Sitting of 3 November 1993

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

  BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Promoters of the British Waterways Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    South Africa
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he is taking to assist the democratisation of South Africa.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Since the House rose for the summer, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has held talks with President de Klerk and Nelson Mandela, in which he restated our support for the transition to non-racial democracy in South Africa. I met Chief Buthelezi. We are discussing with our EC partners, the Commonwealth and the United Nations practical ways to help ensure free and fair elections in South Africa. The mandates of all the observer missions to which we contribute to help stem violence have been extended until next April's elections. Last year, we spent £11 million on direct aid to South Africa, and a similar amount via the EC programmes. We are funding more than 1,000 black South Africans on training courses here and in South Africa. I think that this is money well spent.
    Mr. Burns: Will my right hon. Friend join me and, I am sure, all hon. Members in congratulating Nelson Mandela and President de Klerk on the award of their Nobel peace prize? Does he agree that in the difficult transitional period to a genuine multiracial and democratic society, the international community must give every assistance to help that process?
    Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if South Africa sought to rejoin the Commonwealth and it was felt that that would help assist South Africa in achieving its internal goals, the Government and the international community within the Commonwealth would agree to South Africa's rejoining?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend about the award of the Nobel peace prize. The State President and Mr. Mandela have worked nobly together, and it is right that they should receive the award together.
    I also agree with my hon. Friend's second point. It will be for South Africa when the time comes to decide whether she wishes to apply to rejoin the Commonwealth. We would certainly warmly welcome that. It would bring to a happy end a sad chapter in the history of the Commonwealth.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: May I associate myself with the congratulations to President de Klerk and Nelson Mandela? May I also commend the Government for what they have done so far, especially in the Commonwealth communiqué which recognises the elections to be held in April 1994 as of historic significance?
    May I also commend the Government for recognising that the process is still fragile, and that much needs to be done between now and April to ensure that the elections are seen to be free and fair? While the Commonwealth and EC are doing a lot, what new initiatives will the Foreign Secretary take within the United Nations to make sure that the maximum amount of money is made available before the election for the training of people in the election

    327
    process, and to make sure that the result when it comes is accepted by every party in the country as leading to a new democratic South Africa?
    Mr. Hurd: The Government are not used to receiving praise from the hon. Gentleman on that subject, so I am grateful to him. I agree with him on his last point. I listed the things that we are doing. It is important that the April elections should be seen to be free and fair. We have a lot of experience in this country. That is available to the South Africans, and they know it.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: My right hon. Friend knows how difficult it is to help the political parties to build up their own activities such as training and their understanding of the purpose of elections, particularly in the rural areas. In that context, will my right hon. Friend note the activities of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy? That all-party group was set up with Foreign Office funding, and it is trying to find ways to assist the democratic process in South Africa.
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is quite right, and perhaps I should have mentioned that earlier. What the foundation is doing in South Africa is a sign that the House was wise to set it up on an all-party basis. I am anxious that good South African projects should come before the foundation which are worth considering and which can be approved. They should not be from just one group.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I also welcome all that the Government have done and the support for the foundation. On a specific point, does the Foreign Secretary believe that anything more can be done to try to ensure that Chief Buthelezi participates fully in the process between now and next April? He is a significant player in the South African game, and I hope that the Foreign Secretary agrees that no effort should be spared to ensure that he participates fully in the process before, during and after the elections.
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is quite right; that is why we welcomed Chief Buthelezi here in September. We are saying to him, "You should rejoin the process", and we are saying to others, "Don't believe that he can safely be kept out." He is an important player, and he occasionally feels that he has been isolated. It is very important that he should rejoin the process.

    Human Rights
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet the Foreign Minister of Belgium to discuss international co-operation on human rights.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs meets the Belgian Foreign Minister regularly.
    Mr. Madden: Is the Minister aware of the arrest on 18 October in Brussels of Mr. Amanullah Khan, the chairman of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front? I thank the Minister's office for conveying a request from myself and other hon. Members to visit Mr. Khan in prison which, regrettably, the Belgian authorities have, to date, refused. May I urge Her Majesty's Government to press the Belgian authorities to release Mr. Khan, who was visiting Belgium
    328
    on a valid visitor's visa issued by the Belgian authorities and doing his best to bring a peaceful solution to the Kashmir conflict?
    Mr. Hogg: I am indeed aware of the arrest of Mr. Amanullah Khan. As the hon. Gentleman, I think, will know, he was arrested on the basis of an Interpol warrant. As to whether he should be released and whether there is the possibility of delivering him to India, those are matters for the Belgian Government.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary meets the Belgian Foreign Minister, will he draw to his attention the profoundly important statement made by Prince Charles in Oxford last week in which he described the policy of Saddam Hussein towards the marshlands as "obscene lies"? May I congratulate the Minister on his statement contained in the film that was shown last week and urge him to support the work of Prince Charles by bringing to the UN Security Council the force and vigour that Prince Charles brought to Oxford and force the Security Council to implement the many resolutions it has passed, which at the moment are not worth the paper they are written on?
    Mr. Hogg: As we are in the business of congratulating one another, may I congratulate my hon. Friend in this important respect? She has done more than anyone to draw the attention of the House and a wider public to what Saddam Hussein is doing in south Iraq with regard to the arabs in the marshes. That is a terrible business. The world community is alert to it, and that is due, in no small degree, to what my hon. Friend has done.
    Mr. Kaufman: In his discussions on human rights, will the Minister take up the question of human rights in Jamaica, where, despite the welcome judgment of the Privy Council this week, many men are being held in appalling conditions on death row and where, for example, a prisoner called Lynden Champagnie, who has been on death row for 14 years since he was a teenager, has now been told after his sentence was commuted that he cannot be considered for parole for another 10 years? Is not the attitude of the Jamaican Government on that issue a disgrace and a scandal? Will the Government make that clear to the Jamaican Government?
    Mr. Hogg: I certainly welcome the decision of the Privy Council. I have always thought that that type of question, particularly that of the death penalty, is essentially a matter for national Governments. I agree that one is entitled to have regard to the conditions in which people are held. I also agree that, when people are held too long on what is generally referred to as death row, it is an undesirable state of affairs. In general terms, whether or not there is a death penalty and whether it is carried out is a matter for national Governments.
    Mr. Ward: Does my right and learned hon. Friend agree that the focal point in Europe for human rights is the Council of Europe? Will he do all he can to encourage it in its work on human rights, and encourage other nations to sign up to the various conventions?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has asked three questions to which there are three answers, each of which is yes.
    Mr. Rogers: The Government have correctly refused to recognise Indonesia's illegal occupation of East Timor and

    329
    have supported the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. In view of the appalling human rights record of Indonesia, would it not be logical for the Government to extend their position and support the United Nations resolutions that proscribe the sale of arms to aggressor states, especially weapons that can be used for internal repression, and the diminution of human rights?
    Mr. Hogg: We consider any applications to sell arms on a case-by-case basis. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the contract to sell Hawk aircraft. If we had stood in the way of that contract, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would have been the first to complain.

    Middle East
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further contribution Her Majesty's Government intend to make to the progress of talks between middle eastern countries in the moves towards peace in that region.
    Mr. Hurd: We shall continue acts of support for the peace talks, both politically through our contacts with the parties and economically.
    Mr. Hawkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he try to bring pressure to bear on the Arab countries to end the Arab boycott of trade with Israel when he has further talks with all the parties involved in the middle east peace process? Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind, when considering the position of the various parties in that process, that the only democracy in the region is Israel and that there are great concerns about the position of some other countries on a variety of issues including Syria in particular? Does he agree that, while it is in our interest to promote peaceful talks between all the parties and encourage the development of the peace process, those concerns need to be recognised?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend about the boycott. There has been some progress—if he listens to British firms he will know of the welcome announcement from the Government of Kuwait during the summer—but not yet enough, and we shall continue to urge more. We need a comprehensive settlement. The Israel-PLO accord is a dramatic breakthrough which the House has welcomed, and Israel and the PLO are trying to put it into practice.
    There will not be comprehensive peace until there are agreements between Israel and Jordan, Israel and Syria, and Israel and Lebanon. While it is right that the sensitivities of Israeli democracy should be understood and respected—we always try to do that—equally, it is important that none of the three other tracks, with Jordan, with Syria and with the Lebanon, should be long neglected.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Does the Foreign Secretary understand that, if the accord signed by those two brave peoples is to work, the peace talks taking place in Taba must be assisted wherever they can be? Does he have any intention of raising with our European partners the possible attendance of a member of the troika to assist in that dialogue in Taba, which has unfortunately broken down?
    Can he tell the House of any other initiatives that the European Parliament intends to take to ease the pressure in Gaza? Did the Minister of State take up the suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr.
    330
    Cunningham) made at Brighton to invite Chairman Arafat to Britain to express his needs on behalf of the Palestinian people?
    Mr. Hurd: I can point out what we are doing. I went to Syria not long ago in order to establish our credentials and our interests in that part. On Monday, in Brussels, Mr. Arafat will come at my suggestion and meet the European Foreign Affairs Council. I will be there. He will be coming to London in December. I think that there is a question on the Order Paper about that. I hope to go to Gaza, Israel and Jordan in the next recess. We British want to do our utmost to keep the process on the move and, where we can, give useful and practical support to do so.
    Mr. John Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that today the PLO has admitted that Ron Arad is still being held in captivity, seven years after he became a prisoner of war? [Interruption.] Is not that, as my hon. Friend says, quite disgraceful? Did my right hon. Friend raise that matter with the Syrians when he saw them? May we have an assurance that he will raise it with Arab leaders whenever he meets them?
    Mr. Hurd: We have often raised that sad case with the Iranians, the Syrians and with any others who might be able to help. There is a multitude of tragedies arising out of wars and terrorist activities in recent years; Mr. Arad is certainly one of them, and he deserves our support.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: What weight do the Government presently attach to the Damascus declaration? What is the Foreign Secretary's assessment of the likelihood of persuading the states of the Gulf Co-operation Council to make better provision for their joint defence?
    Mr. Hurd: I am all in favour of their making greater provision for their joint defence, and I never cease to urge that on them. The Damascus declaration envisages that they could receive help from Syria and Egypt in that. We support that idea. It is up to them to decide how to put it into practice.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's comments following his successful visit to Syria. Does he appreciate that many of us would like to see the United Kingdom taking a rather more prominent role in trying to support the peace process, which has been achieved with remarkable courage and vision on both sides? Will my right hon. Friend concentrate on the plight of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon in particular? How does he see their future?
    Mr. Hurd: We will try to take a more visible role. We have deliberately held back, as my hon. Friend knows, in recent years in order not to complicate what correctly seemed to us to be a genuine effort by the United States Administration to get things moving. Now we are in more open country, as it were, and I think that there is scope for more visible activity by ourselves, in support, as my hon. Friend said, of the peace process.
    My hon. Friend is quite right about the refugees, not just in Lebanon but on the west bank and in Gaza. We are in the lead—£6 million a year—in supporting the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. We shall see more of that in January. I am also very anxious that there should be an Israel-Lebanon accord which can enable a settling down on that particularly difficult part of Israel's border.
    Dr. John Cunningham: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's decision to invite Mr. Yasser Arafat to London for discussions. Is not it clear, though, that, based on many of the other comments—for example, the ending of the Arab boycott—the next key decision will be, if possible, and we hope that it will be possible, an agreement between Syria and Israel on the full guarantee of peace and security for Israel, contingent upon a full withdrawal by the Israelis from Syrian territory?
    Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us a little more about his discussions with President Assad about those matters? Does he share our concern at the rather abrupt break-off of discussions in Taba this week, apparently because the Israelis are now saying that they do not intend to withdraw their military from Gaza but simply to redeploy them? Is not that rather a negation of what has been agreed?
    Mr. Hurd: President Assad and Mr. Shara'a made it clear that they believed in "total withdrawal" and "total peace". Of course, what remains to be worked out is what each of those phrases means. That can be done only between the parties. There is talk in Israel of a need to digest the Israel-PLO accord—that is, to allow time to pass. I think that that is reasonable, provided that it does not go on for ever. That is the Syrian view, too. That is why it is important to stress that a comprehensive agreement includes Israel and Syria.
    I should be disturbed if I thought that the Taba discussions had broken down. I believe that what has happened is that the PLO, and the Palestinians in particular, feel the need for a break in order to consult. There is no doubt about the obligations undertaken by Israel as regards military withdrawal. It has always been clear that they are rather difficult to turn into practical arrangements. It is important that that work should continue.

    European Free Trade Association
    Mr. Bates: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in respect of the EFTA states joining the European Community.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): The European Council last week reaffirmed the 1 January 1995 target date for accession by the four applicants. Good progress is being made towards the object of completing the negotiations by 1 March next year.
    Mr. Bates: Does my hon. Friend agree that the inclusion of the EFTA states will be welcome, because not only will they be much-needed and welcome net contributors to the EC budget, but they will be a powerful force for free trade, which will benefit and strengthen the entire Community?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, we welcome the prospect of the four states acceding to the Community. They will be net contributors to the budget, so they will share our interest in enforcing budgetary discipline and controlling expenditure. Their instincts, too, are towards free trade and openness to the rest of the world. Therefore, they share our vision of the Community as one that is open and diverse.
    Mr. Radice: What are the institutional implications of the accession of the EFTA countries to the EC?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: There will have to be some institutional adjustments to accept those four countries into the Community. That will be part of the discussions taking place between existing member states. But we wish to confine the debate to what is required by the prospect of enlargement and do not wish to reopen those institutional issues, which were essentially settled by the Maastricht treaty.
    Mr. Channon: Will my hon. Friend tell us what Her Majesty's Government propose about the voting system to be used in the Community once the welcome accession of those countries takes place?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: One of the matters to be decided is how many votes to accord to each of the countries coming in and what will constitute a qualified majority vote. A number of ideas are being discussed, but no final resolution of that is yet in prospect.

    Middle East
    Mr. Parry: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet Chairman Arafat to discuss the middle east peace process; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will arrange to meet representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organisation to discuss the middle east peace plan.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: As my right hon. Friend has just said, Chairman Arafat has been invited to visit Britain. The visit will take place in December. Precise dates will be announced nearer the time. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to meet him in Brussels with other EC Foreign Ministers on 8 November.
    Mr. Parry: I understand that when Mr. Arafat comes to London, he is expecting to meet both the Labour party and Conservative party on middle east councils. The Prime Minister has replied to me that he expects to meet Mr. Arafat. This historic visit can only mean peace, both in Israel and Palestine.
    Mr. Hogg: Mr. Arafat will be a welcome visitor to London. It is certainly true that the Prime Minister hopes to see him. I was not aware of the two other meetings that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but it sounds like a jolly good idea to me.
    Mr. Canavan: In view of yesterday's suspension of talks between the Palestinians and Israelis, due apparently to the Israelis' insistence on a mere redeployment of their troops rather than a complete withdrawal from Gaza and Jericho, will the British Government use their influence within the international community to try to ensure that the Israeli Government stand by their commitment for complete withdrawal, as contained in the 13 September agreement?
    Mr. Hogg: Both parties are, of course, negotiating at the moment. I am not unduly depressed by what has happened; I regard it as a suspension rather than anything else. The hon. Gentleman is quite right in the sense that both parties must stand by their commitments, must show

    333
    flexibility and must ensure that the momentum is maintained if public opinion in the occupied territories and in Israel itself is to continue to support the peace process.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: When my right hon. and learned Friend meets Mr. Arafat or any other Arab leaders, will he point out that if the Arab nations are genuine in their pursuit of the peace process, the immediate release of Ron Arad and the immediate ending of the iniquitous Arab boycott will do more than anything to build confidence in the process? Will he urge those conclusions on them?
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I think that it is important that everyone who is now party to the negotiations recognises the need to carry the opinion in the opposite camp. That means that the Arabs and the Palestinians must stop the violence, relax the boycott and show that there are positive benefits to Israel from the courageous steps that it has taken.
    It also means that the state of Israel must release detainees, allow travel to, through and from Jerusalem, stop settlement and allow people from the territories to work in Israel. There must be a clear benefit to everyone in Israel and the territories as a consequence of what has been agreed; otherwise, there is a real risk that the agreement will not be underpinned by public support.
    Mr. Batiste: I agree with what my right hon. and learned Friend has just said. He is aware that the Israeli Government places a high premium on the ending of the secondary and tertiary boycott of Israel as part of the peace process. What evidence has he seen that the PLO, under the leadership of Mr. Yasser Arafat, is prepared to encourage its Arab friends to withdraw from that boycott?
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: There is already encouraging evidence of a move away from the boycott, especially with regard to the secondary and tertiary boycott. But I want to be even-handed about this. It is important that there is movement from both sides in the negotiations. That means movement from the Palestinians and movement from the Arab states. It also means movement from the Israeli side. In answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), I indicated the sort of movement that we are looking for.

    Angola
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives he plans regarding the situation in Angola; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): On 1 November, the United Nations Security Council reaffirmed its support for UN efforts to achieve a settlement in Angola through negotiations and its willingness, as necessary, to impose further sanctions against UNITA.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Is there any justification for the continued delay in the implementation of full sanctions against the UNITA forces? We have now delayed so many times that we are in danger of losing all credibility. First, there was a delay until 1 July, then September, then another 10 days and then 1 November, and now it seems that there will be an indefinite delay. Can the hon. Gentleman tell the
    334
    House what progress has been made in spending the £5 million of emergency aid that the Government promised to the Angolan people, and whether he is prepared to give a commitment of further support in the light of the appalling conditions faced by the 70 per cent. of the population who live in the Government-controlled parts of the country?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member is aware that there have been discussions in Lusaka last week between the MPLA and UNITA. It is my belief that UNITA attended those talks as a result of the United Nations sanctions that have been imposed so far. It has been made clear by all the parties to those sanctions and by the United Nations that if further sanctions are necessary to bring pressure to bear on UNITA, that will be done. The fact is that some progress has been achieved so far in bringing UNITA to the table. That is the right position to be in.
    As to the further aid of some £7 million announced recently, we are concentrating on the most effective use of that aid. However, it is too early to give a definite explanation of what we shall be doing.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend confirm that under United Nations Security Council, resolution 864, phase 2 of the sanctions against UNITA will be imposed only if there are no further talks? Will he confirm that UNITA has now said that, notwithstanding some reported irregularities, it accepts the outcome of the elections two years ago and is prepared to sit down unconditionally and talk to the MPLA and other parties in Angola? Is that not the best way forward towards bringing peace to that tragically stricken country from the bloody civil war that is going on at present?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend is right: UNITA has said what he described in similar terms, but its words must be followed by actions. That is the important point to recognise. As I have said, there were discussions last week. Clearly, it would be inappropriate to take any further action at this stage. We hope that those discussions will continue in Lusaka and that there will be a fruitful outcome.
    Mr. Worthington: The whole House will have been appalled at the pictures shown of the situation in Angola, which Mr. John Simpson described as the worst he had ever seen. What are we doing with our partners in the European Community to reopen this window of opportunity for humanitarian aid, not just in the stricken town of Kuito, but elsewhere? What are we doing with our partners to redouble diplomatic initiatives to bring the war to an end? I am asking not about the words that we are uttering but about the action that we are taking in the United Nations and the European Community.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I thought that I had described some action. We were active in getting United Nations Security Council resolution 864, which brought pressure to bear and led to last week's discussions, as I described in my two previous answers. That is what is continuing on the diplomatic side. We have been praised by everyone for the help that we have given on the humanitarian aid side. We have been quick to respond with relief flights to the opening up of besieged cities. We have been praised by the United Nations, the media and, I believe, John Simpson for our rapid response.
    Mr. Wilshire: As one of four Members of this House who were election observers in Angola, I got to know

    335
    ordinary people as well as politicians. Does my hon. Friend agree that what is happening in Angola now is a total obscenity which demands more than negotiations and more than sanctions? Compared with the obscenity of 1,000 people a day being slaughtered and others maimed, and the level of starvation of youngsters there, Bosnia—dare I say it—seems but a tragic sideshow. Will my hon. Friend therefore use his best endeavours to persuade our colleagues in the EC and the United Nations to put this obscenity behind the world and do something effective about it?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to describe the situation as he has. I think that, on a fair analysis, he will agree with me that Britain has played a leading part in bringing about last week's negotiations. The problem will have to be addressed by the parties to the problem in Angola. We have brought pressure to bear in the United Nations through resolutions which we have sponsored actively to bring UNITA to the table. There have been discussions. We have made it clear that we shall be happy to support further, more demanding resolutions than sanctions if that is necessary. Meanwhile, we have responded enormously swiftly and successfully on the humanitarian front.

