paramount, but responsibility for the children lies with their parents. If we make plans for children without the co-operation of the parents, we are cutting off one side of the child's life. Juveniles sent away to custodial care lose contact with parents, family and community. On discharge they are the children who become homeless. They are the children on our streets and a proportion of them take to drugs and prostitution and later become a cost to the state, usually within the penal system.
I am not putting forward these views personally; they are based on research done by the Salvation Army in co-operation with Reading University. I urge the Home Secretary to consider community-based projects rather than custodial care. Even juveniles who
366
commit crime need care, education and training. They also have feelings for their homes, their parents and their community. It is those feelings which are distorted and damaged and which have to be fostered and developed and certainly not repressed.
I believe profoundly in the setting up of secure units. I accept that we must have such units, but I believe that they should take the form of assessment centres. Each child should be assessed as to his or her particular needs and a plan made, as I said earlier, in co-operation with the parents. If a plan is made for that child to move out of the assessment centre (that is, the secure unit), it may be that when he goes into a community base and to his home, he should go back before the court to give an assurance that he is willing to conform to community care.
In schools children are disruptive, difficult and uncooperative. Under the new Education Act, as it will become, I wonder whether children could be assessed at an earlier age, because many of them show disruptive, unhappy and delinquent tendencies at quite an early age. If those children are dealt with by the social workers and the teachers at an earlier age, those children may be caught young and therefore not go into delinquency at a later stage.
There are vacancies in independent residential schools run by charities which give a splendid service where such children could be cared for. Perhaps it would be helpful if they were to have the £10 million. Saddest and perhaps most significant of all, family life is diminished. The Hesley Group is running a family group centre for a month in the summer where children at risk and their families are taken in. There is another such centre which is called Frimshurst.
A wide sweep of policies needs to be addressed. Juvenile crime cannot be dealt with by one set of people, and not by the Home Office or the Department of Health or the Department for Education alone; they must all work together. If they were to do so when the children are much younger, we may not wipe out juvenile crime but at least we should diminish it to a very great extent. I beg the Home Secretary to listen, hear and act accordingly.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, it often happens that when one has two such knowledgeable speakers earlier, much of what one wanted to say has been covered and in a better way than one can imagine oneself saying it. I find myself with many of the points that I considered making tonight in that situation. I also have a degree of sympathy for the noble Earl. Not only has he had to be here for almost the entire sitting but he also finds himself in a debate which touches on many departments beyond his own. As the noble Baroness has reminded us, the Department for Education is very much involved in this situation. If I remember the Statement correctly, on which we are holding this debate, the moral welfare of children and other types of education are involved.
As both previous speakers have said, nobody is denying that on occasions there will be a need for some restraint and custody for certain young people for the protection of society and of those people

367
themselves. But these will be comparatively few cases. Also, it is well documented that custody tends to lead to a much higher level of reoffending. The noble Baroness has spoken about the academies of crime. We have heard about them very often and the fact that young offenders and adults go into prison and all they learn is how to survive there. That often leads to the greater use of violence because prisons, even with the best will and effort in the world, tend to be more violent establishments than the world outside. Prisons also teach people how to become criminals because that is the subject which invariably such people have in common and it is all they can talk about.
Even the limited amount of work which I have done in prisons and young offender institutions has shown me that people share this culture in which they have to survive and so they become part of it. It is very difficult to rehabilitate someone inside that culture. Now and again one is occasionally able to help a person to rehabilitate himself, but one cannot rehabilitate him.
When dealing with the very young, surely we want to avoid that situation wherever possible. For instance, it has been pointed out to me that, if we are considering some form of custodial sentence of up to two years—once again I agree with the noble Baroness that we are not quite sure what that means, although the figure of two years has been mentioned—we are actually imposing a slightly higher level of custody than we are for 16 year-olds, who are limited to one year. That is what I have been informed.
In addition, we are not sure who is to be in charge of the new units or whatever they are to be called. The simple reason is that we are considering social security, health and education aspects which come into this matter in a very important way. Therefore, there is a series of questions being asked: what exactly are the criteria for people to be sent to the units? I understand it has to be three "sensible" convictions. As the noble Baroness said, there are no hard and fast rules here. Everything is flexible as we are dealing with individuals.
I could go on in this vein, but I feel that I shall be repeating not only what has been said but also to a great extent what will probably be said later on. However, I should like to draw attention to and put some new dimensions on two very important points which were raised earlier on. One appeared in the letter written by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and read out by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. It was also mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. It refers to the fact that inside the prison system we have very many people who have educational problems.
A considerable amount of study has been done recently into the number of people in prison who have dyslexia. It suggests that those who are failures educationally thus become failures in the workplace and resort to crime. This and other special needs situations means that, if people start to fail young, there is a very good chance that their educational failure will lead to a higher incidence of offences being committed. Indeed, special needs is probably the only area that we have not yet considered in relation to crime. I say all this almost from instinct and for the
368
simple reason that it is known that academic under-achievement tends to lead to bad behaviour. Virtually all teachers say that the least able pupil in the class is the one who is paying the least attention because he is getting the least out of the lesson.
If we are to try to avoid the problem of juvenile crime, we must address the problems which cause it. That means that we must invest in dealing with those problems. We must not merely lock those youngsters away, because in doing so we are locking them into what effectively becomes a pressure cooker environment or, ultimately, an academy of crime. That is what we have created whenever we have placed people in custodial situations, no matter how hard we have tried.