    Belize
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further consideration has been given to United Kingdom relations with Belize.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We continue to develop our already good relations with Belize. In October, the Belizean Prime Minister, Mr. Esquivel, met my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Limassol and met other Ministers in London.
    Mr. Gunnell: Given the August statement of the Guatemalan Vice President, in which he said that recognition of Belize was premature, and given that the new Belizean Prime Minister himself represents a rather nationalistic trend in the electorate, is the Minister confident about the stability of the relationship between Guatemala and Belize? Can he comment on what role this country can play in ensuring that stability? I am aware that the Queen is due to visit Belize early next year. Is that in part compensation for the withdrawal of British troops which is likely to have a bad effect on the economy and which many may see as a threat to their security?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Relations between Guatemala and Belize are not wholly satisfactory, but President de Leon Carpio of Guatemala has reaffirmed that his country recognises the sovereignty and independence of Belize. We have made it clear that if the situation deteriorates after the British garrison withdraws next year we stand ready to be consulted about an appropriate response.
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. Friend will be aware that I asked our hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces what specific assurances we could give the Belizean Government about their security following the withdrawal of our troops. My hon. Friend must be well aware of the concern of the Belizean Government about their security. Will he consider carefully the positive steps
    336
    that the United Kingdom Government can take to ensure that Guatemala is deterred from any intent that it might have in the future of invading Belize?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I and other Ministers discussed the matter with Prime Minister Esquivel last month. We still have the garrison in Belize, and even when that is withdrawn there will still be a training base in Belize. In May, we issued a joint statement making it clear that if the situation deteriorates we shall stand ready to co-operate and co-ordinate our activities and draw up a likely response. At present, however, we do not judge the situation to be quite so serious as my hon. Friend fears.
    Mr. Wareing: Does the Minister realise that the answer that he just gave on relations between Belize and Guatemala is different from those given by his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), to me and to one or two of my colleagues only a few months ago? They we were told that everything was stable. Given that, even at that time, there was no agreement on the territorial waters dispute between the two countries, is it not premature to consider withdrawing British forces from Belize, where they give people confidence? Are the British Government about to do in Belize what they did when they withdrew the Endeavour from the Falkland Islands?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Belize became independent in 1981 and it was always envisaged that the British garrison might be removed, especially in the light of the 1991 recognition by Guatemala of the independence and sovereignty of Belize. That recognition has not been withdrawn. In answer to the previous question, I made clear our continuing concern and interest in the security of the region, and our continuing military involvement, albeit at a lower level.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: As a general principle, dictatorships cause and start wars and democracies win them. Does my hon. Friend agree that events in Guatemala, following the removal of President Serrano, demonstrate the way in which central America, and indeed Latin America as a whole, has consolidated behind a democratic president in that republic?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The continuity of British foreign policy in Latin America is demonstrated by the fact that I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend has just said.

    European Foreign Policies
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he proposes to have discussions with his European Community partners concerning the development of common European foreign policies.
    Mr. Hurd: I meet our partners regularly to discuss the strengthening of intergovernmental co-operation on foreign policy.
    Sir David Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the development of common European Community foreign policies will be greatly facilitated by the Maastricht treaty, and that that will enable the Community, with the participation of Britain, to exert greater influence in the world?
    Mr. Hurd: What happened at the summit on Friday illustrates my hon. Friend's point. There is no question of our being cajoled or out-voted, because of the treaty of Maastricht, into policies of which we disapprove. What happened, in an orderly way, was that the summit began to identify and tell the Foreign Ministers to pursue areas where it thought that they should act together. One example has already been given in the House: we shall help to monitor the elections in South Africa, to the extent that South Africans want us to. The same is true of the Russian elections next month: we suggested that there should be EC monitoring if the Russians want it, which they do. Another example is the contribution that we make towards implementing the peace process—getting Jericho and Gaza and the occupied territories into a better state to assume more responsibilities. Those are things which it makes sense for Europe to do together.
    Mr. Barnes: How will we find out what Foreign Ministers are up to in the European Community, when the Council of Foreign Affairs Ministers has just decided that it is now possible to block the publication of votes that come out of their meetings? We are supposed to be in favour of openness. As a result of the Edinburgh summit of Heads of State it was agreed that those votes would be published so that we would know what was taking place: will the Minister guarantee that that situation will not be changed?
    Mr. Hurd: There are no votes on those matters—they are of unanimity—and the hon. Gentleman will get his information in the same way as he has always got it: by making my life uncomforable in the House of Commons. One addition that is taking place was outlined by the Government in their recent memorandum to the House of Lords European Community Committee, in which we suggested that Ministers could offer briefings in both Houses on important common foreign and security policy issues. We are willing to do that in addition to arrangements that already exist on the Floor of the House and in Committee to cross examine Ministers and officials.
    Mr. Cormack: Would it not be a splendid, if modest, start to the new post-Maastricht era if the nations of the Community could ensure that this winter the starving and suffering people of Sarajevo receive adequate aid and that no one is allowed to stop it getting through?
    Mr. Hurd: It is best to do exactly that. As my hon. Friend knows, we have a strong record on that, both in the quality of aid that we are providing, particularly medicines, and in the efforts that our civilian drivers and troops are making to get the convoys through. The lines of communication through Serb-held territory now work reasonably well. The main problem arises partly from renewed shelling around Sarajevo, which has subsided, and fighting between Muslims and Croats in central Bosnia. I hope that the initiative that we took on Friday will enable David Owen and our local commanders to make it more possible to get that aid through. It is certainly a high priority.
    Dr. John Cunningham: I welcome what the Secretary of State said about the practicability of the European Community acting together in foreign policy. That commends itself to everyone. But what evidence is there, from the weak and vague statement on the situation in
    338
    Bosnia issued following the latest Council of Ministers, that any material change will take place in the circumstances which tragically prevail in Bosnia?
    Although I emphatically support and praise the contribution of British troops in UNPROFOR, will the airlift to Sarajevo be stepped up as a result of last Friday's meeting? Will the finance for winter aid be increased as a result of that meeting? As a result of last Friday's discussions, will there be a serious attempt to halt, once and for all, Serbian and Croatian aggression in Bosnia? What practical difference have the discussions in Brussels made to the European Community's common approach to the problem in Bosnia?
    Mr. Hurd: First, the Sarajevo airlift continues in full flight and at full intensity whenever it safely can and is extremely important, although most of the supplies reaching the area come from Belgrade by road through Serb areas. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, about total finance, we are in close touch with Mrs. Ogata. Our total contribution so far has been £51 million. The difficulty is not so much lack of resources as lack of access, which leads to the hon. Gentleman's third point.
    In last Friday's discussions, I was anxious to avoid politicians in Brussels saying that, as from Friday afternoon, such and such a road is open and safe, when within 12 hours that could be contradicted. Rhetoric has been the enemy in this problem all the way through. What the United Nations needs is more troops. I hope that it may not be long before there are, for example, Malaysian troops in UNPROFOR, which would enable troops now in Bihac, for example, to be redeployed along the access roads. We are constantly urging and working for that. We are doing our bit in central Bosnia—the right hon. Gentleman was right about that—with the techniques at which our troops are good. The idea that we could get more aid through by using armed force is contradicted—
    Dr. John Cunningham: I did not say that.
    Mr. Hurd: No, but it is widely suggested—and it is contradicted by all the experts and evidence on the ground. We must work with the resources that we have and try to increase those resources, whether they are United Nations soldiers or money for the agencies. We are doing both.
    Mr. Cash: In his discussions with Community partners who are members of the Christian Democratic party, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to repudiate any notion of majority voting in foreign policy matters, as laid down in the Athens declaration—the basic programme of the European People's party? Conservative Members will then be in no doubt that our party will have nothing to do with majority voting in relation to foreign policy, and specifically with regard to any actions connected with Bosnia, in line with the guidelines prescribed recently by the Council of Ministers.
    Mr. Hurd: The position is perfectly clear in the Maastricht treaty. My hon. Friend, and other Conservative Members, may have contested the wisdom of the treaty, but he can now rely on its provisions in this regard with complete confidence.
    Mr. Mandelson: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the development of common European foreign policies requires the development of much greater public understanding of, and support for, those policies, not least

    339
    among young people? Is it not a backward move for the Foreign Office to propose cutting off its funding and support for a national organisation that is committed to those aims—the British Youth Council, with which, like the Secretary of State for Employment, I have been associated in the past? Will the Foreign Secretary reconsider the proposal, and stop it being implemented?
    Mr. Hurd: The British Youth Council has done, and continues to do, admirable work. Given all the pressures on my budget, however, I must consider whether the Foreign Office should continue to support it, and how it ranks in relation to the other demands on my resources—scholarships, the British Council and the BBC world service, for instance. I have concluded that I cannot continue to support the British Youth Council with Foreign Office funds.

    Eastern Europe
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with EC Commissioners and the Governments of the other member states about trade with and aid to the former communist countries of Europe.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Along with other Ministers, I discuss the issue regularly with other Community member states.
    EC support, through the removal of trade barriers and through carefully targeted technical assistance, is vital to restore economic growth in those countries, and to consolidate their economic and political reforms.
    Mr. Jenkin: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the aid programmes for former communist countries in eastern Europe are very welcome, they are no substitute for free trade? What those countries really want is the removal of tariff and non-tariff restrictions from their goods so that they can access the markets of the European Community. Is not that the only way they will be able to rebuild their economies?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Trade is far superior to aid as an instrument to help social and political reforms in those countries. That is why the British Governments have been at the forefront of the calls for trade liberalisation.
    We know that those newly free countries stand to gain most from being able to produce and sell their goods to the European Community. In exchange, that will provide additional opportunities for British and Community exporters.
    Mr. Macdonald: One of the former communist countries most in need of aid is Bosnia. Will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary what he meant when he said that the airlift to Sarajevo was at full stretch? In the past month, only half the minimum survival ration that the United Nations has designated for the people of Sarajevo has been delivered. It is supposed to be 600gm of food per person per day, but has amounted to only 300gm.
    The Berlin airlift lasted for fewer days but delivered 2 million tonnes of aid. The Sarajevo airlift has delivered only 60,000 tonnes. Is it not clear that much more can be done by means of the airlift, without risk to soldiers on land
    340
    convoys, to deliver the minimum amount of aid that the United Nations has said is necessary for the people of Sarajevo?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The aid effort to the former Yugoslavia is fully stretched, taking into account the safety and danger constraints upon us, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises. We are always seeking opportunities to improve the flow of aid and its security. The record of this country in financial terms is extremely good, because in overall terms we have contributed some £150 million to the former Yugoslavia, both through the European Community and through bilateral aid. Our record bears comparison with that of any of our allies.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Have my hon. Friend and his Department made any assessment of the impact of the transfer of manufacturing capacity from the United Kingdom and other European Community countries to eastern European countries? What will be the impact of that on jobs in the EC countries, including our own?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend perhaps regards free trade primarily as a threat. I regard it as an opportunity to build up the stability and prosperity of those countries, and to provide new markets for British exports. I remind my hon. Friend that the European Community currently has a large balance of payments surplus with those countries.
    Ms Quin: Given the importance of trade, has the Minister studied the latest trade figures issued by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development which show, sadly, that the United Kingdom has fallen a long way behind not only Germany but Italy and France in the volume of trade that we conduct with the countries of eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, particularly in exports? What will the Government do to ensure that the situation is treated with the urgency that it deserves, and that our trading relations with those countries are as close and as beneficial as possible in future?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I welcome the hon. Lady to her position on the Labour Front Bench and I hope that she will remain there for a long time. Our export performance to central and eastern Europe must, indeed, be improved; that is why we believe in lowering trade barriers and liberalising trade. I am pleased to have the hon. Lady's support for that policy.

    Japan
    Mr. Thomason: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with Japan.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): Our relations with Japan are excellent. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited Japan from 18 to 21 September, where he held wide-ranging talks with Prime Minister Hosokawa and other Ministers soon after they took office. He and the delegation of senior British business men who accompanied him, confirmed our positive approach to our trading relationship with Japan and stressed the continuing welcome for Japanese manufacturing investment in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Thomason: Does my right hon. Friend agree that continued inward investment from Japan is essential, particularly in areas such as the west midlands, and that it is enhanced by retaining and improving our existing diplomatic relations with Japan? Does he also agree that the Foreign Office has a vital role to play in enhancing and improving inward investment opportunities?
    Mr. Goodlad: Yes. The British share of Japanese investment in the European Community during the financial year 1992–93 was more than 44 per cent. of the total. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry work very closely with the West Midlands development agency, both here and in Tokyo, to promote Japanese inward investment in the region. An inward investment mission from Japan, sponsored by the Invest in Britain Bureau, has visited the west midlands during the past fortnight. I hope that those investors will smile on Bromsgrove, in whose interests my hon. Friend is such a doughty fighter.
    Mr. Cryer: Is not the inward investment from Japan only possible because of its enormous manufacturing success and the balance of payments surpluses that Japan enjoys with most other major manufacturing countries throughout the world? Will the Minister discuss with the Japanese how they achieve that, while we apparently cannot achieve it and are subordinated to the other countries of the Common Market so as to provide a large internal market for our manufacturing industry? Why should we be beholden to the Common Market when the example of Japan demonstrates that that is not necessary?
    Mr. Goodlad: The House will be unsurprised to learn that the hon. Gentleman is wrong as usual. Exports from this country to Japan in the first part of this year were up by nearly 19 per cent. compared with last year's results,
    342
    despite depressed levels of demand in Japan due to its current economic difficulties. The whole House, with the exception of the hon. Gentleman, will want to rejoice in that.
    Mr. Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that cultural and political links with Japan have never been stronger, and nor have our trade links? Does he agree that Japan has consistently placed more than 40 per cent. of its investment in the European union in the United Kingdom —and an even higher proportion in the United Kingdom financial sector? In his forthcoming visit to Japan, however, will my right hon. Friend urge on that country the fact that there are a number of invisible barriers to trade which, if removed or reduced, would enable us to improve our exports to the Japanese and thus help them to reduce their trade surplus?
    Mr. Goodlad: Yes, indeed. As my hon. Friend knows —in his present capacity he makes a great contribution to our relations with Japan and is very knowledgeable about it—Japan has removed most barriers to trade in recent years, although there are still problems in some areas. The Prime Minister raised those matters during his recent visit and I shall do the same in my forthcoming one.
    The Prime Minister of Japan described my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit as the beginning of a new era for British-Japanese relations, which he saw as the linchpin of Japan's relations with Europe. We will continue to seek to enhance that relationship and not, as some others do, to undermine it.
    Ms Ann Coffey: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: Order. We take points of order after statements.

Adoption (White Paper)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): With permission, I would like to make a statement about the Government's plans for the amendment of adoption law in England and Wales and for the development of adoption policy and practice. These plans are set out in a White Paper which I am publishing today. Copies are available in the Vote Office. The necessary legislation will be introduced as soon after the forthcoming Session as parliamentary time permits.
The White Paper builds on the recommendations of an interdepartmental working group, whose report was published last year, and subsequent consultation. We have also been influenced by the substantial body of research on adoption, a summary of which, prepared by my Department's social services inspectorate, has been placed in the Library of the House.
Adoption is about creating a loving and stable family upbringing which best provides for the child. The basic framework for adopting children remains sound. Given their fundamental importance to the life of the child, all adoptions will continue to be authorised by the courts, advised as appropriate by social services authorities or adoption agencies, which are in turn advised by adoption panels.
However, there is a need to bring the legislation up to date. The law in this field was last changed in 1975. Adoption today is very different from 20 years ago. The number of adoptions has more than halved in the intervening period. Fewer babies and toddlers are adopted, and a greater proportion of adoptions are of older children. Half of all adoptions today arise as a result of remarriage, when a step-parent wishes to establish a legal relationship with the natural child of his or her spouse. More people are interested in adopting children from abroad. The White Paper has been written against this background. It sets out a modern framework for adoption to take account of the way people live now.
The first duty in adoption must be to the child. There is a need to strengthen the law to take this fact more explicitly into account. Specifically, we propose to give children aged 10 or more the right to participate in their own adoption proceedings. They will have to agree before an adoption order can be made.
Where the birth parents oppose adoption, we propose a new and more explicit legal test for the courts. They must be positively satisfied that adoption offers significantly better prospects for the child than less permanent alternatives.
We shall reinforce the general preference of authorities and agencies for recommending married couples as adoptive parents. Above all, potential adoptive parents should be judged on the care, affection and stability they can offer the child.
There should be no place for ideology in adoption. We want common-sense judgments, not stereotyping. There are, for example, no good grounds for refusing on principle to contemplate trans-racial adoptions or adoption by parents over a prescribed age. Those basic points will be reinforced in guidance.
344
We intend new safeguards against the unacceptable handling of adoption cases. The White Paper describes a new complaints procedure for any party to an adoption case who is seriously dissatisfied.
Adoption is a service for children, not adults. Those offering to adopt, however, are entitled to fair, courteous and sensitive treatment. Statutory adoption agencies will remain responsible for deciding who to recommend as adoptive parents, but parents applying to adopt will have new opportunities for appeal and reassessment.
We also intend to consult on strengthening adoption panels to make them more broadly based. They will include more independent members and, wherever possible, one or more successful adoptive parent.
Where a step-parent adopts, we propose to end the anomaly that the birth parent in the new marriage is obliged to adopt his or her own child. Step-parents will still be able to adopt, but we intend to offer them and their spouses a new and simpler way of sharing legal responsibility for the child. They will be able to make and register with the courts a parental responsibility agreement. That will give them a joint responsibility for the child in the new marriage without severing the child's relationship with his other natural parent. The decision to enter such an agreement will not require professional assessment; it will be for families alone to decide.
We also propose a new guardianship order enabling other long-term carers and relatives, including foster parents, to define a more permanent legal relationship with children for whom they care. That would enable them to have their responsibility for the child's welfare recognised in law without going as far as full adoption.
Recent years have seen a steady growth in inter-country adoptions. That reflects both international events and the fact that, while the number of children available for domestic adoption has declined, the number of people wishing to adopt has not.
Those who want to adopt children from abroad should have their wishes respected. In all suitable cases, such adoptions should be facilitated. However, the procedures must be proper. They must prevent abuse. We must aim for the same high level of protection and benefits for the child as in domestic adoptions.
Earlier this year, the Government were represented in the preparation of a new Hague convention on inter-country adoption. Adoptions between countries which ratify the convention should become much simpler than at present without losing any safeguards.
In particular, there will be no need to duplicate adoption orders in both countries involved. Immigration clearance for the child will become an integral part of the adoption process. The United Kingdom will ratify the convention once Parliament has enacted the necessary legislation.
The Government believe that adoption continues to play a valuable part in our society. This is a view which is no doubt shared by the vast majority of the 750,000 people in Britain whom we estimate are adopted. Adoption provides children with a chance of a secure and loving unpbringing. The White Paper will strengthen a system which already has much to its credit. It is a White Paper for children, and a White Paper for families. I commend it to the House.
Mr. David Blunkett: First, I would like to thank the Secretary of State and her officials for the courtesy they

345
have shown me in ensuring that I could see the White Paper and the documents in time to be able to read them this afternoon.
Many issues of ideology divide the House, but the interests and the needs of children are not one of them. I pay tribute to all those who have contributed to the work on this White Paper and to adoptive and foster parents up and down the country.
Despite the briefing that took place with some newspapers and media outlets, the White Paper is sensible and welcome. Gone is the cash-register mentality of charging for adoption—although I ask the Secretary of State to examine the regulations on charging for inter-country adoption. Gone is the abuse of social workers. Instead, there is a welcome commitment to openness and to the development of what is described as a complaints procedure, although it might more accurately be described as a review.
Will the Secretary of State reflect, with us, on why she chose to pick out magistrates courts committees for nominating additional independent members of adoption panels, when we all agree that there should be a non-legalistic approach to ensuring the best possible consideration of adoptive parents and the needs of the children concerned?
Had we been involved, we might have been able to come up with a better title for the White Paper—perhaps the simple title, "Putting Children First". Does the right hon. Lady accept that we all have an interest in putting behind us any nonsense about political correctness and any prejudice in the application of the clear principle of ensuring that the interests of the child are at the forefront of our thinking? Does she agree that finding the right parents, or parent, for the right child is all that matters?
We could draw on the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), who is sitting beside me on the Front Bench. She has made an admirable parent over many years. What matters is not age, status, weight, height or anything else—in saying that I imply no reflection on my hon. Friend, of course, Madam Speaker—but solely the needs of the child. What matters is not the isms or other factors that have been brought to public attention, but simply the right person to do the right job.
Will the Secretary of State say how, in approaching the International Year of the Family, we might join together in introducing measures that support, succour and encourage the family and stability, rather than undermining it? That could involve offering prospective adoptive parents counselling and support, including advice on infertility, so that they could also make choices within the NHS.
In a spirit of consensus—and without having a heart attack—will the Secretary of State accept my congratulations on the part that she has played in preparing the Hague convention, which is an important step towards protecting children and their parents throughout the world? Will she, with our European partners, seek to take clear and decisive steps to establish uniformity and proper standards right across the European Community for the entry of children, so that we can ensure that, whether they are from the war-torn regions of the world or from areas where standards are not so high, children are not abused by abduction and sale? Will she join other European member states in preventing the sale of children, which has recently been drawn to public attention in Greece, where four people were arrested in Athens last week for the abduction and sale of babies?
346
Will the Secretary of State join us in seeking to strengthen and widen the White Paper by reconsidering the training and retraining provided? Instead of narrowing and shortening training procedures, we could broaden them to take into account the proposed new powers and responsibilities.
May every child be wanted, may every child be protected and may every child be cared for. May we in the House, for once in our lives, avoid the simple adversarial approach to finding solutions and all play our part in securing the well-being of children for the future.
Mrs. Bottomley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive and positive approach to the White Paper. I share his sentiment that the well-being and welfare of children should unite political parties. There are difficult and complex issues to be addressed, but there is no reason for that to divide us.
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. He asked about the independent members of the adoption panels; the magistrates committee was simply given as an example of one such group that might wish to nominate to those panels. We particularly wish to have those who have been successful adoptive parents themselves. It is an area where, with the best will in the world, theory and ideology can easily overtake common sense and practical judgments. We wish, wherever possible, to ensure that those practical principles are well founded throughout the adoption process.
The hon. Gentleman was right to pay tribute to all adoptive and foster parents in this country. We have a tradition of placing in families children with enormous individual needs. Many of the hard-to-place children in this country have a home with a family when, elsewhere, they would be confined to an institution. It is important that we build on that tradition of good practice.
The hon. Gentleman referred also to the International Year of the Family. We are all aware that many families are struggling, for a great range of reasons. The turbulence and change of modern society means that many families find themselves isolated and vulnerable. Finding ways of supporting parents and family formation in communities is something that we should all share.
The hon. Gentleman referred to other countries where child, care practices do not meet the standards that we can take for granted in this country. The United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which we were able to ratify, is an important step forward and, shortly, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health, who has special responsibility for children, will be reporting on our progress in the UN convention. That makes it clear that there should be no two-tier service. We should not apply a standard for the adoption of children from overseas that is lower than the high standard that we apply at home.
The hon. Gentleman referred to training. Training, support and counselling are important in adoption, but so is the training of social workers generally. We recently appointed Geoffrey Greenwood to the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. He will, I believe, ensure that there is greater public confidence in the work of social workers who are, after all, entrusted with making decisions of great significance.
The White Paper is about creating stable families. Many of the children for adoption today come from broken homes. Adoption offers them a brighter future. The White

347
Paper makes it clear that their interests are best served by placing them with people, usually married couples, who can provide a secure and caring upbringing.
Several hon. Membersrose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Perhaps we might now have brisk questions and brisk answers, please.
Mrs. Marion Roe: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Does she agree that the White Paper strikes a blow for common-sense judgment in adoption? Does she also agree that the adoption panels are particularly important in reinforcing that message? Is she able to give the House further details about her proposals to strengthen the panels?
Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. It is a balance between professional judgment and the common-sense view. Adoption is about finding the best possible outcome for an individual child. It is no good a child hanging around in limbo while some theoretically politically correct parent appears over the horizon. It is better to place a child with the best available family in the circumstances. I very much hope that the additions to the adoption panels will reinforce that common sense approach. As I have said, we hope that among those who will join adoption panels are those who have been successful adoptive parents. All parents—both natural and adoptive—will know that sometimes practice and theory do not match perfectly.
Ms Liz Lynne (Rochdale): I welcome the publication of the White Paper, which we hope will get rid of some of the ridiculous cases of which we have heard during the past few months, when political correctness has been taken into account. As the assessment must be open and fair, will the right hon. Lady give an assurance that social workers will receive additional training where necessary? Will she ensure that successful adoptive parents will get back-up and support after the adoption, in same way that they do before the adoption? Will the natural parent have to give permission before a step-parent can adopt, as is the case at present?
Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady asked about training, and I have commented on the improvements that we wish to see in social work training generally. There are many more qualified social workers than there were previously, but it is important that we continue to modernise and update the training that is available.
The hon. Lady is right about the importance of back-up and support, and it is important that it is provided in the early years. That is part of the work of counselling before an adoption has been entered into. Some parents resent the intrusive nature of that assessment. It is my view that adoption is an irrevocable decision, and it is important that every step is taken to be as sure as possible that there will be a positive outcome.
The adoption by a step-parent will need the agreement of the natural parent. However, we are introducing the parental responsibility agreement, which is a voluntary agreement which can be dealt with by a court without the complexity of a full adoption.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on injecting a strong
348
dose of common sense into the social worker's world, which is too often full of absurd ideologies and pettifogging bureaucracies? Does she agree that would-be parents should be helped and guided, rather than hindered and obstructed? Will she consider setting up a specialist overseas adoption agency, such as exists in Scandinavia, to help and guide couples who wish to adopt from abroad in what is a complex area?
Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend, who, of all hon. Members, works hard to ensure that there is a more positive approach to inter-country adoption. We have already established a helpline for those who are interested in inter-country adoption, which has received about 1,000 calls in the first year. In due course, there may well be scope for a specialist agency involved in inter-country adoption. I had hoped that one of the existing voluntary agencies might take up the task, but, so far, the call has not been successful.
Mr. Terry Davis: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important, in the interests of the child and of the adopting parents, that total confidentiality is given to the names and addresses of parents? How can the Secretary of State explain her decision to allow staff at the University of Birmingham to have access to such information without the permission of the mothers involved?
Mrs. Bottomley: I will look into that matter, and come back to the hon. Gentleman.
Dame Jill Knight: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to pay tribute to the wonderful work that is done by a great number of foster parents? Will she consider the harrowing cases where a foster parent has looked after a child for many years, but then the natural mother has come and claimed the child? Does the White Paper address that subject?
Mrs. Bottomley: It very much addresses the wise point that has been made by my hon. Friend. Foster parents provide magnificent services for children. There has been a dramatic fall in the number of children in institutions and in care in recent years. We provide the extra measure of a guardianship order which could be taken out by a foster parent so that a child could not then be removed by the mother without the matter returning to the court for its decision.
Ms Ann Coffey: I was pleased to see a section in the White Paper on contact services after adoption. As the Secretary of State is aware, that is a very important area, given the complexity of adoption. However, has she taken account of the resource implications, because a great deal of staff time will be involved? When the measure is on the statute book, will the Secretary of State consider the resource implications and ensure that the implementation of this very good legislation is not prevented because the resources are scarce?
Mrs. Bottomley: Year on year, we have discussions with social services departments about their additional responsibilities and the resource implications of those responsibilities. The hon. Lady will be aware that there has been a dramatic increase in resources for social services

349
departments over the past three years. That has involved a 53 per cent. increase over the 1991 level and a 35 per cent. increase in real terms.
Be that as it may and to return to the hon. Lady's point, contact is an extremely sensitive point. However, now that so many more of the children involved are older and, therefore, have a living experience of their lives before adoption, many take the view that retaining some form of contact is appropriate for the most successful outcome. However, that should not be coercive. It requires careful consideration and, as the hon. Lady rightly said, detailed counselling and thought before decisions are made.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a truly excellent statement. With regard to the White Paper, what would be the position in respect of a homosexual couple who applied for adoption? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever sympathy one might feel for couples in that position, the pattern of normality of normal family life would be so lacking that it simply could not be appropriate for such an adoption to take place?
Mrs. Bottomley: Homosexual couples cannot adopt now and there is no intention that they should be able to. As the White Paper makes clear, there must be a strong presumption in favour of adoption by a married couple. That is the position in the White Paper and it is the position which we are setting out for the future.
Mrs. Helen Jackson: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is quite inappropriate, and makes it extremely difficult for couples adopting a baby or small child, that there is no statutory right to maternity allowance or pay? A couple in that situation in my constituency had to ask, in the absence of statutory provision, whether their employer would be willing to provide time off work, and they were summarily dismissed. That adoptive couple began adopting with half the income that they were expecting. Having considered the matter, will the right hon. Lady urge the Secretary of State for Social Security and the Employment Secretary to take steps to remedy that situation for adoptive parents?
Mrs. Bottomley: Very few babies are now adopted at the stage when they would be eligible for maternity allowance. However, I will reflect on the hon. Lady's point.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend accept that so long as she says that, usually, married couples will adopt children, there will be a fear that homosexual couples of either sex might adopt children—
Mr. David Hinchliffe: This is irrelevant.
Mr. Greenway: I am concerned about children. Opposition Members should also be concerned about them. It is the children who matter.
Will my right hon. Friend also assure the House that when a child is removed for adopting purposes from a mother or father or just a mother, those people will receive proper counselling? Has my right hon. Friend ever had a mother in her surgery who said, "Give me back my baby"?
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend reinforces the concern felt by all Conservative Members about the fact that children need a mother and father. They need a stable
350
family unit. We believe that there must be a strong presumption in favour of adoption by married couples. However, at the same time, there are circumstances in which an individual parent has provided most remarkable care for a child. For example, a widowed stepfather can adopt. My hon. Friend will be aware of women who have provided the most remarkable and dedicated care for a child, often with great needs, in a most impressive way. It would be quite wrong to prohibit that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) conveys the sensitivity of so many such matters and, of course, for the mother in the case that he describes, careful counselling and continuing support are high priorities.
Mr. John Gunnell: As I have an adopted sister and an adopted son and was a member of an adoption panel for some years, I welcome the Secretary of State's White Paper, especially its priorities for providing children with a stable home background. What number of members does she envisage for the new adoption panels and what quorum would be required, as I have found that that matters? I welcome her latest statement that adoption panels will not have to be rigid. I agree that, in the majority of cases, children go to homes of married couples, but adoption panels also deal with children in difficult circumstances who need special kinds of care. Occasionally, as she says, the care of one parent can be what is needed. Will she ensure that rigidity does not occur?
Mrs. Bottomley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. We will be consulting on the numbers of members and the most appropriate way in which to reinforce the adoption panels. The hon. Gentleman may comment on that consultation. The most appropriate approach to adoption, which I am sure is shared by the hon. Gentleman, is that it is about finding families for children and not necessarily providing children for childless couples. As long as we remember that it is the needs of the child for whom we must find the best possible home that should dictate decisions, children will benefit.
Mr. John Whittingdale: I join other hon. Members in congratulating my right hon. Friend on her extremely sensible statement. Will she confirm that parents who wish to adopt, but may encounter considerations of political correctness in local authorities, will have alternatives open to them?
Mrs. Bottomley: I will. My hon. Friend is right; a disconcerting number of parents still do not believe that they have had a fair hearing or handling of their case by the social services department of their local authority. I regret that, but it is the case. That is why we shall be strengthening the complaints procedure on the basis set out in the Children Act 1989 so that it will be possible for parents who feel that they have not been fairly treated not only to complain but to require an assessment by another authority or one of the 39 voluntary adoption agencies.
Mrs. Llin Golding: I welcome the White Paper and especially the proposal to give children over a certain age the right to participate in their own adoption procedures. Will the Secretary of State clarify whether she intends that to apply to children over the age of 12, or 10 as she said in her statement?
Mrs. Bottomley: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady because my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, who leads on that subject, has been urging me to find an opportunity to correct my misstatement earlier. Children over 12—not 10—will be eligible. I apologise for misleading the House.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Having made it clear that being fat, 40 and fairly well-off will no longer be a handicap in qualifying to adopt, will my right hon. Friend consider the case of couples—there are several in my constituency—who successfully adopted one child, waited a couple of years to allow that child to settle and when they applied to adopt a second child were told that they could not because they had become too old? Will she also consider that such couples often find an available child in another district, only to be told that that district will only allow people who live in its own geographical area to adopt children, which produces a lot of unhappiness among couples who have proved themselves worthy to be good parents?
Mrs. Bottomley: Ageism is one issue about which many people feel extremely strongly. Very often, older parents provide an excellent home for children and are perhaps wiser and calmer at the same time. Clearly, those making the assessment will want to be satisfied that there is a good prospect that the parents will be able to see the child through into early adulthood. That is quite different from the somewhat rigid, overbearing approach that seems to have been taken in some cases. My hon. Friend's point on finding a sibling for an adopted child is precisely the same as mine—it can only strengthen the existing placement and provide a very good home for another child.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Is not the background to this matter the fact that, under the Conservative Government, children have been under attack more than at any other time, with cuts in education, housing and the national health service? Bearing in mind what the Secretary of State said to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), will she ensure that maternity benefits for adopted babies are provided? So few are involved that it will not be a large sum of money, and children are children whether they are adopted or born into a family.
The Secretary of State has mentioned, for example, an increase in local authority services. She talked about introducing a new complaints procedure for authorities and voluntary agencies. Will she finance it? Does she not realise that local authorities are strapped for cash? The large number of new services that are imposed on local authorities should be adequately financed. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance? Children are involved.
Mrs. Bottomley: There has been a dramatic increase in resources for social services, anyway. The White Paper spells out what good practice is. If the hon. Gentleman really wants to advance that argument, I am not aware that we have reduced funding for social service departments. The number of adoptions has fallen dramatically from about 25,000 to about 7,000 a year, and there is no suggestion that social services departments should receive fewer resources in that context.
As for the hon. Gentleman's other points, he cannot have been awake over the past few years. Child
352
immunisation has gone through the ceiling—a dramatic increase—compared with standards that were delivered when his party was in government. Far more children now go on to university, and their education is very much better. There are far fewer children in care. There has also been a substantial increase in resources paid to low-income families. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the White Paper and thinks of all the practical benefits that have been made available for children over the past 14 years.
Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Gyles Brandreth. [Interruption.] You are Mr. Gyles Brandreth?
Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Yes, I am, Madam Speaker. I am glad that we both recognise that.
As I come from Chester, where one of my distinguished predecessors, Sir Basil Nield, pioneered the Adoption Act 1950, I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, particularly the emphasis on common sense and the abandonment of sexism, ageism, racism and so on. Does she agree that the best way of ensuring common sense on adoption panels is to have adoptive parents on them? Did I understand her to say that that would be a requirement or just desirable? What can she do to ensure that adoptive parents are regularly on adoption panels?
Mrs. Bottomley: If I have the name right, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) for his contribution, because he has it precisely right. We intend that successful adoptive parents should join adoption panels. It is part of the citizens charter approach that the delivery of services should not be patronising and that it should work with people most closely involved so that we can learn from the experience of those who use the services as we provide them for others.
Mr. Matthew Carrington: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on sensible and humane proposals which cannot be brought into force soon enough for the many people who are currently experiencing problems with adoption. Our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health will know of a case in my constituency in which proposals in the White Paper would have been of great assistance. Is there any way in which the proposals or some of the proposals can be put into force sooner, perhaps by regulation or by common agreement and influence, so that they could assist people who are currently suffering problems?
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is well aware of my hon. Friend's constituency case. It may be that some parts of the White Paper can be introduced earlier by means of good practice and guidance. But these are complex and sensitive matters and I believe that the House and others will want to consider carefully the proposals outlined in the White Paper before we move to final and firm legislation.
Mr. Rupert Allason: I welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals, but will she clarify the streamlined immigration proposals that are in the White Paper?
Mrs. Bottomley: Yes. At present, those involved in inter-country adoption often have to go through the procedures both in this country and in the country from which the child is arriving. Similarly, they have to go through immigration procedures from scratch. As we have signed the Hague convention, we will make sure also that