We must address the problems that arise when people are placed in custody. We cannot teach moral and spiritual values in places where people are denied even a degree of self-discipline and control because somebody else is imposing it upon them to a greater extent than would be the case in even a strict family regime. I suggest that everybody concerned looks very long and hard at any idea that suggests that we should lock more people away, especially when they are young.
8.41 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, perhaps I may first pay tribute, as other noble Lords have done before me, to my noble friend Lord Longford, who is tireless in his work on behalf of those in trouble. He should know that his humanity is widely recognised and admired by those of us who come into contact with offenders in the course of our work. I am particularly grateful that he has tabled this Unstarred Question, not least because I hope that it will provide the noble Earl the Minister (who is, I know, also greatly concerned to reduce crime and to whose stamina in this Chamber I should like to pay tribute, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has already done) with an opportunity to improve upon the Statement made by the Secretary of State on 2nd March, which I am afraid simply will not do.
I know that I am not alone in feeling that that Statement was profoundly pessimistic and depressing. Effectively, it contained no hope. There was no attempt in it at any new initiative or even encouragement to those who believe, as I do and as other speakers before me have indicated that they believe, that steps can and should be taken to discourage young people from becoming offenders in the first place or later from offending again. There was no apparent insight in that Statement into the causes of juvenile crime or even the will or intention to try to discover or to tackle them. Despite the wording of the Statement, it contained no new proposals, no new thinking and no hope.
To my noble friend Lord Longford, who has been in this House rather longer than I have, it must have seemed that we were coming around full circle and back to the old approved schools. The distilled essence of that Statement, cutting away the verbiage, was that

369
all that this Government propose to do, it seems, is to lock up those who have already run through the system and become a public menace.
The Secretary of State's proposal was, I fear, made as a hasty response to then recent sensational press coverage of a small number of crimes which involved (or appeared to involve) young people. Now that some time has elapsed, I hope that in his response tonight the Minister will be able to be both more optimistic and more constructive than his colleague in another place was back in March.
The proposal for a secure training order for 12 to 15 year-olds is, I believe, misconceived. Further, I believe that it is likely actually to increase juvenile crime rather than reduce it. There are, I accept as others before me have done, a small number of 10 to 15 year-olds who will need to be detained. A figure of about 200 has been mentioned, but no one knows for certain. There are adequate powers to detain already—and in a variety of ways. Those under 14 can be placed in secure accommodation up to the age of 14 under a supervision order with a condition of residence in a secure unit, if need be. Those of 14 and above can be placed in secure accommodation under Section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act. The powers are there for the courts if they choose to use them and are able to use them, but the facilities are often not there—at any rate not in the locality of the court.
Two years ago the Government made a promise that 65 further secure places would be provided. They have not been provided as yet. When the Minister replies, can he say whether it is still the intention of the Government to provide those 65 further secure places, and could he be good enough to give us an indication of the cost of such secure accommodation as compared with the cost of the proposed secure training order, for which a sum in the order of £2,000 per week per child has been suggested?
The existing secure units can be first-rate. Although my experience of them is rather less than that of the noble Lords and the noble Baroness who have already spoken, I hope that your Lordships will permit me to give a single recent example from my personal experience. It relates to a boy of 15 charged with rape. His mother was a single parent. There was no close male relative. Despite her very considerable efforts, she had been unable to prevent him from mixing with contemporaries in the area in which they lived who had bad records and who led him, via a history of truancy, into committing minor offences, until ultimately he was present and played a role (albeit minor) when others attacked a young girl. He was remanded into secure accommodation provided by the local authority where I visited him prior to his trial. There he had the good fortune to come under the care of a social worker who recognised him as a basically decent youngster. That social worker spent a considerable amount of time both with the boy and with his mother. He befriended the boy and helped the mother to obtain alternative accommodation. He accompanied the boy to his trial, stood with him and was present and helped him throughout that period.
370
Even out of his own money he bought the boy a jacket so that he could appear in court looking smartly dressed.
After the boy's conviction and sentence, and after his release, the social worker continued to provide the male guidance which had been lacking, it seemed, throughout the boy's life. Only time will now tell if he reoffends. He was detained in secure accommodation where he was treated in a way that was based on care rather than punishment, which is surely the appropriate procedure in relation to someone of 15 who is, after all, only a child. I am in no doubt that that young man's chance of avoiding reoffending was greatly enhanced by his experiences in that unit.
Young offender institutions, whatever their intentions and whatever the quality of the staff within them (which may be of the highest), cannot produce that sort of individual care. Following that example, it came as no surprise to me to learn that the research that was carried out by the Home Office last year found that secure accommodation was more effective in reducing recidivism and in reintegrating children into the community than young offender institutions.
The proposed secure training order is effectively the approved school order rechristened. But approved schools did not work. That is why they were scrapped. Indeed, research back in the 1970s, of which I have no doubt the Minister is well aware, indicated that those who were graduates of approved schools were about 49 per cent. more likely to re-offend than those treated differently. Those of us who appear in the courts—this is something to which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, referred—see day after day the antecedents of offenders which show the classic pattern of approved school, detention centre, Borstal and then on to prison as adults.
The Government's proposal goes backwards. It may well be more expensive, in any event, than providing extra secure places. I hope that the Minister will tell us. There will be a substantial delay before it can be implemented. Large capital expenditure would be needed before it could take place. It is likely to be less effective in preventing further crime and, it is fair to say—I do not believe that this is an exaggeration—that it returns to an approach which was tried and tested and which failed.
The powers to detain exist. What is needed is extra secure places in some areas. I urge the Minister to be constructive in his reply. I shall try to be so myself in what I say now. We need to try to identify those who go on to offend before they do so. It is clear that in many cases offending is related to family disturbance. If an illustration of that were needed, it is provided most graphically by the figures for the 10,000 or so 16 to 18 year-olds who leave care each year. Of those in young offender institutions, 38 per cent. have a care background, and 23 per cent. of those in adult prisons have been in care at some time.
Teachers tell me that they can spot potential offenders when they are young. Indeed, those of us who have small children come to know from them which children disrupt the class, or even the play-school class, at a very early age. Identifying those

371
at risk of being the juvenile offenders of the future and heading them off is what the Government's prime task should be. It should not be just to deal with the effects.
What is needed is a true, comprehensive crime strategy, not just the paying of lip service to such a strategy, as we read and heard in the Statement. It must be implemented at a local level. As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said, it must involve not just the police, but parents, schools, social services, voluntary organisations and charities in a wide variety of different ways, ranging through merely befriending children in need, counselling them, providing them with activities and giving the help which may not be available within the family. The strategy must aim at picking up the problems which are the key to the offending which may come later—behavioural problems, lack of parental control, family breakdown, inadequacy and truancy—and giving help to those people at home, at school and, above all, in the community. We should not wait until the police become involved.
We need money to be directed to schools, not merely on the basis of pupil numbers, but specifically to those in disadvantaged areas so that parental care can be supplemented where necessary. To take one example, schools could be used by teachers and by others in the community outside school hours. There are many ways in which the estimated £2,000 per child per week that the secure training scheme will cost could be used to help. In many cases that would result in preventing crimes occurring later.
I said that the Statement was a depressing one. So much could have been said in that Statement and so little was said. So little is apparently to be done when so much needs to be done. Having heard similar views and criticisms of the Statement from all sides of the House, I hope that when he replies the Minister will feel that he can give us some cause for the optimism which was notably lacking from the Statement made by his colleague in another place back in March.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, as the last speaker and the least expert of all those who have gone before, I shall be brief. I thank my noble friend Lord Longford for allowing us to discuss the issue. Various false notions persist, and this proposal is a good example of that, as other speakers have already pointed out. One false notion is that the hard, tough, violent response to crime is more likely to cure a criminal or prevent a criminal returning to crime. It seems that labelling people as offenders early and putting them into prison is a good response. People argue that the soft strategy of trying to reform, paying a great deal of attention to the social, educational and parental background is somehow mollycoddling or indulging the person and will not cure the problem.
We have heard today that the more painstaking, slow and so-called soft, careful approach, which builds upon the community and parental background and uses schools, local authorities, probation officers, charities and so forth, is not merely likely to be more effective in preventing the person from reoffending
372
but, if someone took care to examine the costs of the two rival approaches, they would find that that so-called soft approach may be cheaper in the short term but will definitely be cheaper in the long term. Once one labels someone at an early age—we are talking about 12, 13, 14 or 15—that person has been landed with a criminal character for a lifetime; and that person causes a great deal of damage, financial and otherwise to society. We know that they will reoffend.
That small boy of two was killed because we had had a complete failure of leadership on all sides. No one stood up and said, "Hang on, yes, it was a heinous crime. By some accident it was committed by very young boys, but that does not lead us to throw away everything we have learnt about the nature of crime and the way to approach it. That failure of leadership is what led to the Statement of 2nd March. We are looking forward to hearing about a correction of that failure from the Minister.
8.58 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I believe that it has been agreed by all speakers and most commentators on the not very well received Statement of March, that there is a need for secure units for a limited number of people. Where the disagreement starts, which is soon after the beginning of the discussion, is when we talk about what those secure units should be. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said tonight, as she said when the Statement was made in your Lordships' House, that there are suitable places available in independent institutions and also in local authority institutions which could be used for this purpose and which have a good record of dealing with youngsters of this kind.
I had the opportunity to discuss this issue with two senior magistrates only the day before yesterday. They were of the same view as the noble Baroness and gave the impression that that was a view widely held among the magistracy. However, they said that they thought that there were not enough of those places in independent institutions. If there are not enough places but they are the right places, surely it is more sensible to add to existing accommodation rather than to embark upon new building and a new scheme altogether.
The one good thing about the Statement is that it recognises that a great deal of money must be I committed to solving the problem. Noble Lords this evening have already produced a number of ways in which that money would be better spent in order to achieve the objectives which the Secretary of State wishes to achieve. Therefore, we do not start by being told that it is no good making suggestions because there is no money and therefore nothing can be done about the problem. The money is there and we are putting forward ways in which we believe that that money can be put to better use.
I believe that it is agreed also that, although there is a great deal of juvenile crime, only a very small number of youngsters are seriously and deeply into crime at an early stage. I understand that the people dealing with those problems recognise that that is the

373
position. The numbers are not large and, to a large extent, it is known who are the people involved. We are not dealing with a vast number of people.
We talk about juvenile crime as though every offender were of the same order. That is wildly different from the truth. There are a small number of serious persistent offenders and there are a large number who get into trouble from time to time, who do not do anything desperately serious and who grow out of it. As one of my colleagues on the criminal Bench says, the thing to do to get rid of crime is to encourage people to grow old, because they drop it. We cannot do much about that, although your Lordships' House is rather good at it.