353
we have thoroughly streamlined those procedures, and will be considering the precise legislative route to achieve that in the weeks ahead.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on achieving the degree of consensus that she has with the White Paper. Is it the Government's intention to ensure that the principle of the welfare of the child being paramount, which is enshrined in the Children Act 1989, is the same principle that will be brought into the legislation that she has said she will introduce?
What arrangements does my right hon. Friend intend to put before the House to ensure that children who are over the age of 12, who are now to be given the opportunity of participating in the process of adoption, will have their wishes properly considered and be given proper assistance to ensure that their views are put across with force?
Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my right hon. Friend, who is extremely knowledgeable in those matters. The principle of the child's interest being paramount is the founding basis on which the White Paper was prepared, along with the need for the courts and social services to extend the consideration of the child's welfare into adulthood, which is a further step forward. Children over the age of 12 will be full party to the proceedings. They will be able to receive legal aid and have their views known.
Miss Joan Lestor: I have a strange sense of deja vu as I stand here today. I welcome the consultation paper, and I agree with the right hon. Lady that we are talking about services to children and the interests of children. They are central to any action that we take about our children.
The White Paper says that, as I think the right hon. Lady underlined, when we are considering adoption, we must be sure that it is better than any alternative that may be available to the child. In such a situation, there is no room for rigidity, and in many instances the White Paper and the right hon. Lady have made that clear. Every child is unique and, therefore, the needs of that child will be unique.
The White Paper states that children should stay with their birth families where that is possible. That applies also to children overseas and, before we bring children from overseas, we have a duty to ensure that their interests are met and not disregarded.
I welcome quick decisions about children. Too many of our children are left in limbo for a long time pending decisions. With due respect to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), we dealt with the question of tug-of-love children successfully in the 1989 Act, but the question of children in limbo still exists and that is a matter about which we need to be careful.
I do not want to sound a note of disagreement here, but I should like the right hon. Lady, in the process of consultation, to take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). Although it is true that babies in this country are not being adopted, and, as I think the right hon. Lady implied, maternity leave therefore does not apply, babies from overseas are being adopted—a point that the right hon. Lady made.
In addition, if one adopts an older child in this country, it is just as important that it has weeks with its adoptive parent to be bonded, just as a baby needs bonding. The same facilities that apply to mothers who give birth
354
naturally should apply to all mothers and parents, irrespective of the origin of the child. That is very important.
I welcome the statement about open adoption where appropriate and applicable, so long as it does not jeopardise the development and growth of a new family. Open adoption is not easy. It is not easy for adoptive parents or natural parents to continue with contact. If natural parents are given a guarantee that it will not be a complete break, often they will agree to adoption and give the child a settled life. That is why I welcome that.
I welcome the move away from any rigidity on mixed ethnic adoption and fostering. That is important. As we proceed with this, I hope that there will be much greater encouragement for parents from ethnic minority groups to apply to adopt and foster. I do not think that we have done enough work in that direction. I certainly welcome the move. Many years ago, the right hon. Lady and I discussed the move away from any rigidity and the need to match a child. What is important is that the child must have a solid home—it cannot be left in limbo waiting for that to come along.
On the matter of rigidity, the principle of two parents is a sound one. But each child is unique and there will always be special circumstances in which the two-parent situation will not apply—and it should not be made to apply.
I welcome the suggestion about stepchildren and their adoption. As the House knows, we are moving into an era in which many stepchildren exist in families as a result of new marriages and relationships. It is important that we get that right. I hope that we will apply to the adoption of children from overseas exactly the same standards as those that we apply to the adoption of children in this country. In the past, I do not think that that has been done. I do not think that the vetting has been anything like as good as it should have been. I hope that we will examine the disclosures which, unfortunately, we constantly see about people here going abroad and buying children on the open market. That is disgraceful and it is something which we must examine.
I welcome the Hague convention. It will give us much more protection for children being adopted from overseas. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) mentioned the work of the Child Migrants Trust and the revelations—[interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. May I draw the attention of the hon. Lady to the fact that she is not winding up a major debate? She is making a few pithy comments on a statement which I understand she already welcomes very much. She has been speaking for four full minutes—[Interruption.] I time things carefully. I wonder whether she would conclude and allow the Secretary of State to make a quick response.
Miss Lestor: In conclusion, and as pithily as I can, I say that we should learn from the experiences of the Child Migrants Trust with regard to children from abroad as well as those here.
The White Paper, which I welcome—I hope that we will consult on it—will make us a much more child-friendly society with regard to the children that we have in our trust to place properly with future parents.
Mrs. Bottomley: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for being tolerant of the hon. Lady, because she speaks with special knowledge of these subjects.

355
The hon. Lady is absolutely right—the Child Migrants Trust has demonstrated how badly things go wrong when proper care is not taken. There can be no question of profiteering from trafficking in children. At the same time, we should be without prejudice. For children for whom there is no foreseeable prospect of their having a home in their country of origin, if there is a family that can provide them with a stable home in this country, we should not be prejudiced against such an arrangement.
I totally agree with the hon. Lady on the question of open adoption. In theory, it sounds splendid. In practice, I suspect that it is difficult to arrange. It is different for older children who know the previous family with whom they were placed, but I totally share the hon. Lady's view that it should be approached with great caution and care. I thank the hon. Lady for her overall welcome of the White Paper.

Occupational Pensions
4.18 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the report of the Pension Law Review Committee.
Following the Maxwell pension scandal, I was determined to restore confidence in the security of pension schemes, so, in June last year, I set up the committee under Professor Goode to review the framework of law and regulation governing occupational pension schemes. The committee presented its report at the end of September. I decided to publish it immediately. It is immensely thorough, comprehensive, lucid and long. I have no doubt it will become the seminal work in the development of pension law for well into the next century. I want to place on record my gratitude to Professor Goode and every member of his committee.
The Government, like most of those involved in the pension business, are still considering the report in detail. Rather than wait until we have completed our deliberation, I thought it would be helpful to the House to make an early statement—to allow right hon. and hon. Members to express their immediate views on the issues raised by the report; to announce how we will handle the consideration of the report; and to indicate our preliminary overall response to it.
The report aims to modernise and improve the framework of law affecting occupational pension funds and to bring about a fair balance between the interests of scheme members, pensioners and employers. The Government entirely share these aims.
A fundamental question for the committee was whether trust law remained an appropriate basis for pension law or should be replaced by some form of corporate law. The committee concluded that trust law remains the best available framework for occupational pension schemes. The Government agree with this conclusion.
The committee was determined to fulfil its objective of ensuring greater security for occupational pensions without imposing burdens that would undermine the willingness of responsible employers to run pension schemes. Indeed, it has even suggested ways of simplifying some existing requirements. I welcome this approach.
Altogether the committee made 218 recommendations. I shall be seeking views on those recommendations and on other issues raised by the committee. I shall shortly issue some discussion papers as a basis for detailed exchanges with interested parties. There are five key areas on which we are particularly interested to seek views.
The first is solvency. The committee proposed that a statutory minimum solvency requirement, with certain specific exceptions, be applied to funded pension schemes. The proposal has already raised some questions about how solvency would be measured; how frequently a deficiency might occur, and how rapidly a deficiency could be restored. But it is clearly important to ensure that schemes are properly funded.
The second is surpluses. I deliberately drew up the committee's terms of reference wide enough to enable it to consider this issue. The committee concluded that
"sweeping changes in the law governing surplus are not needed."

357
But it proposed some additional restrictions on payments to the employer and made other recommendations relating to surpluses.
The third is the management of schemes. The committee proposed a range of measures designed to improve the way in which schemes are managed and to enhance security of members' benefits. They include the appointment of member trustees; giving members more sharply focused information; and strengthening the role of professional advisers. Many schemes already involve their members and provide clear information to them. I want to encourage that and shall be considering whether we need to set minimum standards in this area for all schemes.
The fourth is compensation. The committee recommended a compensation scheme, funded by a post-event levy on pension schemes. The intention is to protect members and pensioners in the event of fraud, theft or the intentional misappropriation of assets. I recognise the case for some form of compensation scheme, as a long stop, behind a strengthened legal and regulatory framework. We shall be exploring the implications of this proposal too.
The fifth is regulation. The Government accept that the present arrangements for regulating pension funds need reform. The committee made a case for a quite new regulatory mechanism, with significantly wider powers than those currently held by the Occupational Pensions Board. I want to listen carefully to any comments on the detail of the committee's recommendations, not least to ensure that the burden on business is the minimum compatible with effective regulation.
The committee drew attention to a number of issues without making specific recommendations. In particular, it highlighted the complexity of the current arrangements for occupational schemes to contract out of the state earnings-related pension scheme.
It pointed out that many commentators had criticised those complexities, although it also noted that changes would not be straightforward. I shall want to discuss that issue with interested parties.
I and my colleagues in government shall give further consideration to the whole body of recommendations in the report in the light of the debate which Professor Goode has initiated and which our discussion papers will carry forward.
While we consider the committee's proposals, we must also press on with considering the implications for occupational pension schemes of judgments in the European Court of Justice. The court recently ruled, in the Ten Oever case, that the requirement of equal treatment applies only in respect of pensionable service since May 1990—the date of the Barber ruling. That judgment is excellent news. It confirms our interpretation of the court's ruling in the Barber case. Full retrospection would have cost British industry up to £50 billion to fund unforeseen liabilities.
We expect rulings on a number of related cases, notably the Coloroll case, for which the Government have provided financial support. In the meantime, I have asked my officials to begin discussion with interested parties some of the issues arising from the latest ruling, and from the Advocate General's opinion on Coloroll. We have recently issued a short, technical paper to inform those discussions.
Earlier last month I published the report by the working group on the alignment of tax and national insurance contributions. I set up the working group in May as part of our campaign to reduce the burdens on business. The
358
issues raised by the group's report have a bearing on our discussions with employers about the contracting out arrangements that I have mentioned. The report sets out a number of recommendations and some challenging options for aligning the two systems. Some of them would have significant implications for the benefit system and would require further consideration within Government.
I am attracted to the proposals for aligning the definition of earnings. I intend to consult the business community, and others concerned, next year about how that might be done.
Our policies to encourage private pension provision have been outstandingly successful. United Kingdom pension schemes own more than half of all pension fund assets in the European Community. We are determined to build on our success and to reinforce confidence in the security of occupational pension schemes. We aim to create a framework for occupational pensions that is secure, stable and fair, and to encourage people to make provision for their retirement.
The report of the Pension Law Review Committee provides a firm foundation for the debate that must take place before decisions are made.
Mr. Donald Dewar: I welcome the report, and I also wish to congratulate Professor Goode and his colleagues. Theirs is a formidable achievement. They have reduced a massive tangle of representations—I think that there were 1,669 submissions—to coherent order. The committee's work is, as I think everyone in the House recognises, vital, because confidence has been severely shaken by the Maxwell scandal. A new regulatory framework is essential. There must be adequate safeguards. Everything sensible and possible must be done to prevent another Maxwell-style disaster.
Much of the committee's work is self-evidently useful, but did the Minister note the comment in a leader in the Financial Times that the report is
"far from a radical document"?
Is he perhaps surprised that those doubts are widely reflected, certainly in the press? I notice, for example, that The Sunday Times headline was:
"Goode falls short of a revolution."
That in The Independent on Sunday was:
"Error on the side of caution"
and that in The Guardian was:
"Goode is not good enough."
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: What does the hon. Gentleman think?
Mr. Dewar: I will come to that in just a minute if the hon. Gentleman will be patient.
Does the Minister accept that the report should be seen as a starting point, and not necessarily as a finished article?
At the heart of any discussions of pensions are the questions of ownership, the control of funds and choice for the employee. The report—it is a matter for future debate —does little to recognise the important principle that was laid down in the Barber judgment, that pensions are a form of deferred pay. Many are, and will be, disappointed that there has not been a fundamental shift of control in favour of scheme members. I welcome, however, the recommendations on a regulator. There is a strong case for that office, publicly funded and with the power to supervise and, where necessary, impose discipline. Recent history has underlined the shortcomings of self-regulatory organisations.

359
We also support the principle of a compensation scheme. I recognise why the Committee felt that it must be limited to
"fraud, theft or other misappropriation",
but does the Minister accept that there will be further argument, particularly about the definition of those terms and the circumstances in which the compensation scheme will be brought into play? Was I right to understand from the Minister's statement that he clearly backs the principle and will move on it? I ask him that because the reference to a long-stop arrangement was somewhat grudging in tone, and it would be helpful if he would clear that up.
Does the Secretary of State recognise that the Maxwell pensioners, still living with uncertainty and fear, will regard the safeguards being built into the system as a frustrating case of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted? The House will expect the Government to do everything possible to speed the recovery of the missing assets and cut a pathway through the complex litigation still taking place, which, to a layman, looks positively Dickensian.
The fears about the security of pension funds and the need for safeguards, sometimes in unexpected quarters, have been underlined recently by the Government's shabby conduct over the British Rail pension fund and the fears expressed by the chairman of the trustees of that fund about how the Secretary of State for Transport has conducted his business.
I give notice that, while welcoming the improvements, we shall want to look closely at many controversial areas. The treatment of surpluses and unilateral contribution holidays, and the protection of members' interests from arbitrary changes in the rules of the schemes, are important matters. Although the proposal that any payment to the employer from scheme funds will require the regulator's consent is welcome, we doubt whether it is enough in itself. Is there not a case for the Minister and the House looking beyond Goode, whose timid conclusion was that
"sweeping changes in the law governing surpluses are not needed"?
Unlike the Minister, I quote that without great satisfaction.
We also want to look at the minimum solvency requirement. I recognise that there are many important arguments about definition and implementation and it is important that we get it right. However, I hope that the Minister agrees that it is an important discipline and should be considered seriously.
Does the Minister recognise the disappointment over the proposal that, in final salary schemes, only one third of the trustees will be appointed by active members? Although those recommendations represent a significant improvement on the present position, does he agree that they may be inadequate? Does that recommendation reach the standard of best practice which Goode said would be his guiding light?
May I ask a minor but interesting question? Has the Secretary of State looked at recommendation 80, which deals with the transfer of undertaking regulations? Will he take the advice of Professor Goode and his colleagues and support a test case in the European Court of Justice to establish how the regulations may affect pensions?
I was interested in what the Minister said—it was slightly unexpected but none the less welcome—about the Advocate General's opinion in the Coloroll case, the
360
implications of the Barber judgment, and the recent Ten Oever judgment. If the Minister now accepts—I gather that he does, rightly—that the decision is to rule out retrospection, which will save up to £50 billion, will he turn his mind to the introduction of limited price indexing, for which statutory authority already exists?
All hon. Members, irrespective of party, recognise that a long retirement on an un-indexed pension often ends in pain and distress. There is now a strong case for implementing paragraph 3 of schedule 2 to the Social Security Act 1990, and I hope that the Secretary of State can assure us that that will be on the agenda.
Finally, does the Minister accept the importance of maintaining momentum and pushing on to legislation at the earliest opportunity—certainly in the 1994–95 Session? I think that that is Government policy, but it would be helpful if he would underline and nail that down for the House's benefit today. Although adequate consultation must take place, will the Minister assure us that it will not delay progress or mask the urgent need for reform that is sufficiently radical to allow those who rely on occupational pensions to look forward to the future with confidence?
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) for welcoming the report and paying tribute to the committee. I agree that the report should be seen as a starting point for further debate; I think that Professor Goode would also accept that it is not a finished product that can be accepted without further detailed consideration.
The hon. Gentleman said that the report was far from radical. My criterion in judging it is not its degree of radicalness, but the degree of effectiveness with which it can achieve the objective on which we are all agreed—greater security for pension funds. That is the criterion that we will use in evaluating all the different proposals.
The hon. Gentleman also said that control should be shifted to pension fund members. The report contains recommendations to that effect, and we shall of course consider them; but I understand that the hon. Gentleman would like us to go further. He welcomes the committee's regulatory proposals. We shall examine them closely: we recognise the need for reform. We also accept that there is a case for compensation. I described it as a long stop because I believe that prevention is better than cure, and I envisage any compensatory procedures performing that role.
The British Rail pension fund issue was dealt with satisfactorily yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who made it clear that the pensioners would suffer no reduction in their rights, that the taxpayer would guarantee their price-indexed pensions and that they would be able to share in any distributable surplus in the future.
We shall, of course, look further—as the hon. Member for Garscadden implied that he would do—at pension fund holidays, and the other issues that he listed. We would particularly welcome the views of experts on the issue of solvency. We will certainly give serious consideration to the proposals of Professor Goode and the committee.
As for the timing of legislation, we consider it right to proceed with due speed, but thoroughly. We therefore want to consult, which will make legislation impossible this year —as the hon. Member for Garscadden implicitly recognised. The earliest possible date would be in the next parliamentary year, 1994–95; but, as the hon. Gentleman

361
knows, I can give no commitments until we know what other pressure for places is produced by the Queen's Speech.
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's overall welcome for the proposals.
Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, had many of the regulatory proposals in the report been in place when Robert Maxwell was in charge of his pension funds, the problems that he caused could have been prevented? When carefully examining all Professor Goode's proposals, will my right hon. Friend consider a key issue that coud make him very popular with millions of women and men? I refer to the problem of early leavers and the surpluses that remain in pension funds.
Many employers are taking pension holidays as a result of surpluses created not by successful investment, but by those who have left pension funds early and are not receiving increases at the appropriate rate. Will my right hon. Friend consider carefully the arrangements operating in Sweden and Germany, where early leavers are treated better? In that respect, the Goode report perhaps does not go far enough.
Overall, however, we all welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to ask Professor Goode to carry out the inquiry which has produced such an excellent report.
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome to the report.
When the report was published, Professor Goode was asked whether the measures that he proposed would have stopped the Maxwell fund scandal, and he said that he believed that it had probably created difficulties, hurdles and obstacles sufficient to have prevented that. However, he recognised—as we all have to recognise—that we can never be 100 per cent. certain of stopping crime. We have to ensure that there are enough early indicators, under a proper framework of regulation, to prevent, wherever possible, such offences from occurring. That will be the criterion that we will use to evaluate the proposals.
Mr. Don Foster: I also welcome Professor Goode's report. Like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), I welcome the somewhat reluctant recognition by the Secretary of State of the need for some form of compensation scheme. Does the Secretary of State now acknowledge that the Government were wrong to exclude occupational pensions from the compensation arrangements under the Financial Services Act 1986, and the urgency of the need to right that wrong?
Does the Secretary of State further acknowledge that his statement will do nothing to provide additional comfort to Maxwell pensioners? Will he not take the opportunity to give that comfort to those pensioners by agreeing to underwrite the pensions of all those who have suffered at Maxwell's hands?
Mr. Lilley: I am delighted that the report has all-party support. As a basis for further consideration, that is very welcome.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that I was reluctant to consider a compensation scheme. I repeat that the priority must be prevention. It is right that we should have a compensation scheme as a long stop, but it must be offered only in the last resort.
As for Maxwell pensioners, the report makes it clear that it is not envisaged that any compensation scheme
362
should be made retrospective. The Government believe that the right way to help Maxwell pensioners is to assist the trustees of the Maxwell pension funds to secure a return of assets. That would ensure that those funds can continue to pay pensioners their pensions, as we have enabled them to do so far.
We have supported Sir Peter Webster in his efforts to achieve a global settlement of all outstanding issues, which will be warmly welcomed by all pensioners. His efforts would not be helped if we were to introduce a retrospective compensation fund.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Maxwell pensioners, including those in my constituency, will welcome the Goode report as a basis for protection in the future? Does he further agree that revolution often leads to legal uncertainty, and that often the best approach, as recommended in the Goode report, is to build on existing trust laws and establish a structured statutory framework of rights and duties? That would lead to less bureaucracy, more effective regulation and more certainty than the opposite approach of revolutionary change and a wide-ranging corporate law approach.
Mr. Lilley: I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about the position of Maxwell pensioners in his own constituency, and he is right about both the attitude of those pensioners towards the Goode report and the lack of necessity to adopt a revolutionary approach for its own sake. We have to make sure that in future we have an effective system, which will prevent such events from recurring and make members of funds secure in the knowledge that their assets will be there to pay their pensions for decades to come. That is what we seek to achieve.
Mr. Stanley Orme: The Secretary of State is aware that some of the best occupational schemes in Britain have very large employee representation—for example, ICI currently has a 50 per cent. employee representation. What is wrong with that? Why does he not support it?
Mr. Lilley: I have not taken a firm view on the recommendations in the Goode report about member trustees and employee representation. We will consider the proposals put forward and the responses that they elicit. I know that many good schemes have 50 per cent. Or more member trustees, but so did the Maxwell funds. That alone does not guarantee the security of the funds, but it is not a reason for not considering it. We will consider the appropriate level of representation and the circumstances in which it should take place. I want to be sure about whether we need a statutory obligation to ensure some level of best practice. That is one of the issues on which I would like people's views.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's positive and informative statement. There are not many hon. Members who do not have Maxwell pensioners and Mirror Group Newspapers pensioners in their constituencies. Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is some concern that legislation to deal with companies prepared to pillage their pension funds to bolster cash flow, or for other purposes, will not be introduced for more than 12 months? Is it not possible to introduce some interim legislation to prevent pensioners