I wish to make the point that, since we know that there are not large numbers involved and since we recognise that money must be spent on solving the problem, the Secretary of State should be encouraged to re think how best to use that money. I speak now as chairman of the Apex Trust, which many of your Lordships have helped in the past. That trust is concerned with obtaining jobs for ex-offenders and very largely they are young ex-offenders, because a high proportion of ex-offenders are young. The Apex Trust has found that a youngster who has offended repeatedly as a child and a very young person is extraordinarily difficult to place. By the time such youngsters reach the Apex Trust, they are, except in a few fortunate cases, beyond what such an organisation is able to do for them. I suspect that that is the experience of any organisation which is attempting to deal with youngsters of that kind.
As young people grow older with long records of delinquency and offences, repeatedly serving prison sentences, they are an enormous burden not only to themselves but also to society. They will certainly cost society a great deal of money. Money spent on preventing that delinquency would pay one thousand fold—that may be a slight exaggeration but it would pay over and over again—compared with the cost to society if those people become perpetual offenders, constantly in and out of penal institutions. Therefore, if the Government will take a slightly longer-term view, they will see that that expenditure is not only intelligent and humane but it is also, in a hard-headed sense, the most economic step to take. We must plough in the money at an early stage to see that delinquency does not develop and, if it does, a great deal of trouble must be taken to deal with it.
I should like to say one or two things about how that money should be used. I suppose that we all remember the phrase, "give me a child until he is seven". As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, we are told by teachers that they can recognise very early on the children who are likely to turn into offenders. Not so long ago—and I hope it still happens in some cases but I am sure that it now happens to a much smaller extent—infant and primary schools were able to employ additional staff in order to help with children who were showing behavioural problems. If you can win the children round at that stage and head them off from the delinquent tendencies which they are already showing, you may avoid the problems which will otherwise develop.
374
One difficulty that we recognise is that that means collaboration between government departments. I believe that government departments are downright delinquent in the way they refuse to collaborate. We shall not solve this problem without collaboration between education and health departments and the Home Office working together. We must start to plough some of the money into schools so that extra help will be available to deal with these youngsters.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said and as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, illustrated, when you are dealing with delinquent youngsters in trouble, it is almost certain that personal contact and personal links will make all the difference. Those links can be established only if there is a good teacher, a good social worker, or, if the youngsters are lucky enough, a good friend who is able to give the time, the guidance and help to encourage at a point in time at which that help is most urgently needed. Personal attention by skilled people is needed so that a young delinquent can understand the nature of, and reason for, what he is doing. That is hard personal casework which is time consuming and expensive. However, again and again, it shows results.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, gave one illustration and I shall give another. I know a family which is always in and out of trouble in one way or another. One child was constantly being picked up at school for stealing. On one occasion he was picked up at school with £80 which plainly did not belong to him. He was sent to an institution where there was a very high staffing ratio. One of the teachers there discovered that the boy was good at football and was able to build up his self-esteem and confidence by starting with the appreciation of his skill at the game. That boy, unlike the rest of the family, completed his training to be a carpenter and has never been out of a job. It all started, after the schools had failed, when someone in an institution with a high staffing ratio had the time and, having the skill, the training and the knowledge, was able successfully to turn the boy just at the point at which there was a chance of doing so.
It cannot be just chance that at least three speakers have been able to produce examples of that kind. I think that one would be hard put to produce similar examples resulting from locking people up in approved schools. Moreover, that is also very expensive. Therefore, money spent now on the right treatment, instead of spending much money on the wrong treatment, is surely one of the best ways to tackle the problem. I only wish that the Secretary of State would take the matter back and think again about the reallocation of resources and the collaboration between departments.
I have one further comment to make which may be quite beside the point. It relates to the serious offenders about whom we have talked. I detest organised games; indeed, I spent a great deal of time in my youth successfully avoiding them. But, having had three brothers, I am also aware of the enormous amount of aggression that the young male has to get rid of somehow or other. That is a very common experience and I believe—dare I say it?—that there is quite a considerable sex difference involved. I do not

375
believe that women have quite the same amount of aggression that we have to get out of our system compared to a young male.
I believe it is absolutely deplorable that so many city schools have such totally inadequate playing facilities. The opportunity to give youngsters the chance to knock things about within a legal framework has been taken away from them. If they cannot knock things about in a legal framework, then they will do so in an illegal framework. If some money could go into providing better opportunities for hard, physical, rough games which would exhaust the youngsters and get the aggression out of them, we might solve a great proportion of these troubles.
9.10 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Longford is the latest and one of the most humane and civilised in a long line of people in this country who have been concerned with young offenders. We must be grateful to him for the initiative that he has taken this evening in raising the matter in your Lordships' House. The history of our treatment of young offenders is not a happy one. Without going any further back, 150 years ago the Australians refused to take any more transported people; that is, both young and old. So we had to build many more prisons where, quite rightly, the emphasis was that so far as possible children should be kept separate from adults. That developed into a system of reformatories many of which, incidentally—if not all—were privately run. Can the Minister say what is the likely gap between the establishment of the secure training units and their privatisation? As I said, many of them were privately run and by 1900 there were no fewer than 22,000 young people in such privately-run reformatories. It is a horrible thought that that was deemed to be necessary at the time.
In the 1920s we had the setting up of the borstals which were supposed to be a more civilised form of custody than the reformatories. Under the great Alexander Paterson, there was an attempt to civilise them further by making them more like public schools. Personally, that thought fills me with dread, but clearly it was thought to do some good. Then, as has been said, we had the approved school experience. All those experiences have surely shown that keeping children in custody away from their families and parents does not actually work.
We then come to 2nd March, or perhaps we should start a few weeks before, because in January there was the horrible murder of James Bulger in Bootle. Without any change whatever in the law, the immediate effect was that more magistrates and judges were giving custodial sentences to children. It is an astonishing state where magistrates and judges have the ability to choose the kind of sentence that they will give and where, because of the panic that followed the murder of James Bulger, so many more in fact chose to respond by giving custodial sentences.
I rather fear that the reaction of the Home Secretary when he made his Statement on 2nd March was very much the same. I believe that it was a panic
376
reaction to a perceived problem which does not actually exist. All the evidence available shows that not only is juvenile crime not increasing, but also that the hard core of juvenile crime—which is what the Statement was supposed to be about—does not appear to be increasing. We must be cautious in that respect. Clearly there is an element of what the National Association of Senior Probation Officers call "diversion"; in other words, the increasing tendency for the police to give cautions to young people rather than to take them into the criminal justice system. If that results in less reoffending, that is a good thing. If it is caused by a lack of resources of the police and of the criminal justice system to enable them to deal with young people, clearly it is something we must consider with much greater scepticism.
However, the evidence is that, compared with detention for young people, cautions work. My noble friend Lady Mallalieu pointed out that the figures for recidivism among graduates of approved schools were 49 per cent. higher than among those who had been treated differently. Some 87 per cent. of those who have been cautioned do not reoffend within the next two years. That is a remarkable achievement. It requires a great deal more research to discover under what circumstances cautions can be used instead of bringing young people into the criminal justice system.
The conclusion reached on 4th and 5th March at a conference organised by Action on Youth Crime at Cumberland Lodge—the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful, and my noble friends Lady Hilton and Lord Henderson of Brompton were present at that conference—was that if we need anything it is improved standards and more comprehensive provision in existing institutions. We need to use existing methods in existing institutions rather than set up new institutions, new offences and new secure units. That is the conclusion that I draw from all the speeches we have heard tonight. I do not believe anyone has spoken of the justification for new secure units. Those at the conference also reached that conclusion.
At the time of the Statement on 2nd March it was pointed out that what is needed are more resources for local authorities to provide a youth service, to reduce exclusions from schools and to provide nursery places. It is well known that all those factors are heavily associated with lower levels of offences among young people. It is also well known that crime among young people and older people is heavily associated with poverty, bad housing, a poor environment, family break-up, difficult family problems and aversion to and exclusion from education. I do not say that crime is caused by those factors—I will not get caught in that trap—but I insist that unless we deal with those social problems our chances of reducing crime among young people and adults are severely reduced.
It has been made clear in this debate that what is being proposed by the Government is an extreme solution. It is an expensive, small-scale and long-delayed solution. It will be a long-delayed solution because it will require legislation. It is a solution that applies to a small number of people. What has been suggested by almost every speaker tonight is that there are alternatives which the

377
Government should be considering. I agree with what has been said and I wish to spell out what we consider to be the right approach to this problem.
I have already said that cautions work. We should study the conditions under which cautions can be made to work better. We must improve the way in which we deal with young people who are on bail or on remand because one of the most significant problems as regards offences among young people is the number of offences that are committed when they are on bail. We need a better bail support and enforcement programme. We need, where necessary, to get these young people away from damaging home environments and therefore we need better provision for fostering for young people on remand. We need much closer supervision of young people who are on bail.
We also need something it does not matter what it is called that is comparable to a reparation order. That might be quite limited. It might only have to last for three months. Under such a scheme the young person would not just perform community service. He or she—I believe young women are involved in this matter despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said would be required to make reparation to the victim.
While that is taking place I suggest that we need to give greater support to the families of these young persons and to their parents. We need to concentrate on the young persons' education needs, as often an aversion to school, a failure at school or truancy from school are associated with offending. We need to provide leisure activities to occupy these young persons' time; if necessary, away from young people of the same age. Only as a last resort should we impose custodial sentences. Only as a last resort of that should we impose custodial sentences in new institutions because I am simply not convinced that supervision orders for under-14s, with a residential requirement, are not adequate for the purpose. There is special provision for those who are accused, or are convicted of, homicide. There is certainly perfectly good provision for those aged 14 and over who come within the age group the Home Secretary has been concerned with.
The setting up of secure accommodation in perhaps five centres throughout the country under the central direction of the Home Office rather than local authorities and the Department of Health is the last thing that we should want. Inevitably, those institutions will be remote from the young person's home and young people will be cut off from their families. Even though the centres are called "training institutions"—and perhaps significantly because they are called "training institutions"—there will be a break in any educational development. All the evidence has shown—I do not need to go back further than the 150 years I have already gone—that locking up young people in such institutions will result in more people, in the phrase of the Dartington Social Trust, moving into the ante-room of the criminal justice system.
378
I do not accuse anyone in the Home Office, Ministers or officials, of bad faith in this matter but I sincerely suggest that they may be mistaken.
9.21 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for raising the important issue of juvenile offenders and how best to respond to the problems which they cause. It certainly has been a most interesting debate, as often happens in your Lordships' House, in particular late in the evening. The debate has been complemented by the participants having a knowledge of an intricate and important subject.
The noble Earl's Question refers to the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary outlining a programme of measures aimed at alleviating some of the worst aspects of crime caused by juveniles. One of the main proposals is the new sentence which is provisionally called a "secure training order". That is designed for 12 to 15 year-olds who repeatedly offend and who have shown that they will not comply with community supervision.