363
from having their pensions placed in great jeopardy, as occurred with the Mirror Group Newspapers or Dunn and Company pension funds?
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome for the report. I have considered whether we should move ahead speedily with interim legislation. I said to Professor Goode that, if in the course of his work he felt that he could make proposals to ensure greater security, which could be legislated on in advance of the final report, on an interim basis, I would respond positively to them. He did not think that that was the right approach, or that he could disentangle some aspects of his recommendations from others.
We have to ensure that what we do makes the system better and safer, and that we do not provide new opportunities and anomalies for some rogue to exploit, which might happen if we introduced ill-thought-out and hasty legislation.
As a result of the Maxwell fund scandal, everyone in the pension fund world is currently on red alert, and we have greater security within the existing framework than ever before. I want to put in place arrangements that will ensure that, when the Maxwell memory has dimmed with time, we will still have a safe system which will give early warning of any wrongdoing or areas which may need investigation.
Mr. Frank Field: May I add my thanks to Professor Goode and the Committee for their report? Is the Secretary of State aware that, although pension fund members own half of British industry, no member feels that he owns anything whatsoever? Will he give an undertaking that, when the Bill on pension law reform is brought forward, there will be provision in it for individual members to own their pension funds?
Mr. Lilley: I know that the hon. Member is keen on moving towards individual ownership of pension funds. Professor Goode and his committee indicated that individual ownership is a natural and inherent part of money purchase schemes, but is less so in final salary schemes. We have increased individuals' rights in respect of pensions, and have given them greater access to information and participation. We want to examine the report's recommendations to see how far forward we can carry that process.
It is a remarkable thing that individuals in this country, through their pension schemes, have such an immense ownership of wealth. It is good for them and the economy, and we want to make sure that that wealth is not only safe but is recognised as part of the rights that people have as a result of their savings during their working lives.
Mr. David Willetts: I welcome the report, because it shows how right my right hon. Friend was to establish the Pension Law Review Committee. I particularly welcome the recognition in my right hon. Friend's statement and the report that it is important that pensions are not over-regulated. As the Department of Social Security has now commenced its consultation exercise, I hope that it will not add extra regulations and new devices, but, if anything, will deregulate pensions further.
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right. We must make sure that we do not impose such burdens on employers that they
364
cease to run pension funds—that would be to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Equally, we must provide security; we must not trade off security to achieve lower burdens on business. But we must find ways of achieving security that do not impose excessive burdens on business. That principle also guided the committee. I welcome that, and the fact that it tried to find ways in which existing regulatory burdens can be lightened in the process of any reforms that we may introduce in future.
Mr. Alistair Darling: Does the Minister accept that, if he set a firm timetable for legislation, that would concentrate minds—not least in his Department—during the consultative process? Does he further accept that, for both public and industry, the need to put a regulator in place as soon as possible is urgent —unless the Government are to continue their sometimes casual, if not slapdash, approach to regulation in the public interest?
Mr. Lilley: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the minds of my officials are distinctly concentrated on making as rapid progress as is consistent with effective consultation and achieving sensible outcomes. It is my experience that employers and others involved in the pensions industry—we will want to involve them too in the consultative process—are also eager to make progress. We will have no difficulty on that front.
I have not laid out a firm programme for legislation, for the same reasons why no Secretary of State could do so: we cannot bind ourselves before we have made decisions about the competing pressures on future parliamentary time.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent statement in response to the Goode report. I ask him to bear in mind that the average occupational or private pension is about £60 a week, which, compared with a Government pension, is very good. So in all our efforts, we must attempt not to kill but to cure. I ask my right hon. Friend to bear this in mind when he deals with the regulatory side.
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The average pensioner in receipt of an occupational pension receives £60 or more a week on top of his or her basic state pension as a result of the savings that he has put aside during his working life. New pensioners typically receive more than £70 a week from their occupation pensions, and the amount is rising. We want it to rise more as more people make better provision during their working lives. We want to encourage that. Essential in that process is reinforcing the confidence that people have in the pension funds in which they invest.
Mr. Terry Rooney: During the consultation exercise, will the right hon. Gentleman look at the local government scheme, which includes more than 1 million contributors and several hundred thousand beneficiaries? It always requires legislation to update the benefits in the scheme, which is consequently some 10 years behind current pension provision elsewhere.
Mr. Lilley: I will certainly look at that, although I am almost certain that it is an aspect rather different from the matters that will be central to implementing the Goode recommendations and the ideas that they were based on —but I will certainly examine the hon. Gentleman's point.
Mr. Alan Duncan: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to reflect on the position of occupational pensions in the wider provision of pensions? Will he agree that they are a product in decline, as they restrict labour mobility and people have no control over their assets? Does he join me in wishing to encourage the rapid expansion of personal pensions that move with the individual and allow him some control over the assets in which he has invested?
Mr. Lilley: We need not have all one or all the other—all personal pensions or all final salary schemes. We have made it possible for people to have greater choice as between the two. We opened up personal pension schemes, since when about 5 million people have taken advantage of them. It was originally forecast that this would be at the expense of occupational pension schemes. In fact, the number of people with occupational pensions has risen at precisely the same time as 5 million more people have gained personal pensions.
We want to foster both types of scheme and we are keen not to make either less attractive to pensioners or employers.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the Secretary of State recognise that many of my constituents have been affected by the serious abuses in the Belling pension scheme? Can he take immediate action to ensure that directors cannot, as they did in this case, borrow large amounts from the pension fund? Will he also ensure that pension funds do not buy, at inflated prices, subsidiaries of the parent company—as also happened in the Belling pension scheme?
Mr. Lilley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, regulations are now in force which limit the ability of pension schemes to invest in their own underlying parent companies, either by lending money to them or by buying shares or property that belong to them. The potential for that abuse has thus been severely restricted.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's measured response to this complex and sensitive matter. I feel certain that by approaching it thus we shall achieve what we want—maximum protection for pensioners without impairment of the way in which pension schemes and pension fund management operate.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that not least among the most sensitive areas that Goode examined was that of solvency ratios, which are essential to any compensation? Will he give particular attention to that?
Mr. Lilley: I agree with my hon. Friend's points. We will give close consideration to the proposals on solvency and to the response that they have already elicited. It is important to get this right; it is equally important to ensure that schemes are properly funded.
Mr. Jimmy Wray: The Minister has more confidence in Goode's proposals than Goode himself has. Goode could not give the committee a guarantee that they would be foolproof. Although he said that scheme members can be members of the trustee board, and although he said that a pensions regulator will be appointed, Goode's recommendation was ultimately to give sole responsibility for these matters to employers. If
366
we are looking for a foolproof system of offering pensioners security, surely the first thing to do is to remove that power from employes.
Mr. Lilley: Professor Goode spelled out his intention when he said that he wanted to make a reality of the pension promise. We want to make sure that the promise inherent in membership of a pension fund is fulfilled—that its assets are there to ensure that it is fulfilled and properly funded, and that abuses do not occur. The professor said that nothing could be foolproof. That is a truism with which we would all agree. Our job is to try to exclude every conceivable opportunity for abuse and wrongdoing. That will be the criterion that we use when developing Professor Goode's ideas.
Dr. Liam Fox: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be a deferral of any collection of state scheme premiums from all the Maxwell pension funds? Will not that amount to a £100 million interest-free loan to the Maxwell fund? Will it not be a genuinely practical way of helping Maxwell pensioners, many of whom live in the Paulton area of my constituency?
Mr. Lilley: We have already announced the deferral of collection of state scheme premiums, which in effect gives the Maxwell pension schemes an interest-free loan worth more than £100 million. That has been widely welcomed by those involved. It has meant that pensions have been enabled to continue to be paid when they might not otherwise have been. It has eased the problem and provided a longer period in which to achieve an overall settlement, which I hope Sir Peter Webster will be able to achieve.
Mr. Keith Bradley: We want to endorse the welcome on both sides of the House for the statement. We look forward to the discussion papers, because it has been plain from questions today that there is not total agreement on issues such as solvency, surpluses, management, ownership, control, the number of trustees and a compensation scheme. Although we welcome the Secretary of State's assurance that he will support such a scheme, we shall look at it in greater detail when the proposals emerge, and we shall be pressing for the regulation of new funds when the legislation appears.
I recognise that any compensation scheme will not greatly benefit the Maxwell pensioners, but I press the right hon. Gentleman to use his good offices to ensure that litigation against companies holding Maxwell assets and asset chasing for the Maxwell pension scheme are pursued with all haste. Will he also ensure that all the money that is available from that source goes back to the Maxwell pensioners and is not swallowed up by legal or professional fees? I am certain that the Government will press that point strongly on behalf of Maxwell pensioners.
Secondly, the Secretary of State did not respond to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) about limited index-linking of schemes in future. Will he make some further comment on that?
Finally, we will be pressing strongly for legislation to be brought forward at the earliest opportunity in the 1994–95 Session, and if there is anything we can do to help him press that case, we will be pleased to assist.
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support, which I am sure will carry a great deal of weight

367
with my right hon. Friend should I meet any opposition in these matters. I am also grateful to know that some Opposition time may be made available to help us.
We shall certainly continue to do all we can to ensure that the Maxwell pension fund trustees and others pursue as effectively and rapidly as possible a settlement, particularly within the possible global settlement which Sir Peter Webster is now seeking. The object of that is not only to ensure that the issue is resolved more rapidly than if it went to court, but we are saved funds being drained off in lawyers' fees so that the money instead goes back to the pensioners in greater measure. I know that that has the widespread support of the House.
As far as limited price indexation is concerned, we made it clear that we intended to resolve a complexity of issues which bear on the obligations of pension funds before we decide whether and, if so, when that obligation should be imposed on pension funds. It is right that those other issues should be satisfactorily resolved first.

Points of Order
5 pm
Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is uncannily ironic that my point of order should follow the exchanges that have just taken place, as it relates to what is intended to be the biggest pension robbery in British history, the robbery of the British Rail pension fund.
In the other place this afternoon, the Government have now suffered two defeats on the pension fund issue in the Railways Bill. The other place has confirmed the view taken by many Members in the House last night and by the chairman of the British Rail pension fund about the conduct of the Government in reneging on assurances that had been given, and in seeking to gain the powers of Ministers to make changes to the pension fund—
Madam Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me?
Mr. Wilson: The conduct of the Government in seeking to make those changes has been rejected by the Lords this afternoon in the same way as it was rejected by Opposition Members last night.
Can you use your good offices, Madam Speaker, to bring the Leader of the House to the House as soon as possible to make a statement about the proposed conduct of business hereafter and, preferably, could there be talks to abandon the whole unwanted Railways Bill as the threat to railway pensioners arises only as a by-product of that dreadful Bill which has no support in the country?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is it related to this matter?
Mr. Skinner: Yes. As the two pension proposals have been defeated by the votes of Members in another place, taking into account the composition of the House of Lords—the ratio of Members taking the Whip is about four Tories to one Labour—would it not seem credible to argue that, as the Government have a massive majority there and a majority here in the House of Commons, now that the Lords have defeated them twice, surely it makes sense that the Government should accept the decision that has been made, so that we can get on with business?
Ms Ann Coffey: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Does it relate to the same point of order?
Ms Coffey: No.
Madam Speaker: Then I shall return to the hon. Lady when I have replied to the hon. Member for Cunningham, North (Mr. Wilson).
I have had no official news as yet, but, as the House knows, we have a long parliamentary day and no doubt we will hear how to proceed in due course.
Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Why has the Department of Trade and Industry document, "Clean Coal Technology: Options for the Future" not been placed before the House? It states:
"Coal can continue to play a significant role well into the twenty-first century".

369
Surely that is a supreme hypocrisy on the day when Calverton colliery is closing and the coal industry has been decimated. Do the Government intend to make a statement on the matter? Is it right that the document should be issued to the press, but not placed in the Library of the House?
Madam Speaker: I have not had sight of the document and I cannot be certain whether it is the sort of document that is normally laid before the House until I have seen it. I can say to the hon. Gentleman that I have not yet had any notice of any more statements which Ministers are about to make today.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Item 13 on the Order Paper is a proposal under statutory instrument to impose VAT on orange juice. I know that it is informal, unofficial and does not exist, but earlier this week we had our party Whips and there was no indication at that stage that the matter would be debated. There was a debate in a Statutory Instruments Committee earlier this week on the subject, but today is the first time that many hon. Members have been aware that the matter is coming before the House this evening.
I dare say that, if it is on the Order Paper, it must be an order, but it seems that there should be some other procedure whereby such important matters cannot suddenly be flung on the Table at the last minute. Hon. Members should have adequate warning that issues of such significance are about to be put before the House.
Can you, Madam Speaker, look into the background of this matter? If the procedures are not proper for matters of this significance, perhaps it would be possible for the Procedure Committee to look into them so that in future such matters do not come before the House with minimal notice at the last minute. Because you know so much more about these things than I do, Madam Speaker, may I ask whether we can debate the motion later this evening, or do we purely vote on it?
Madam Speaker: It is not a matter which can be debated later this evening. It has already been before the Statutory Instruments Committee in the normal way, but it is not on the Order Paper for debate this evening.
Mr. William Cash: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The matter is the subject of a dispute which is subject to appeal to the House of Lords. It would appear that this order is being rushed through while the matter is sub judice. Is it not a matter about which we should be concerned?
Madam Speaker: The sub judice rule does not apply to delegated legislation.
Ms Coffey: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 15 October a letter from the Secretary of State for Social Security was circulated to all right hon. and hon. Members which stated that it was not true that the Child Support Agency was concentrating primarily on those who were already paying some maintenance. However, I understand from reports in the press that the chief executive of the agency said exactly the opposite to the Select Committee on Social Security.
370
In view of the irreconcilable nature of these two statements, could you, Madam Speaker, use your good offices to ask the Minister to come to the House to reconcile them? I feel strongly that it is important for Members of the House to have accurate information, and we do rely on Ministers to give us that accurate information.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady is aware that I have no authority to require a Minister to come before the House and make a statement. I am given notice when a Minister wishes to do so. Of course, as the hon. Lady may be aware, and if she is not I will be happy to give her some guidance if she would like to come and see me, there are various other methods by which she herself can raise these matters in the House.

BILLS PRESENTED
  POLICE (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Tony Benn, supported by Ms Diane Abbott, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Bernie Grant, Mr. Bill Etherington, Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Eddie Loyden, Mr. Bill Michie, Ms Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Malcolm Chisholm and Mr. Ken Livingstone, presented a Bill to amend the Police Act 1964 so as to permit all members of any police force to belong to a trade union, and to allow the Police Federation to affiliate to the Trades Union Congress: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 262.]
  VALUE ADDED TAX (DEMOCRATIC CONTROL)
  Mr. Tony Benn, supported by Ms Diane Abbott, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Bernie Grant, Mr. Bill Etherington, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Eddie Loyden, Mr. Bill Michie, Ms Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Malcolm Chisholm and Mr. Ken Livingstone, presented a Bill to amend the European Communities Act 1972 so as to restore to Parliament the sole legislative power to impose, amend, or repeal value added tax to be charged in the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 261.]
  PARDON FOR SOLDIERS OF THE GREAT WAR (No. 2)
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, supported by Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. John Hume, Mr. Ken Maginnis, Rev. Ian Paisley, Mr. Allan Rogers, Mr. Alex Salmond, Sir David Steel, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. Paul Flynn, presented a Bill to provide for the granting of pardons to soldiers of the British Empire Forces executed during the Great War of 1914 to 1919 following conviction for offences of cowardice, desertion or attempted desertion, disobedience, quitting post, violence, sleeping at post, throwing away arms or striking a superior officer; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Thursday 11 November, and to be printed. [Bill 265.]

Football Matches (Violent and Disorderly Conduct)
5.9 pm
Mr. David Amess: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision with respect to the prevention of violence or disorder at or in connection with football matches played outside England and Wales; to amend the Football Spectators Act 1989; and for connected purposes.
I am a lifelong supporter of West Ham United, and since June 1983 I have been a supporter of Basildon United. Both, in their respective leagues, are the finest teams in the country. Unfortunately, occasionally they meet teams that play a little better than they do—but of course, those matches are always played in unfortunate circumstances. My household was delighted by West Ham's performance on Monday night, when we beat Manchester City. The passwords in our house are, "Up, you irons," and, "I'm for ever blowing bubbles."
I am an east ender, and it is appropriate that I support West Ham United, because when England won the world cup three West Ham players—Bobby Moore, Geoff Hurst and Martin Peters—scored all the goals. Those people were an inspiration to other young players in their behaviour both on and off the field. In more recent times, Trevor Brooking has also been an admirable ambassador for the British game of football.
I decided to ask the leave of the House to introduce this Bill because of my anger at the scenes that we saw on our television screens and in the newspapers at the time of the England versus Holland match. My Bill has nothing to do with football supporters or spectators. The idiots to whom I refer are so thick that they cannot even wait for us to lose a match before they riot. They have no interest whatever in the game of football; they have simply latched on to our national game as an opportunity for what they see as "having a good laugh". Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the two are somehow related in the minds of the general public.
We are all deeply saddened that we are now out of the world cup, that our national sport is still at a low ebb, with some players being paid too much money in return for poor skills, and that we have no settled English team. Now is the ideal time for us to take action on disorderly conduct at football matches. Lord Justice Taylor's report on the 1989 Hillsborough disaster said that there was no single remedy for hooligan behaviour. Those disgraceful individuals should be dealt with seriously, because of the shame that they bring on our country, on themselves and on their families. I presume that those people all have parents who love them, but if I had a son who behaved in that way I would string him up, and if I employed one of them—I assume that they are in work—I should not be at all happy about his staying in my employment.
I pay a warm tribute to the way in which the British game has been cleaned up, thanks to firm, decisive action. We are an example to other countries, and many people and organisations should take the credit for that—the football unit of the national criminal intelligence service, the Football Association, with its England unit travel club rules, the all-party football group and its chairman, and so on. The two 1991 reports of the Home Affairs Committee on policing football hooliganism, and other Select
372
Committee reports, have made significant contributions. Media headlines on one day are soon forgotten, but the matter needs constant attention.
Hooliganism is certainly not confined to these islands. For instance, as we have seen on television today, it happens in Turkey. It is widespread throughout the world, so the thrust of any amending legislation should be reciprocal, and should take effect on a European basis. For my suggestions I am indebted for his support and guidance to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), who wanted to be in the Chamber, but is at present doing an interview on the same subject for a television programme.
The passport scandal is an example of the complex difficulties of control. Some hooligans, instead of using their own passports, apply for British visitors passports under false names to avoid proper identification. The rules for issuing British visitors passports should be tightened to require a more rigorous examination of supporting documents. If fans using the FA travel club scheme had to present full British passports, their tickets and their club cards, that would help greatly.
I hope to ensure that some action is taken, building on our successes in this country so that Britain can lead the way. First, we should extend by statutory instrument or otherwise the powers under section 22 of the Football Spectators Act 1989. Only three times have statutory instruments extended the powers under section 22(1). Surely it is time for an extension to other countries. Regrettably, only 25 restriction orders have been issued by the courts since 1990, and most have now expired. That matter needs attention.
Secondly, we should lead by positive example, through the 1985 European convention on spectator violence and misbehaviour at sports events, especially football matches. Twenty-four countries are involved and, in the light of experience, a standing committee of the convention should review the provisions under article 9 more frequently. Our treatment of alcohol, the use of closed-circuit television inside grounds and mobile cameras outside, effective football units co-operating with one another, and local legislation giving the police emergency powers, will all greatly improve the situation, and will help to distinguish between innocent people and obvious offenders. That must all be done on a common reciprocal basis. We cannot be happy when the police authorities in other countries appear so restrained in their use of prosecution, finding it easier to ship suspected offenders as quickly as possible back to their home countries.
We have a great tradition of fair play in this country. We have always been seen as good losers—perhaps not wanting quite enough to win. There may be something in that. However, in the long term, no game could survive in a civilised society with the sort of nonsense that we have seen perpetrated by the mindless hooligans who have travelled abroad in recent years.
I hope that the all-party football group will wish to review the present position and to report its conclusions to the Home Office and to the Minister responsible for sport, so that appropriate action can be taken by a standing committee of the European convention. We cannot and should not stand by and allow our national game to be brought into disrepute by mindless thugs. The Bill will make a significant contribution to that end.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Amess, Mr. David Alton, Mr. John Carlisle, Mr. David Clelland, Mr. Tom Cox, Mr. David Evans, Mr. John Greenway, Mr. John Gunnell, Mr. Jim Lester, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Nicholas Winterton.