During the past few years great efforts have been made to divert young people away from custody. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that cautioning works. I agree that it does and that it has been effective. The new guidance which is being issued to police forces will improve still further the process of cautioning. But it is precisely the success of cautioning and of other community-based responses to crime which has revealed a small hardcore of potential and persistent juvenile offenders who do not stop offending despite being cautioned or being given supervision orders. Police cautioning has proved to be an effective way of responding to minor crime. Less than 15 per cent. of those who were cautioned in 1985 were convicted again within two years. Supervision in the community has proved to be an effective method, and in some cases a good deal more effective than custody, of reducing reoffending. Those efforts have been successful for the large majority of young offenders.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to the Apex Trust. I recognise the importance of trying to find offenders jobs when they have left custody. I agree that the Apex Trust offers a wide range of employment support to offenders. I am glad to say that the Home Office has funded the trust to the tune of £320,000 per year, which is a considerable sum of money. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that that is a recognition of the work which is done.
Many noble Lords referred to the regrettable fact that imprisonment can be an expensive way of making bad people worse. That of course applies equally to young offenders as to older ones. But for young people the removal from their home, their family, their school or even their work can have a particularly damaging effect, as many noble Lords have said. The Government have therefore tried to extend and to strengthen the range of community sentences which are available for young people.
The noble Baroness said that there should be collaboration among government departments. I

379
agree that that is vital. In the Statement of 2nd March which my right honourable friend made, he announced initiatives by the Home Office, the Department of Health and the Department for Education, and that joint approach to juvenile offenders is continuing through a series of meetings at both ministerial and official levels.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, was also concerned about the joint approach to juvenile crime. I can tell her that the 24 criminal justice area liaison committees are already helping to develop that joint strategy. A circular called Young People and the Youth Court has been sent to relevant agencies on the operation of the youth court. That has already encouraged the police, probation and social services to work together to prepare for the youth court. It is important that those organisations and departments should work together.
Since October of last year the full range of community orders—probation orders, supervision orders and the new combination order which combines probation and community service—has been available for 16 and 17 year-olds. National standards have also been introduced for those orders. They include tough enforcement provisions if offenders fail to comply with the order.
The Criminal Justice Act 1991 has introduced new measures which will involve parents taking some responsibility for their children when they offend. However, there is a particular problem which relates to a small minority of juvenile offenders. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred to a decline in juvenile crime. The statistics are notoriously difficult. The discrepancy is partly explained by differences between the number of offenders and the number of offences. While the number of known offenders may have gone down, each known offender has on average committed more offences per caution or conviction.
Over the past 12 months the Government have been looking very closely at the problems which are caused by the small hard core of young criminals who commit a disproportionately large number of crimes. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that there is no evidence of the need for that and that no one can see any justification for those orders. That may be the view of the noble Lord, but it is not everyone's view.
Those young people have shown themselves to be beyond the influence of the existing systems of child care and of criminal justice. They have shown themselves to have exhausted the ability and the resources of the community—and its ability to deal with reaction to crime. They are children who consistently play truant, who run away from their homes and who constantly continue to commit crimes. It is, of course, right that the Government and all those who deal with young people should do their utmost to bring up the young properly: to educate them; to cultivate their minds; to teach them to know what is right and what is wrong; and to understand the difference; and, where they go off the rails, to try to get them back on again with the least permanent damage.
380
However, one has to accept that for some young people in the community that approach does not work.
Whenever I have been around the country and visited places where there have been disturbances, such as the Meadowell Estate in Newcastle, South Wales or Bristol and other places, I have invariably been told that there are a number of young people—sometimes 20, sometimes 12 and sometimes more—who are known to the police, who are known to be destructive and who ruin the lives of everyone else on the estates.
On many occasions those are young people—sometimes very young—for whom the law has so far had little impact and who hold it in no respect. My noble friend Lady Faithfull said that those young people ought to be rehabilitated within the community. She gave an example of a boy who was counselled and who gave up crime. That was an excellent example. I agree with her that counselling does a great deal of good, and I am glad that it worked. But I am also glad that my noble friend the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and even the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, agreed—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Earl says "even".
Earl Ferrers: Yes, I say "even" because the noble Lord contradicted himself. They agreed that there was a place for secure units. The noble Viscount, Lord Addington, made an impressive speech and spoke with feeling.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for the promotion.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord said that custody leads to reoffending and therefore, by inference, that custody was bad. It is for those people that the secure training order has been devised. They have been given every chance and they have rejected it. For the people in the community whose lives have continued to be ruined by the young people, I think that the only course is to hook them out in order to give others a more peaceful life. It is for them that the secure training order has been devised.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull was worried about parental involvement in the secure training centres. Of course, they will be flexible and will assess the trainees as individuals and establish a care plan in conjunction, where possible, with the parents and the training supervising officer. We accept the need to draw in parents and involve them, where possible.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, does not like the word "units" and I do not blame him, but I am not sure that "institutions" is much better. Nevertheless, perhaps we may call them that for the time being.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I should not like them to be called "institutions" either.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is what I was saying. Let us not get involved in semantics but accept the expression for the moment. If the youngsters can be improved, so be it. However, I believe that the prime purpose of putting those young people into secure

381
institutions must be realised to be for the benefit of the community from which they have come. Then we must try to improve them. It is in that order. Those children need to be provided with a place where they can be kept in security. They will be given education; they will be given care. And it is to be hoped that they will emerge better and more law-abiding citizens at the end.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said that custodial institutions for juveniles of that age group have in the past failed and that youngsters who have left borstals and approved schools have in general only increased their rates of re-offending. In many cases, that has been so. My noble friend Lady Faithful] referred to the failure of the approved schools. However, in developing the secure training order, we shall be drawing on the lessons of past experience. The approved schools catered for a wide range of children in large numbers: they failed to ensure that the children were supervised when they returned to their home community. The secure training centres will not repeat those omissions.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred to the drawbacks of custodial institutions. I recognise that institutions can, as they say, be universities of crime. But the secure training centres will aim to prevent that by developing good, positive relationships between staff and the juvenile offenders and by having much smaller numbers of juveniles than was the case in the borstals and approved schools. The noble Lord was also worried about the culture in the secure training centres. The staff in the centres will strive to ensure that a criminal culture does not take hold. In a programme of care, education and discipline, offending behaviour will he tackled.