FOOTBALL MATCHES (VIOLENT AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT)
Mr. David Amess accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to the prevention of violence or disorder at or in connection with football matches played outside England and Wales; to amend the Football Spectators Act 1989; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5 November, and to be printed. [Bill 264.]

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill (Allocation of Time)
5.19 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): I beg to move,
That the Order of the House [27th October 1992] be supplemented as follows:
Lords Amendments

1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of the proceedings of this Order.

2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the Lords Amendment as amended;

(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by the Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the Amendments; and

(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
3. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.

5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

375

(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by the Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and

(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental
6.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.

(2) Such a Committee shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

7.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

(5) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

The Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill has a long history all of its own. The original private Bill was introduced into another place five years ago this month. It was considered by a Select Committee of the other place for 13 days and received the usual Second and Third Readings. In this House it was debated for a total of twenty-five and a half hours. It was twice carried over into new parliamentary Sessions, and was finally considered for sixteen and a half hours in an all-night sitting in April 1991. It was considered for 27 sitting days by a Select Committee, including three days of evidence taken in Cardiff.
The present Bill was introduced two years ago tomorrow. Seldom can a Bill coming before the House for a Second Reading have been already so thoroughly debated and examined. This Bill has been debated even more thoroughly since. It was considered for 14 days by a Select Committee of this House, including three days in Cardiff. There were five sittings for the Standing Committee, lasting twelve and a half hours. Report and Third Reading lasted over 10 hours.
The two Bills together have had Second Reading after Second Reading and Committee day after Committee day of discussion. There are those who think it is challenging for a place in the "Guinness Book of Records" for the length of time its passage has taken.
The Bill has also been through another place, including 11 days before a Select Committee. It was not greatly amended there.
The time has come to bring consideration of this Bill to an end. The timetable motion provides for two more hours of discussion. In paragraph 2, the motion contains the usual provision for questions to be put at the end of the two-hour period.
Mr. Alun Michael: The Secretary of State is correct to talk about the long time
376
involved with this Bill. If he studies the history, he might agree that, if the Welsh Office had advised in the first place that it should be a hybrid Bill, as it is now, rather than a private Bill, a great deal of time and agony might have been saved for many of us.
The Secretary of State is talking about cutting the time allowed for these last amendments. Given that these are generally helpful and non-controversial amendments, it seems rather odd that he should be introducing a guillotine at this stage.
Mr. Redwood: If the amendments are non-controversial and helpful, it will not take more than two hours to deal with them in a sensible way.
It is decision time for the House, and decision time for Cardiff.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the unflagging energy that he has put into this project. He will be handling the remaining stages with his usual skill and great knowledge of the subject.
Everything about the barrage and the bay proposals has been extensively debated. This House has heard how the rising water table will be handled, how transport will be organised and how development should follow the project. The Bill is eagerly awaited by the construction industry and by many in Cardiff. Its final passage tonight represents the go-ahead for a large civil engineering project, a green light for the bay development, a landmark in the history of Cardiff. The development corporation will ensure that the city is once again linked to the bay properly, and that the old docks areas will again become commercial centres, bustling with a new kind of trade.
I want to see Cardiff reunited, with its waterfront thrusting ahead with new investments in its business district, and proud of its bay-led development. The bay development will help Cardiff to retain its critical role in the business of Wales. In five years' time, people will look across the bay from Penarth and wonder how Members in this House could have stood in the way of regeneration for so long.
A new maritime city for the next millennium, a symbol of all that is best in Welsh enterprise, architecture and environment, will be constructed. It will be a celebration of the best of Wales, a symbol that the best of Wales is world class. I urge the House not to stay the bulldozers longer. I urge hon. Members to support the motion.
5.24 pm
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The Secretary of State has just given his Third Reading speech. He has issued a clarion call for getting on with the job and not standing in the way of the bulldozers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has correctly pointed out, the problem is that the Secretary of State has not explained what the timetable motion has to do with the content of his mini-speech.
After all, it has taken six years to get this far with the Bill and it is difficult to see why an hour or so either way will make very much difference. If a Bill has taken longer than world war 2 to get to this stage, a guillotine hardly seems appropriate. We are discussing Lords amendments, not the Third Reading.
The Secretary of State is right to point to the fact that the Bill has a long and tangled history—in fact, he omitted one part of it. It first entered their Lordships' House in November 1987, not November 1988, and was withdrawn.

377
Perhaps the lesson that we can learn from this Bill is that, if one does one's homework, any Bill, whatever the objections to it, will have a much cleaner and smoother passage through the House.
The homework was not done on this Bill, and its tangled history saw the two Under-Secretaries of State before the present incumbent—Ian Grist and Nicholas Bennett—lose their seats in the last general election. We may have the triple crown of Under-Secretaries of State, in that the present Minister may also lose his seat after his association with the Bill.
We are dealing with what might be called legislative coitus interruptus on a monumental scale. The Secretary of State has said that he does not believe that the Bill's sell-by date has been exceeded. However, the Bill was conceived in the boom conditions of November 1987 and, six years later, it is just reaching its final proceedings in the Hosue. If it ever was the answer to Cardiff's problems, is that still the case?
We object to the timetable motion, not only because we cannot see the point of a guillotine on Lords amendments, but because of the precedent of a guillotine on a hybrid Bill with this unique history. It is unprecedented to have a hybrid Bill that is six years old—if we include the three previous versions—and to have a guillotine on Lords amendments to a Bill that has been carried over not only from one House to another and one year to another but from one general election to another. That is the problem that we are facing in trying to find a way in which the Secretary of State can justify the timetable motion.
There is not a vast number of Lords amendments, but they do require unrestricted debate. The Government will be well aware from events in another place already tonight that, when they mess about with Lords amendments and guillotine them in this place, nasty accidents sometimes happen. It is much better to allow Parliament to have unfettered debate, because if it does not, Bills can become accident-prone.
The Bill was given a Second Reading two years ago, and when a Bill is given a Second Reading, the principle contained in it is established. A problem arises, as in this case, when a Bill is altered in the other place and this House has no opportunity to consider it in its proper form.
The House did not have that opportunity, because it was rushed into Second Reading before the groundwater studies had been completed. It is a generally accepted constitutional convention that, following Second Reading, the principle of the Bill cannot be opposed. That establishes the principle, and binds the hands of the National Rivers Authority and of the Countryside Council for Wales.
When the Bill is altered in another place, that constitutional principle is undermined, because it means that one is now looking at a package different from that considered at Second Reading. It is fair to say—I am sure that many of my hon. Friends and the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary would agree—that the changes which have been made in another place undoubtedly provide improved protection against potential damage.
However, we did not have a chance to consider the complete package properly on Second Reading. I am arguing for an unrestricted debate tonight, because a fundamental constitutional principle could be undermined. Following Second Reading—after which the principle of the Bill cannot be discussed—the House should have a
378
proper chance to discuss the consequences for farm and livestock and for individuals, as well what appears in the Bill.
The same applies to the rights of petitioners, which have been considerably abridged by the omission of a matter under new clause 22, which I may come to later in the debate. I see that the Minister is shaking his head. Obviously, the reason for that is his own tangled involvement with clause 22. He denied that the clause would re-hybridise the Bill when I directly put it to him in the Standing Committee. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to challenge me on that? [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. If the hon. Member wishes to intervene, he should seek to do so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) is completely incorrect in his assumption. The specific question was not raised. The hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted the matter previously, and he ought to know by now that his interpretation is wrong.
We fully acknowledge, and we have done so throughout, that the amendment to which he refers now re-hybridises the Bill. It has been treated as such. There has been an opportunity for anyone to petition against it. It has been fully advertised, and I do not know why he persists with the point.
Mr. Morgan: In saying that I am wrong, the Under-Secretary is denying what is in the record of the Standing Committee. Reference was made to the matter in Committee on 17 May, and I questioned the hon. Gentleman in Standing Committee in July 1992. I asked whether he accepted that the amendment would, in effect, re-hybridise the Bill. The hon. Gentleman replied that it would not, and he urged the Committee not to pursue the amendment.
The Minister will be aware that the Chairman of the Select Committee—now the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee—said that the matter should be put right in Standing Committee or in another place. The matter was dealt with in another place, but when I put it to him in the Standing Committee in July 1992, he denied that the effect of the amendment would be to re-hybridise the Bill.
Mr. Gwilym Jones: The amendment that we were debating when the hon. Gentleman raised the question in Committee did not re-hybridise the Bill. It is the land drainage amendment that has re-hybridised it.
Mr. Morgan: I am terribly sorry that the Minister has not grasped the fact that land drainage amendment was the one that we were referring to in July 1992 in implementing the recommendations of the Select Committee.
That is the type of problem we face. The rights of petitioners should have been clear to all potential petitioners whose private property rights would be affected. The Conservative party often claims, falsely, to be the only party that looks after private property owners. The rights of those petitioners were affected by the fact that it was not clear whether their properties would be affected at the time of Second Reading and when the Bill was advertised, two years ago tomorrow. That matter was affected later in the Lords, but petitioners did not have a chance to petition both Houses of Parliament.

379
If the Bill had been delayed for another two months, from November 1991 to January 1992, and if the Secretary of State's groundwater adviser had completed his report, the job could have been done properly. The House would then have had the opportunity, which has now been lost, to debate the implications of the Bill for petitioners.
We could also have debated the problems that can be caused to the occupants of property in the affected areas in my constituency and in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth and for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) from rising groundwater that would be occasioned by the barrage.
That is the problem we have, and that is why an unrestricted debate on a relatively small group of Lords amendments would make far more sense. I feel that the rule that the principle of a Bill cannot be amended after Second Reading has been fundamentally undermined, in particular by the attitude of the Minister. He did not accept the offer that was made to incorporate the matter on the advice of the Chairman of the Select Committee when it was raised in Standing Committee in July last year.
As late as 2 August this year, new material was still coming to light that would require examination in the light of the Secretary of State's ringing comments tonight. I may have an opportunity later tonight to refer to the impact of the EC urban waste water directive which comes into effect shortly and will massively affect the way in which the waters of the Taff and the Ely are to be treated. The habitats directive which will be introduced on 5 June next year will also have a massive effect on the way in which nature conservation objections have to be looked at.
A European Court of Justice ruling on the Santona marshes case—a case fairly similar to Cardiff bay—in the matter of proposed special protection areas raises new issues which we have not had an opportunity to look at. That is why I say that a hybrid Bill should not be guillotined. Above all, a re-hybridised Bill should not be guillotined when it has come back from another place with those amendments which re-hybridise the Bill to this House, because hon. Members never had a chance to look at the amendments properly.
The House has not had the chance to look at the powers to go into people's back gardens and dig agricultural land drainage trenches, which have never before been tried in a densely populated area of terraced houses.
Obviously, the powers to get rid of the saturation flooding which is now a danger have been improved. There are amendments covering that subject to which I will refer in a moment. My objection to a timetable is this: why should we restrict a debate on a question that relates to unprecedented engineering works in a densely populated terrace area? That is no problem in sports grounds or in agricultural areas. However, digging under people's back gardens, their favourite goldfish ponds, rockeries, tool sheds and back walls has never been tried before. That should have been properly aired tonight.
The House is on dangerous ground if it allows a guillotine that has never been used before for hybrid Bills. Potential petitioners on future Bills will feel that their rights have been abridged if they are able to petition only one House and not the other. Hon. Members were not
380
presented with a proper package on Second Reading, because at that time we did not know what the groundwater side effects were.
I will refer to the November 1987 private Bill, which I also referred to earlier in connection with the Secretary of State. Let us assume that the Bill had made great progress in the House, or had started in the Lords before coming to this House. The Bill did not refer to groundwater side effects at all, because work had not been completed.
Let us say that the Government had wanted to get the Bill into the Lords, where it would have been whistled through, with no reference to groundwater side effects. The Bill would have come to this House by the time the initial studies into groundwater had been done by Wallace Evans and Partners. Hon. Members would have said, "My goodness me, 6,000 families may now have their rightful ability peacefully to occupy their houses without groundwater side effects." We did not have an opportunity to consider the Bill's implications on Second Reading in this House because the engineering work had not been completed. We would have been scandalised to learn that 6,000 residents of downtown Cardiff were not to have an opportunity to petition this House when the Bill began its parliamentary process because the corporation had not completed the engineering work.
Because the engineering work was completed late, it was not apparent on Second Reading that there would be massive groundwater side effects across the flat lands around downtown Cardiff. Those effects were discovered when the Bill went to another place. Therefore, the Bill was amended accordingly there, and a pack of amendments were sent back to this House. In effect, those amendments say, "Sorry, we didn't know that there were groundwater side effects when the House of Commons gave the Bill a Second Reading."
Because of the delays with the Bill, we are not facing such a gross abuse of parliamentary procedure. However, we are facing an abuse of parliamentary procedure. The Bill was rushed through this place. If it had been left until January 1992, all the new measures could have been incorporated. However, although it was clear that the groundwater studies would be completed within two months, Second Reading took place in November 1991. That meant that the House of Commons and petitioners could not, on Second Reading, consider the total package.
I have already referred to the first Bill, which appeared in 1987. It is clearly important for us not to curtail debate when petitioners' rights are being undermined and when these problems were not apparent when this House gave the Bill a Second Reading.
On that occasion, there was no reference to the need for an extension of land drainage legislation powers to enable the city council to enter people's backyards to cope with the effects of saturation flooding. That possibility should have been apparent to us on Second Reading. Because it was not, there must be great doubts about the validity of the process by which we will consider the Lords amendments which attempt to correct the defects in the Bill that we considered on Second Reading. That is a strong case for unrestricted debate and against the guillotine as the correct way to proceed.
The Under-Secretary of State the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), will no doubt explain later why he opposed the original Bill about the Taff crossing. That little barrage was proposed by a Labour-controlled county council. The hon. Gentleman was against that. He will no

381
doubt explain how he came to change his mind, and became a super-salesman for a large barrage proposed by a Tory Government. No doubt he will be able to explain why his predecessor and the Secretary of State's predecessor were also very much against the Usk barrage and very much in favour of the Cardiff bay barrage. Also—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman goes any further, how does this historical sketch relate to the guillotine motion before us?
Mr. Morgan: A great deal more than the Secretary of State's speech, but perhaps we should consider that tomorrow in the full light of day.
The need for uncompressed debate on the Lords amendments, without a guillotine, is clear. The scene is changing very quickly in Cardiff, and new factors are coming to light. Many of those factors are covered by the amendments and can be discussed in detail. However, some are not.
The Secretary of State hardly referred to the Lords amendments. He maintained that lakes create jobs and he did not want the lake to be delayed as he believed that it would create jobs. That is why he wants to introduce a guillotine motion. I believe that we should consider whether lakes create jobs. We should consider this new voodoo religion about lakes and jobs. No doubt the Minister will be able to justify that when he debates the amendments.
However, the Secretary of State maintained that speed was of the utmost importance. He said that we must get on with the job and set a starting date for the bulldozers to get in.
Mr. Redwood rose—
Mr. Morgan: Perhaps the Secretary of State wants to start his bulldozer up tonight.
Mr. Redwood: I confined my remarks to the guillotine motion and to whether we should make a decision in good time tonight. I argued strongly that we should do that. I did not discuss the amendments, because that is what we will do next. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) will be able to discuss the amendments later. If the hon. Gentleman got on with the job, we would have more time to discuss the Lords amendments. I believe that that would be the best thing to do in the circumstances.
Mr. Morgan: I am not sure what the Secretary of State is trying to say. He wants to start the procedure for building the barrage as though that would happen tomorrow if we approve the guillotine motion tonight. Whether or not we approve the guillotine motion has no bearing on the start date for the barrage.
We want to raise many points as a result of the concerns that have been expressed. Some of those points will be dealt with later. The Secretary of State should realise that the way in which the Bill has meandered its way through both Houses of Parliament is the result of the Government's inability to do their homework before presenting the Bill to the House. That is why there are Lords amendments.
Most of the Lords amendments stem from the Government, at the request of the local authorities and some objectors. Therefore, some of those amendments
382
must be debated tonight. Should we curtail debate on those amendments when they relate to the protection of ordinary residents of downtown Cardiff, many of whom are in my constituency and in the other two Cardiff constituencies which are affected? That is a strong argument against the guillotine motion, and that is why we will oppose it tonight.
5.45 pm
Mr. Alun Michael: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate and to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) that the guillotine motion is wholly unnecessary. If it is necessary for me to do so, I remind the House that the whole of the Cardiff bay development area lies in my constituency. That is why I have taken a particular interest in this measure in its various forms and why I acted as sponsor for the Bill when it was a private Bill in this House.
The guillotine is unnecessary, for a very simple reason. All we have to deal with is Lords amendments, which are largely beneficial. There are some exploratory amendments to the Lords amendments, and it is right that they should be discussed and that we should ensure that, in the narrow area covered by the Lords amendments, this House gets it right.
The Bill is important to my constituency because it is likely greatly to improve the environment of south Cardiff. Since the last century, south Cardiff has suffered from the dirt and the impact of heavy industry as a result of the export of coal. It has been left with the detritus of heavy industry as our coal and steel industries have closed down, as the transport industry has diminished and as heavy industry generally has receded from the southern part of the city. That is a matter of grave concern. While my constituents have suffered that dirt and disruption, the jobs on which so many of them depended for a decent standard of living have also receded.
The Bill will do a great deal to improve the situation. It will create an environment in which it will be far more pleasant for people to live. It will also bring back jobs to south Cardiff, which used to be the powerhouse of the city and of south Wales. The interdependence of Cardiff and the valleys of south Wales is as relevant today as it has been over the decades.
Mr. Donald Anderson: My hon. Friend is making interesting points, and I fully respect his knowledge of the issue. However, is he not talking more in terms of the glossy brochures than the reality, which is that the market conditions are currently extremely flat? There is little or no prospect of property developers taking up the opportunities and challenges.
Although the proposal may be wonderful, it may be a prospect of a rather distant future. It is certainly more distant than when the Bill began its passage, which will be so abruptly and brutally curtailed by the guillotine motion. I can think of no better example of the arrogance of power than the way in which the Government are curtailing tonight's debate.
Mr. Michael: Interestingly, my hon. Friend brings me precisely to the point that I was about to make before his intervention. The delays that have taken place do not concern me greatly, because, if the Bill had been passed more quickly, pressure for building and the sale of land

383
would have begun in the depths of the recession, so the project would not have returned its value either to the public purse or the city of Cardiff.
However, it is important that the barrage should now proceed as quickly as possible so that the opportunities can be taken. Over the past week, NCM has laid the foundation stone of its new premises, which I very much welcome. Further delay would be foolish, and might mean that we would miss the boat for some opportunity. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East is right to say that, because of the recession, nothing has been lost by the delay.
There is no need for a guillotine motion, because the principles of the Bill have been dealt with exhaustively. The Bill has passed the exhaustive tests to which it was put during its passage through the House, and it has passed tests from outside. The principles are not before us today. Instead, we face a series of amendments that I would describe as fairly minor, but helpful. There was no need for the Government to take the draconian measure of a guillotine when we need to debate, explore and get right certain aspects of the Bill. Debating the guillotine motion is preventing us from debating the amendments.
One of the important factors that should be recognised is the capacity that Cardiff has and always has had to achieve partnership such as that between local authorities and the private sector that enabled the enormously successful redevelopment of the centre of Cardiff in the 1970s, in which the Under-Secretary of State for Wales and I were involved in our previous capacities as members of Cardiff city council. That opportunity for partnership also exists with the barrage.
In the run-up to the general election, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) made it clear that there is no cross-party division on the principle of the barrage. One understands the reservations expressed earlier by my hon. Friends who represent some of the valleys constituencies, and especially by my next-door neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), but we should recall that a vision across the political divide has led us to where we are today.
The vision of the Labour local authority, led at that time by Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, and that of the Secretary of State at that time, now Lord Crickhowell, brought together the combination of forces that began the process—initially, it was a private Bill. We should pay tribute to that vision.
The intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East encourages me to be brief. The guillotine procedure means that we have a maximum of two hours debate, which includes the time that is taken to debate the guillotine. The briefer we are in debating the guillotine, the longer we have to debate the amendments.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is absolutely right: the longer we spend on the guillotine, the less time we have to debate the amendments.
Mr. Michael: I am grateful for that confirmation, Madam Deputy Speaker. For that reason, I shall draw my remarks to a close.
I am as eager to discuss the amendments to the Lords amendments as my hon. Friends who have tabled them. Had the Government not chosen to table a guillotine motion, we would be debating the Lords amendments already—that was an error on their part.
384
I hope very much that we shall now be able to dispose of the guillotine motion speedily, whether by passing it or by the Government withdrawing it—it matters little. The Lords amendments are largely beneficial, and it is important that my hon. Friends should be able to make whatever exploration they wish. It is right that the amendments are phrased properly to address the issues correctly, to ensure that the legislation is as good as possible.
Across the parties, we should speed the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill on its way, so that construction can begin, the environment for my constituents can improve, and their hope for jobs and an enhanced standard of income is realised. That is why I have supported the Bill from its earliest days, and why many hon. Members of both parties have supported its principles, as have my predecessor Lord Callaghan and others in another place.
5.56 pm
Mr. Ted Rowlands: I approached the debate with a certain mellow resignation. Like other hon. Members who are veterans of the Bill, I have grown old during its passage. I was middle-aged when the Bill was introduced, and have become progressively mature.
That mellow resignation lasted until I heard the speech made by the Secretary of State. He said that perhaps hon. Members were trying to get an entry into "The Guinness Book of Records" for the time that the Bill has taken. The Secretary of State was clearly trying to break another record: cramming in as many banal buzz words to a square inch of Hansard as possible. All we heard from the Secretary of State was a series of banal buzz words about the scheme. As he has all the zealotry of a person who has only recently discovered the location of Cardiff bay, I ought to respond to some of his points.
Mr. Morgan: Was the Secretary of State saying that, if the barrage were built, he would agree to spend one night there during his tenure of office?
Mr. Rowlands: I am concerned that the Secretary of State should spend as much time as he can finding out the true economic and industrial needs of the nation, not only of Cardiff but of the communities that I represent.
The Secretary of State's observations exhibited the repeated belief that somehow the marina and the barrage will be the great regenerators of the economy—apparently not only in Cardiff, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said, the whole of south Wales.
My hon. Friend rightly said that, curiously, as a result of the prolonged scrutiny of the Bill, an amazing transformation has taken place over the past five or six years. My hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth and for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) have said that, when the Bill started out, marinas and barrages were the buzz schemes of the day—that is, they were part and parcel of the ethos of mid-1980s Thatcherism, that the world was all about leisure services, and that that was the economic future which involved the creation of jobs.
In the past five or six years, the bubble—the concept that the future development of great cities such as Cardiff lay in leisure complexes, theme parks and the notion that

385
that, together with property inflation, would somehow regenerate the economy—has burst. In some ways, it is fortunate that we have seen the coming and going of a fad.
Mr. Anderson: Perhaps I should declare an interest. I live in the Swansea marina, alongside the Swansea barrage. Perhaps my hon. Friend will reflect that, during the period that the Bill has been going through the House, the Swansea barrage was built, and that no barrage, wherever it is sited, will stimulate job development if there is flatness in the economy and in the property market. Although barrages can provide a basis, an infrastructure or a possibility, much more than that is required for the jobs to come.
Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The simple conclusion to draw from the concept of economy-derived services is that there must be other jobs creating income to spend on those leisure services. It is not a matter of creating wealth: the question is on what one spends the wealth that has already been created.
The assumption behind many schemes, of which Cardiff bay barrage is a glorious example, was that they would somehow regenerate the economy not only of Cardiff but, apparently, of the whole of south Wales. In the five years in which we have been debating the Bill, that argument has been well and truly punctured. Thankfully, the 1990s will not be about barrages and marinas: they will be about manufacturing and industrial economic regeneration, which will generate money to spend on certain leisure activities. Such schemes are not real generators of economic development.
The bubble has also burst in property and property inflation. From the start, the scheme was based upon an assumption about property inflation—that is, that one could not go wrong if one invested in property such as office blocks or high-class appartments and if one was surrounded by bobbing yachts and harbour development, because property inflation would justify such a scheme. In the past five years, fortunately—this is why I will not support the motion—we have seen that bubble burst, too.
The interventions by my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth and for Swansea, East were well illustrated. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth understandably said that it is perhaps fortunate that there has been a modest delay, because Cardiff bay will now catch the tide of economic revival, and that delays have not been too costly, because there has been a recession, but he has not recognised that it is not a temporary shift in the property market. I hope that it is a sea change in attitude to property, the value of property and inflation as an economic regenerator.
I hope that, in the 1990s, we will not chase huge property profits, and that we have got that attitude out of our system. The rest of the world did not follow that attitude—except, possibly, Japan, and it is now running into problems as a result. We have to ram home the message that the scheme was based upon property inflation way above normal rates of inflation. The Government preach zero inflation. With zero property inflation, the schemes that we have been asked to endorse have no future.
Mr. Anderson: It would be very difficult to submit that another property boom is just around the corner or that there are green shoots or blue shoots. Bearing in mind the housing market, with its overhangs and repossessions, and
386
the office market, with its tremendous over-capacity, it is very unlikely that there will be anything like a recurrence as far ahead as property people can usefully plan. Does my hon. Friend agree that the only people who were certain to benefit from the development were the property developers, and that even their benefit might now be in doubt?
Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend is right. I hope that we have got property inflation out of our system. It was the only basis of the mid-1980s boom. When the bubble burst, the boom burst with it. Also, there was the notion that, with many office blocks being built, there would be many jobs. As we have pointed out many times in the past five years, they are only assumptions about jobs, not actual jobs.
It was assumed that, if one built an office block and divided it into the number of jobs that one could put into it, one would create that number of jobs. Some office blocks could lie empty. Scattered around the country, as a result of alterations in the economy and the coming of office technology, we will find a different attitude to job creation in the world of office development.
Dr. Kim Howells: Does my hon. Friend consider it ironic that, in June, across the channel from Cardiff, Avonmouth docks took its first 100,000 tonnes of coal to displace Welsh coal, and that, although we see a very welcome development on the Cardiff foreshore, on the other side of the channel we have seen real, well-paid jobs literally being exported?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Hon. Members will be aware that we are supposed to be debating the guillotine motion.
Mr. Rowlands: I do not know whether you were in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth based his discussion of the guillotine motion on the fact that the development was required because of the dust and noise created by the coal industry in the valleys in the 19th century, and that it was part and parcel of clearing away that tradition and history. My hon. Friend was referring to that tradition, which—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I have heard more about the Cardiff bay barrage than almost anyone except Members who are present, so I am well briefed on it.
Mr. Rowlands: I know that you are well briefed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was pointing out the relationship between the observation by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth.
From the start, I have been concerned about pre-emption of the public expenditure involved. It was first estimated that the barrage would cost £45 million, in the late 1980s it was costed at £85 million, and I understand that it is now estimated to cost more than £150 million. I hope that, before the night is out, the Minister will tell us what the cost is. We have seen a massive escalation in the public cost of the scheme, and it cannot be attributed only to inflation. The cost has exploded in the past five years, and so has barrage-related expenditure. We are talking about another £450 million to £500 million.
I should like to draw hon. Members' attention to one part of that expenditure. Although not directly related to

387
the barrage itself, there is a scheme for one and a quarter miles of road, including a tunnel and a bridge, which will cost £135 million. That is the last estimate that I have received. For £135 million, the heads of the valleys road could be made into a dual carriageway.
One can argue about public expenditure, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, with whom I have disagreed and argued on that matter, has often justified it, but the simple point is that a mile and a quarter of road, which is an integral and intrinsic part of the scheme to make the south of Cardiff and the Cardiff bay barrage more attractive, is costing £135 million. It is one of the most expensive roads ever to be built in Britain.
My hon. Friend will say that that mile and a quarter of road is vital to the development of Cardiff, South. If an equivalent amount was spent on the heads of the valleys road, it would have enormous economic regenerative consequences. Fifty per cent. of that money is coming out of the same budget for which we compete with other roads.
Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is wrong. In referring to the Butetown area through which that road passes, he is talking about one of the most deprived communities in Britain—a community that has suffered all the worst effects of the old heavy industry and its replacement. The cut and cover does not so much help the economic regeneration of the area as stop that deprived community being cut in half, which would have been the result of the road going through without the cut and cover. Whereas I bow to my hon. Friend's expertise in regard to the finance of any issue, the community-based nature of that part of the development is absolute. I hope that he will recognise that.
Mr. Rowlands: Nothing can be absolute, everything is relative, but I recognise the significance, importance and value of that road to my hon. Friend and his constituents. I was merely drawing to his attention what the equivalent amount of public money could do in another community, and the regenerative consequences and potential of spending that amount of money—or at least half of it, because half of it would come from South Glamorgan, the other half from the Welsh Office.
From the start of my contributions to the debates, I have concentrated on one issue—the nature of the costs. I was once accused of being a one-man Public Accounts Committee on the Bill. I therefore end as I began five years ago, by saying that, when the Minister replies, I hope that he will give us the latest estimates of the relative costs on which we have challenged him during the past five years of discussions on the Bill.
6.12 pm
Mr. Walter Sweeney: Unlike you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have not been privileged to listen to debates on the subject of the Cardiff Bay barrage since November 1987. But I have been here long enough to notice a certain lack of harmony on the Opposition Front Bench on that topic.
It was particularly interesting to hear the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) expatiating at his usual length on every conceivable aspect of the Bill other than the guillotine motion, raking up the past and going right back to November 1987, and doing so in his usual rambling and disconnected manner. It was interesting also
388
to contrast that with the enthusiastic attitude displayed by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who has always demonstrated a positive attitude towards the barrage.
Mr. Michael: I ask the hon. Gentleman not to try to cause division between me and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). The hon. Gentleman will not succeed in that effort. By insulting my hon. Friend, all he is doing is taking up time that we could use to debate the Lords amendments.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we are not yet debating the Lords amendments; we are still debating the guillotine motion—as I keep re-emphasising.
Mr. Sweeney: The hon. Gentleman has failed to dissuade the House from what is clearly obvious, that there is a conflict between him and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West. Nobody could be blind to that.
I have sympathy with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth about his support for the barrage, but I cannot see the logic in his remarks against the guillotine this evening. Quite plainly, it would be in the interests of those who want to get on with debating the substance of the matter were the debate on the guillotine motion to be cut short so that we would then have more time to debate the Lords amendments.
Mr. Michael: Perhaps I can spell it out to the hon. Gentleman. If he sits down now, and we finish the debate on the guillotine, we shall be able to debate the Lords amendments. The hon. Gentleman is preventing us from doing so.
Mr. Sweeney: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. He has had his say on whether we should proceed to a guillotine on that important matter, and I. believe that I should also have that right.
It is always illuminating to see such conflicts on the Labour Front Bench on this topic. In my brief period here, I cannot recall any other issue that has led to a more relentless flow of disconnected verbiage from the hon. Member for Cardiff, West.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although we hear a great deal about guillotine motions and how undemocratic and difficult they are, when the Labour party was in power, the Leader of the Opposition himself was always willing to use the power of the guillotine, as he did on devolution? Does my hon. Friend wish to make any comment on the general balance of opinion within the Labour party as to which is the best approach?
Mr. Sweeney: My hon. Friend makes a sensible point. It is interesting that, when a guillotine motion is debated, the Labour party chooses to ignore its own record on similar occasions in the past.
The Cardiff Bay barrage has already had an ample airing, both in the House and in another place. The delay in moving forward, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has quite rightly pointed out, may have worked to our advantage, in that we have come to the end of the recession, land prices are beginning to rise, and this is an excellent time to move forward.
With the benefit of hindsight, I accept that, as the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth has said, there may

389
be some benefit from the delay. That does not justify us in further delay on that matter today. Clearly, we have reached a stage in our deliberations at which my right hon. Friend is fully justified in urging the House to proceed as expeditiously as possible with the debate.
It is interesting that not only is there a conflict between—
It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to order [27 October 1992].
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Order of the House [27th October 1992] be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments
1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.

2. —(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the Lords Amendment as amended;

(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by the Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the Amendments; and

(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
3. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

390

4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.

5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by the Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and

(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental
6.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.

(2) Such a Committee shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

7.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

(5) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for Labour Members to argue strenuously and vehemently for the guillotine motion to be defeated and then not to call a vote on it?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Everything has been in order so far.
Mr. Allan Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. To make it absolutely clear to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), we are not anxious to delay the proceedings unnecessarily by causing a vote to take place. We want the remaining hour so that we can debate the Lords amendments.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Orders of the Day
  Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
Clause 13

  USE BY VESSELS AND FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES
  Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 7, line 25, at end insert—
  ("(1A) In managing the outer harbour the Development Corporation shall secure that it is at all times available for use by pleasure craft and other vessels which—

  (a) are about to pass to, or have recently passed from, the inland bay, or

  (b) need to use it as a harbour of refuge.")

  Read a Second time.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), at end add—
  'and may recover reasonable costs so incurred from Associated British Ports.'.
  I am grateful to have this opportunity to move an amendment to a Lords amendment. It is a rare parliamentary life form that I have not had to deal with from the Front Bench until now. It is an added pleasure to extend one's experiences in this regard.
  First, I shall explain the purpose of the Lords amendment that we are seeking to amend. The Lords amendment—I am sure that the Minister will explain this in a few moments—covers the purposes to which the water area immediately outside the barrage can be put.
  The reason why the Lords amendment has been tabled relatively late in the day is that the outer harbour is a late addition to the design of the barrage. It represents the culmination of a lengthy process of lobbying and negotiations with various yachting and sailing interests in the south Wales area—in Penarth and Cardiff. Many of my constituents enjoy sailing in the area and, obviously, they do not want their ability to sail to be abridged in any way by the barrage. The barrage will create some problems through the locking. However, there will be some gains as well as problems.
  Rather than simply look at the barrage as a wall across the two estuaries of the Taff and the Ely—one had to pass by a lock—it was decided that an outer harbour should be built outside the barrage. The Lords amendment relates to the addition of the outer harbour, and extends the management responsibilities of the development corporation with regard to the outer harbour. The problem with that—we are seeking to deal with this in our amendment to the Lords amendment—is that the open water is basically the shipping channel.
  We are not now dealing with the so-called inland bay, which was the obsession and on which we spent many days and hundreds of hours of debate. When one is in the Bristol channel, one is outside the lock and near commercial shipping lanes. Those shipping lanes are always a matter of considerable conflict between yachting interests and commercial shipping interests. In this case, commercial shipping interests are those who are making their way in or out of the Cardiff docks. Now that we are dealing with not the inland bay or the structure of the barrage but the add-on
  392
  immediately outside, we must be sure that we have a fair partition of the costs that could arise between the commercial operation of Associated British Ports and the Cardiff Bay development corporation.
  Mr. Alun Michael: In this amendment, I think that my hon. Friend is trying to find a means of recovering finance for the operation of the development corporation. I am sure that the corporation will regard that as immensely helpful. However, I do not understand the relationship between ABP and the outer harbour. I understand that the amendment relates to the area that will be used by yachts and small boats but not by ABP or, indeed, any other commercial shipping organisations. Much as I understand my hon. Friend's desire to find a means of adding to the corporation's income, I do not see why the burden should fall there.
  Mr. Morgan: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. The problem is that it is hard to see exactly where the line should be drawn between the outer harbour and the commercial shipping area. Until the recent addition of the little harbour of refuge area, we were dealing with a fixed wall and everything inside the wall that is affected by it. The area outside the wall is a grey area—it is much more difficult to get a clear distinction, although such a distinction is necessary because of the relationship between ABP and the Cardiff Bay development corporation. We on this side have never been happy with that relationship because of the position of Lord Crickhowell in the other place.
  Mr. Rod Richards: When the hon. Gentleman says "We on this side", can we be sure that he is speaking for the Labour party? Is the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) or the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) speaking for the Labour party? What precisely is the Labour party's view of the amendment? The hon. Members for Cardiff, West and for Cardiff, South and Penarth seem to be at odds on this point, as well as on the general principle.
  Mr. Morgan: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's filibuster. He is a member of the party of so-called progress which is trying to get the Bill through rapidly so that the bulldozers can move in. I am not sure what he is saying. Obviously, he is well aware that I am the Opposition spokesman on Welsh affairs with regard to the Bill, and that I must communicate with my hon. Friends, who are naturally sensitive, for the purposes of clarifying the amendment.
  Mr. Michael: I ask my hon. Friend not to be drawn to one side by the irrelevant and unhelpful intervention from the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards). As my hon. Friend rightly says, we are dealing with the way in which costs relating to the outer harbour will be dealt with. The outer harbour is important in terms of yachting. I understand that the Lords amendment seeks to resolve any doubt that someone will pay for the whole issue.
  What I am concerned about—the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West was trying to distract us—is the relevance of ABP in that regard, because I understand that the area that will be enclosed with the outer harbour will be used exclusively by yacht and pleasure boat users. That