We hope that the failure of approved schools and borstals in the past will not be repeated this time, but we cannot be too starry-eyed. Some of those young people, for whatever reason, have shown themselves to be bad. We may not succeed in reforming them, but we have to try.
How will the institutions work? First, they will be limited to those children who genuinely need to be contained. Courts will only be able to make an order where statutory criteria are met. Secondly, the regime in the new secure facilities will concentrate on tackling offending behaviour. Many of the successful community programmes which have been developed in recent years have included techniques designed to confront offenders with the consequences of what they have done and make them realise the consequences, both for themselves and for society, of their continued bad behaviour.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, was worried that those people would be labelled as criminals if they were sent to a secure training centre. To qualify for a secure training order, the young person will already have been convicted of three imprisonable offences and will have proved unwilling or unable to comply with a supervision order. So he will have got into that position of his own volition.
One of the drawbacks of the existing secure accommodation for juvenile offenders is that it caters
382
for a wide range of youngsters with a variety of problems. Some are related to offending. Others are not. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said that more secure accommodation was needed. But in the Statement on 2nd March it was said that regulations under the Children Act will be amended to allow private and voluntary sectors to provide secure accommodation.
The noble Baroness was also concerned about the extra 60 to 65 places in local authority accommodation. Those places are designed to end the remanding of 15 and 16 year-olds to prison. Plans for the extra accommodation are well advanced and the places are expected to be available in 1995.
In addition, the noble Baroness was concerned about the existing powers. Local authorities, and not the courts, have the responsibility of deciding whether a juvenile under 15 needs to be held in secure accommodation. The local authorities will be reminded of that responsibility. Section 53 of the 1933 Children and Young Persons Act allows the courts to detain only those 10 to 13 year-olds who are convicted of murder or manslaughter. The secure training order is designed to allow courts to deal with the persistent offender committing less grave crimes. The new orders will be served in places which are designed to deal with offending and also designed to deal with how to avoid it.
Then there is greater emphasis on what is termed "through care" or "aftercare". The period in security is only the beginning of the sentence. A later period of supervision when they are released will provide a bridge back to the community in which the youngsters will have returned to live. This is an area which previous custodial orders have not always addressed. My right honourable friend's Statement set out a number of other measures which are designed to prevent children from committing crime and for dealing better with those who do.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, concentrated in his remarks upon the new secure training order. He suggested that, in the words of The Times newspaper, the best thing for the Government to do would be,
"to cast about for ideas from the public".
We are casting about for new ideas. No government—and certainly not this Government—can be sufficiently arrogant as to consider that they have a monopoly either of ideas or of innovation.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull was concerned about the expenditure of £10 million by the Department for Education. She asked whether we should be spending that on a scheme known to have failed. I tell my noble friend that the money has nothing to do with the secure training order. The £10 million is to help schools to tackle truancy.
We are discussing with interested individuals and organisations how best to put this new policy into practice. We have distributed copies of my right honourable friend's Statement widely, and we have invited comments from more than criminal justice and social work organisations. The replies from experts, interested parties and the public will play an important part in ensuring that the new order is as

383
effective as possible in dealing with the small group of juveniles for whom other methods simply have not worked.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, raised a number of important questions to which the Government are still giving consideration. The precise number of places which are to be made available and their location has yet to be determined.
The answer to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is that we intend that a variety of organisations from the public, the voluntary sector and the private sector will be able to provide the new places which will be required. But, of course, they must all meet the standards which are set by the Government.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, referred to costs. I am bound to tell her that I cannot at present tell her what the cost is for places in secure training centres as we are still consulting interested parties on the likely content of the work which they will undertake.
We are still working out the likely specification for the new places. This is one of the areas about which we are particularly interested to hear from those who have experience, expertise or views and who can suggest the sort of regime which is likely to be the most effective.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, wanted to know which department was going to be responsible. He said that he hoped that my right honourable friend's reputation would not depend upon it being in the Home Office. He told me the answers that he did not want me to give. I do not know whether I will give him the answer that he would like me to give him, but I can tell him that—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, would the noble Earl be good enough to repeat his last remarks?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was reminding the noble Earl of what he said. He said that he wanted to know which department was to be responsible. He said that he hoped the reputation of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary would not depend upon it being the Home Office. I can assure him that my right honourable friend's reputation will not depend on such an important decision. He takes many such decisions.
The noble Earl also told me the answers that he did not want me to give. I said that I would give him the answer that I wanted to give him and I hoped that it would meet with his approval. He suggested that the
384
new places should be overseen by the Department of Health and that those places should form part of a national network of secure accommodation.
We have established an interdepartmental working group, which includes representatives from the Home Office, the Department of Health, the Department for Education and other government departments. The noble Earl will be delighted to know that it is chaired by a senior Home Office official.
It is envisaged that the order will be a sentence of a court in criminal proceedings. The Home Office must, therefore, have responsibility for ensuring that places are available in which those sentences can be served. The new places may have some similarities to existing secure units, and they will certainly seek to provide high levels of care, discipline and education.
The Department of Health's social services inspectorate will play a part in ensuring that the standards are high. But the fact that all the youngsters in the new places will be persistent juvenile offenders—offenders who are serving a sentence of the court—makes it eminently sensible for the Home Office to be primarily responsible for them.
The proposed new order will require primary legislation and, in due course, your Lordships will have the opportunity to discuss in detail the criteria for the new sentence and how it will work in practice. As my right honourable friend said in his statement on 2nd March, we have not come forward lightly with proposals which have the serious effect of depriving children of their liberty and of removing them from their families. But we have to take account of the quite unacceptable and intolerable effect which constant criminal behaviour by some juveniles has had on the rest of the community of which they form a part. In school-boy language, "it is not fair" on the rest of the community that their lives should be ruined by selfish youths who have a total disregard both for the law and for others.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, is quite right in saying that we have a moral duty to ensure that the children who become subject to this new order should be dealt with in a way which tries to enable them to become law abiding adults. It will not be easy. But we must certainly try.

Pensions Schemes Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills with amendments.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before ten o'clock.

  SUBSIDIARITY
  SUBSIDIARITY
  MAASTRICHT TREATY: FUNCTIONS OF UNION
  MAASTRICHT TREATY: FUNCTIONS OF UNION
  MAASTRICHT TREATY
  MAASTRICHT TREATY
  ALBANIA: AID FOR PRISON SYSTEM REFORM
  ALBANIA: AID FOR PRISON SYSTEM REFORM
  WORLD WAR II: THE JAPANESE ARMY AND "COMFORT WOMEN"
  WORLD WAR II: THE JAPANESE ARMY AND "COMFORT WOMEN"
  FORMER YUGOSLAVIA: CEASEFIRES
  FORMER YUGOSLAVIA: CEASEFIRES
  HYDROGRAPHIC OFFICE DEFENCE SUPPORT AGENCY
  HYDROGRAPHIC OFFICE DEFENCE SUPPORT AGENCY
  DEFENCE POSTAL AND COURIER SERVICE
  DEFENCE POSTAL AND COURIER SERVICE
  THE ROYAL PALACES: FIRE PROTECTION
  THE ROYAL PALACES: FIRE PROTECTION
  CHANNEL TUNNEL RAIL LINK HIGH LEVEL FORUM: PAPERS
  CHANNEL TUNNEL RAIL LINK HIGH LEVEL FORUM: PAPERS
  A.9 PERTH TO INVERNESS ROAD: DEVELOPMENT
  A.9 PERTH TO INVERNESS ROAD: DEVELOPMENT
  CALEDONIAN PINE FORESTS: REGENERATION INCENTIVES
  CALEDONIAN PINE FORESTS: REGENERATION INCENTIVES
  GCSE RELIGIOUS STUDIES COURSES
  GCSE RELIGIOUS STUDIES COURSES
  IALS SCHEME: MERIONETHSHIRE MAPPING
  IALS SCHEME: MERIONETHSHIRE MAPPING
  SPEY SWEEP NETS: CATCH TOTALS
  SPEY SWEEP NETS: CATCH TOTALS
  PENSIONS: PAYMENTS TO BANK OR BUILDING SOCIETY
  PENSIONS: PAYMENTS TO BANK OR BUILDING SOCIETY
  NHS HOSPITALS: SECURITY
  NHS HOSPITALS: SECURITY
  WESTMINSTER HOSPITAL SITE: FUTURE
  WESTMINSTER HOSPITAL SITE: FUTURE
  ALLITT CASE: INQUIRY
  ALLITT CASE: INQUIRY
  ALLITT CASE: INSTRUCTIONS TO HOSPITAL STAFF
  ALLITT CASE: INSTRUCTIONS TO HOSPITAL STAFF
  SLUG BAIT
  SLUG BAIT
  IACS FORMS: CORRECTION OF ERRORS
  IACS FORMS: CORRECTION OF ERRORS
  IACS FORMS: COMPLETION PERIOD
  IACS FORMS: COMPLETION PERIOD
  DANGEROUS DOGS ACT 1991: REVIEW
  DANGEROUS DOGS ACT 1991: REVIEW
  PRISON IMPROVEMENT EXPENDITURE: CASH LIMIT
  PRISON IMPROVEMENT EXPENDITURE: CASH LIMIT
  WAR CRIMES INVESTIGATIONS
  WAR CRIMES INVESTIGATIONS
  BREATH TEST REFUSAL
  BREATH TEST REFUSAL
  EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: REFORM
  EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: REFORM
  RAPE AND VIOLENT ASSAULT: COMPENSATION CHANGES
  RAPE AND VIOLENT ASSAULT: COMPENSATION CHANGES
  LIFE SENTENCES FOR TERRORISM: LOCATION OF PRISONERS
  LIFE SENTENCES FOR TERRORISM: LOCATION OF PRISONERS
  TERRORIST INCIDENTS SINCE 1971
  TERRORIST INCIDENTS SINCE 1971
  LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS CONVICTED OF TERRORIST OFFENCES
  LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS CONVICTED OF TERRORIST OFFENCES