  393
  area does not come into the field of ABP with regard to the property on the Grosvenor water side or the operational use of the docks.
  Mr. Morgan: I am seeking to clarify where commercial shipping stops and leisure sailing starts. Clearly, leisure sailing is enjoyed within the bay, the locks and the inland bay which is referred to several hundred times in the Bill. The outer harbour is a relatively late addition and so far has been explored only to a limited degree. There is no natural break between it and commercial shipping lanes. What is a small commercial ship? What is a large yacht? How are they to be distinguished from one another? Do both have the right to use the harbour of refuge during storm conditions when both might wish to get close to harbour?
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Allan Rogers: My hon. Friend said that he was clarifying these amendments. We in the Rhondda valley are greatly concerned about the millions of pounds from the local government kitty spent on financing this, whatever it is. My constituents are most concerned to know how they will eventually reach the sea in their pleasure craft. If they sail down the Rhondda and into the inland bay, how do they then get direct access? I know that a few of them would like to sail up towards north Wales and get hold of the hon. Gentleman, whose name I am not sure of—I have heard him called many names, but I can never remember his real name.
  How do navigators from the Rhondda, from Ferndale and Maerdy, get a pleasure craft out into the channel? I am not sure how that is to be done. All this money is being spent, yet my constituents cannot take their boats out. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) comes from Maerdy. His family have a huge pleasure craft. Years ago, they used to go to Porthcawl in it, but nowadays things have changed completely. I wish that my hon. Friend would clarify how pleasure craft will be able to get out into the channel.
  Mr. Morgan: I am sure that I can clarify that. Navigators would sail out into the Bristol channel at high tide. It is certainly not possible at low tide, which is why we have an outer harbour supposedly to act as a harbour of refuge. That is our main concern in the amendment to the Lords amendment.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans rose—
  Mr. Morgan: I will give way for another filibuster.
  Mr. Evans: The amendment to the Lords amendment provides that costs may be recovered from ABP. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will in due course explain why that will be necessary. Can he tell the House whether he has canvassed this proposition with ABP and what its reaction was?
  Mr. Morgan: I am not sure why Government Back Benchers, having been anxious to pass the guillotine, are spinning out proceedings on this amendment by asking idle questions. Are they perhaps extremely worried about the vote on the next business? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] Yes, I will answer the question. It would have been extremely inappropriate for me to discuss or canvass, as the hon. Gentleman puts it in his lawyer's language, the matter with ABP because of the dangerously incestuous
  394
  relationship between ABP and the Cardiff Bay development corporation. After all, the corporation was set up by Lord Crickhowell who, after he left this place, became a member of the board of ABP. The corporation gave £2·5 million to ABP only a few months ago as a straight grant under its urban investment powers. So, no, I will certainly not canvass ABP about who should pay for what.
  I am extremely concerned about Lord Crickhowell's position as the director of a company that is a direct beneficiary to the tune of £2·5 million of the development corporation. I am anxious to establish who should be charged for what and to ensure that ABP, having got £2·5 million from the corporation, should not be able to get any more by not paying its fair share of costs in respect of boats taking advantage of the harbour of refuge on their way to Cardiff bay. Although the harbour of refuge is designed for pleasure sailors, it is difficult to restrict its use.
  Mr. Roger Evans rose—
  Mr. Morgan: The next one is lining up. I am pleased to see further evidence of a Government filibuster. Three is definitely a filibuster.
  Mr. Evans: If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to charge on to ABP the charge for commercial shipping usages, which at least is a consistent line of argument, can he explain why he has tacked this particular phrase on to the end of a Lords amendment, which talks both about
  "pleasure craft and other vessels"
  and apparently does not make the distinction that he makes? Or is he simply trying to make a distinction for vessels using the harbour as a place of refuge? It is not clear what his wording accomplishes.
  Mr. Morgan: As always, the hon. Gentleman raises the legal niceties of any issue. He has drawn our attention to an extremely important pointer in the Lords amendment. The use of the harbour of refuge is not restricted to pleasure craft. The Lords amendment refers to "other vessels". That is an open category and could cover small commercial craft. Those small commercial craft will pay harbour dues when they eventually reach Cardiff or Barry—it is more likely to be Cardiff than Barry—but they will have had the advantage of what might be called a free gift from the taxpayer, primarily intended for pleasure craft, but difficult to restrict in storm conditions at low tide when it is difficult to make ground.
  Low tide has always caused a problem for sailing in the upper Bristol channel and for the docking of commercial vessels in the commercial ports of Cardiff and the now closed port of Penarth. That windfall should be reflected in some way in their harbour dues. The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. He is making my point for me. We need a re-partition of costs that reflects the intent of the Lords amendment which, clearly, is not confined to pleasure craft. It also covers other vessels which could include small commercial vessels.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that tacking on the words
  "and may recover reasonable costs so incurred from Associated British Ports"
  to clause 13 would be an attack on pleasure craft users in Wales who want to be able to use this harbour area free of costs? How can he possibly justify that? Is it not an attack on the rights of people in Wales who want to use their pleasure craft in the traditional way?
  Mr. Morgan: That is absolutely the reverse of the case. A pleasure craft has every right to use a harbour of refuge. The harbour exists for such craft. Commercial craft should not be able to make free use, although they should be able to make use, of a harbour of refuge as they ply their trade towards Cardiff docks, Newport docks or Bristol. Surely, Tory Members would agree with the philosophy that a commercial trader should pay for additional benefits that come as a windfall from endeavours to provide safer conditions for sailing in the stormy, choppy waters and highly tidal waters—that is the added problem—of the upper Bristol channel.
  What to do at low water in a storm has always been the problem in the Bristol channel. It is impossible to get back into port because of the low tide, yet it is necessary to find shelter in the lee of Penarth Head. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) being as interested in Welsh affairs as he is, will be aware that Penarth Head is almost a natural harbour, breaking up the waves from about 25 ft to 5 ft inside Penarth Head. That is of enormous advantage for the safety of sailors. I do not object to commercial craft having use of the harbour, but they should pay their share. Obviously, it should be done by a roundabout route as they will pay dues to the commercial port where they dock. It is likely to be ABP.
  Associated British Ports should therefore have to chip in for the benefit so that it does not get the same type of windfall gains as it received in the case of the £2·5 million that it was gifted by Cardiff Bay development corporation a couple of months ago, to which I strongly object.
  Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend still has not addressed the central problem of clause 13, which is how the people of the Rhondda, in their pleasure craft—and some of them in their coracles—come down into the harbour of refuge. If one cannot get from outside in, how can they get from inside out? It is all right in north Wales. For instance, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) is an expert on marinas and I cannot think of anyone who could be more expert. In south Wales, however, we have special problems, and so many people in the valleys are bursting to get out into that harbour of refuge.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, said that there is special provision for the valleys in the Bill, and he hopes that there will be a spin-off for them. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) spell out what will be the spin-off for the valleys from the clause?
  Mr. Morgan: The spin-off for the valleys may be by way of the salmon getting up to the valleys through the fish pass, but I am not sure whether yachts can make it up to the valleys as easily as the salmon. Obviously, I want to make various arguments of that kind about nature conservation, but I do not think that tonight is the place to make them.
  We have given a clear exposition of why the House should properly consider the amendment, and I draw my remarks to a close.
  Mr. Roger Evans: I can understand the force of the argument that commercial usage should lead to some form of recovery of costs by the development corporation from Associated British Ports. Whether that is right or wrong as a matter of policy, at least it is a consistent and rational
  396
  idea. I am worried that the amendment to the Lords amendment proposed does not achieve the result that the hon. Member seeks.
  Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman says that.
  Mr. Evans: It matters, because when Parliament produces wording in such a fashion that someone else subsequently has to interpret it, hon. Members cannot complain, as they should, when the law is not as they wished it to be. We have to get it right.
  Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman, who is a barrister, makes his living by trawling over the mistakes of Parliament. If the laws came out perfectly from the House perhaps all he would need to do would be to retire, which may not be a bad thing.
  Mr. Evans: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his observations about my retirement.
  There is a serious point which cannot be written off as simply a matter of lawyers and legalese. It is the question of whether Parliament knows what it wants to achieve, and achieves it in legislation. If the hon. Gentleman wants to achieve the policy that he set out to achieve, I can understand it. Whether it is right is an entirely different matter. The issue is that the amendment to the Lords amendment which he has drafted and is supporting does not distinguish between commercial craft and pleasure craft. What he has done is to tack amendment (a) on the end of the existing Lords amendment to clause 13.
  Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman forgets that, if a pleasure craft does not enter the lock gates at Cardiff docks, Newport docks or Barry docks, it will not have any transactions with Associated British Ports. Only the non-pleasure craft that are referred to in the amendment could possibly be eligible to pay dues to Associated British Ports, of which it in turn would have to contribute part to the Cardiff Bay development corporation to recompense the taxpayer for the facility that would have been provided by the Bill.
  Mr. Evans: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I regret to say that the wording does not accomplish that. If he wishes it to accomplish what he seeks to accomplish, he should say so in specific and direct terms. On that basis, I oppose his amendment.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: My objection to the Lords amendment is the wording "at all times available", which will cause practical problems and serious environmental consequences. During the summer months, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and I, in our researches for the debate tonight, went to Iceland to visit the Myvatn lakes. Myvatn means midge lakes. We inspected the lake there, which is a similar size to the lake that will be created at Cardiff bay. The birds that nest there during the summer months move to Cardiff to winter. Our trip was thorough and educational.
  If the scheme goes ahead, a harbour of refuge will be created that may be available at all times. My hon. Friend referred to it as in the lee of Penarth. That celebrated hill of Penarth is the hill that hon. Members will remember from the celebrated poem by Tennyson:
  "Break, break, break,
  On thy cold gray stones, O Sea!
  And I would that my tongue could utter"

  397
  and so forth. That well known poem refers to the stately ships going by to the harbour under the hill—the refuge harbour under the hill, as Tennyson would write if he were writing today.
  6.45 pm
  If that harbour of refuge is to be created, and if it is to be available at all times, the supporters of the amendment seem to have ignored the rise and fall of tide in the Bristol channel, which is the second highest rise and fall of tide anywhere in the world. If the harbour is open and available and if water is coming in any time during the 24-hour cycle, the effects will be serious.
  Many people have mentioned the birds that come from Myvatn. That is a very different stretch of water, because Myvatn is filled with meltwater from the Yokull, as they call it—a similar word to Welsh—the glaciers around the lake. The harbour would be fed by a different source of water, but there would be a transformation, in that, at the moment, Cardiff bay supports many forms of wildlife, which depend on the nature of the water, the solidity of the water and the fresh water, and that would change fundamentally.
  One of the great puzzles at the moment is the success of the cormorants in Cardiff bay. They can only survive in clear water, and the water in Cardiff bay is very turbulent—as it is throughout the Bristol channel—with mud usually held in suspension. It is one of the great puzzles of the whole of the Bristol channel that in my constituency, and all along the coast at certain times, clean rock is exposed and at other times the rock is covered with a foot of mud. It depends on the amount of mud that is held in suspension. That is a crucial point. Those cormorants are surviving against all the information that ornithologists give us, because they should not be able to see the fish that they catch in the water, but they manage, against all odds in the turbulence of the water, to survive and multiply well.
  When the barrage is constructed, there will be a great increase in the number of cormorants, but I believe that the growth and habitat of those cormorants will be vitally affected if the harbour of refuge is available at any time of day.
  Mr. Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I am trying to follow what he is saying. He says that the improved quality of the water in the bay will lead to increased activity by cormorants. Do I have him correct?
  Mr. Flynn: Yes. I reject the argument that the barrage will destroy the habitat, because I believe that in many ways it will change it for the better. The occasional summer visitors that come down might find other habitats for their refuge, in the same way as my constituents.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. It is difficult to relate these cormorants to Associated British Ports. Is the hon. Gentleman going to find a linkage?
  Mr. Flynn: I think I am making the point in the original amendment, which says:
  "In managing the outer harbour the Development Corporation shall secure that it is at all times available".
  We cannot ignore the effect that that will have on wildlife. One form of wildlife has been totally neglected in all the passionate pleas that have been made in this debate. I found it difficult to oppose the guillotine motion with my normal passion and conviction and to say that we must not stop
  398
  debate on an issue that has taken only 68 days of parliamentary time—more than any business in the House since the Corn Laws.
  However, I wish to discuss a neglected form of wildlife that has hardly been mentioned. We have already heard all about the redshanks and we have now heard a bit about the cormorants, but a precious form of wildlife exists in Grangetown and the docks will be desperately affected if the harbour is open for 24 hours a day—the Grangetown rat, which lives in abundance there.
  The rats' habitat is normally undisturbed because they live at the higher reaches of the mud. However, about six times a year the tide reaches a level that interferes with the rats' habitat and they then come over the wall at Windsor esplanade and other areas. You may be surprised to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that local people's enthusiasm for the rat is not as great as it might be. That form of nature may be under direct threat as the barrage would affect and possibly destroy its habitat. That problem must be dealt with tonight.
  The harbour of refuge affects a relatively small area of the Bristol channel, but serious problems may arise if we accept, as scientists do, that global warming will alter tidal levels.
  Mr. Morgan: Although we are interested in my hon. Friend's observations about rats as a form of wildlife, and are aware of the small section of his constituency between the Old Glamorgan canal and the River Taff referred to as "rat island", will my hon. Friend confirm whether he is discussing brown rats, which are a form of wildlife, or black rats, which are a parasite on man and not native to this country?
  Mr. Flynn: I am discussing brown rats. I am well aware of the black rat's effect when it decimated life in Wales and elsewhere. Perhaps we should form an organisation in defence of the rat because it is seriously underloved by nature lovers. It is difficult to understand the idiotic bias towards cuddly, attractive animals rather than celebrating nature in all its glorious variety.
  If the harbour of refuge is built, a great difficulty will arise as a result of global warming. Large areas in south Wales will be exposed to flooding if the already high tide rises even higher and is combined with a tidal surge. Will the Minister assure us that, if the harbour of refuge is available at all times, it will not destroy the beautiful new habitat of a range of wildlife or threaten the survival of the Grangetown rat?
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I have tried carefully to follow the words of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and Opposition Members who have spoken in support of the amendment.
  The outer harbour will be managed by the development corporation. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) implied, Associated British Ports will neither benefit not suffer as a result of the outer harbour's management. There is no reason, therefore, why it should be expected to meet the development corporation's costs in doing so.
  A development agreement exists between ABP and the development corporation. It provides that both bodies will share in the profits arising from the developments that will occur around the inland bay. However, that has nothing to do with the management of the outer harbour.

  399
  This amendment, made in another place, typifies the process through which the Bill has gone. There have been extensive negotiations with all the relevant local interests and the development corporation has sought to accommodate all legitimate concerns.
  The Royal Yachting Association and the local sailing clubs rightly waited to ensure that the outer harbour would be available for use at all times by vessels that are about to enter the inland bay, ones that have just left or ones which need to use it as a harbour of refuge.
  Our acceptance of this and other amendments during the Bill's passage shows that we have kept a balance between the wider benefits of the barrage to the development of Cardiff on the one hand, and the need, on the other hand, to give proper weight to the protection of legitimate local interests.
  Mr. Rogers: We still regard the Minister as a Rhondda boy, although he has since lost his way. Will he deal with the serious problem of the Rhondda yachtsmen? He says that he is looking after local interests but how are we to benefit from the outer harbour in the Rhondda? He mentioned the Royal Yachting Association, but has never heard of the Penpisgah yacht club, which is a substantial organisation.
  Mr. Jones: Perhaps I should not have given way.
  The Royal Yachting Association has sought to represent all yachting associations and our acceptance of the amendment has been to accommodate yachtsmen from the Rhondda and everywhere else.
  The barrage will transform an area twice the size of the city centre, much of which has been unknown territory to many who live in the city for far too many years. Environmentally, it will benefit the whole city; economically, its benefit will be felt throughout south Wales.
  As one of the few originals involved with this exciting proposal from the outset, I am delighted that the final stage of parliamentary approval has arrived.
  Mr. Ron Davies: The Minister seems to have mixed up his speeches, because that is clearly not the speech that he should be giving in respect of Lords amendment No. 1. It seems to resemble the speech that he gave on Third Reading. Would it be appropriate for him to check whether he has the right speech?
  Mr. Jones: No, because it gives me an opportunity to acknowledge the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who is the only other hon. Member who has been involved in this debate from the beginning. Members representing Cardiff, and even Secretaries of State, have changed, but he and I have been here from the beginning. I could have wished that he shared my pleasure that we are reaching the conclusion tonight.
  Mr. Davies: The Minister and I started on this process in 1986. I was opposed to the Cardiff barrage then and have been consistently opposed to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) asked the Minister earlier to explain why he opposed the measure in 1986 and has subsequently decided to support it.
  Mr. Jones: The best answer that I can give is that Cardiff is a fine capital city, with one of the best civic
  400
  centres in Europe. What we shall approve today represents not only a major advance of the economy of Cardiff and south Wales but a mighty inheritance which we can proudly pass on to future generations. Nevertheless, it is important that the barrage itself should be designed with the utmost regard to safety. That is why this amendment places a clear duty on the corporation to operate the outer harbour to secure the safety of pleasure craft. In bad weather, not all boats seeking shelter could use the locks at the same time. This amendment ensures that the outer harbour is managed so that it is available for them to shelter safely.
  Question put and negatived.
  Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Question agreed to.

Clause 18

  APPLICATION OF HARBOURS CLAUSES
  Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 10, line 47, leave out ("24") and insert ("23")
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  This is purely a drafting amendment to clause 18, which incorporates in the Bill certain provisions of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847. Subsection (2) lists the provisions that are not to be incorporated, including section 24 of the 1847 Act. However, section 24 will be repealed by the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill. The amendment simply ensures that clause 18(2) of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill is consistent with the changes that will be affected by the repealing legislation.
  Mr. Morgan: May I ask the Minister a question about the return to the legislation of section 24 of the Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act 1847? What exactly will be the impact of omitting it from the omission, as it were?
  My question relates very closely to the substance of our last debate. I understand that, as a result of the change, Customs and Excise would be empowered to examine even pleasure vessels moving in and out of Cardiff bay. As has been pointed out, the distinction that existed back in 1847—the date of the Act that is being incorporated in part, although not as a whole, in the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill—no longer exists. I refer to the distinction between yachts and pleasure craft, and other ships.
  Is it being suggested that drug-running yuppies are using yachts to get in and out, and that Customs and Excise want to reserve the power to board those yachts to find out whether they are carrying illicit cargoes? If the Bill had not been amended, that would be covered, and Customs and Excise would not have lost the power conferred by the 1847 Act. Has this concern arisen suddenly, or is there some other explanation for the late change in the Bill?
  7 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It may be convenient if I tell the House—indeed, I mentioned it last week in the business statement, referring to the possibility that messages from the House of Lords would need to be

  401
  considered—that it is proposed that Lords messages relating to the British Railways Bill be considered after the conclusion of this business.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to convey that information to the shadow Leader of the House? Obviously, it was important for the Opposition to be informed of this development.
  We are very disappointed that important proceedings on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill have been interrupted by this move, which clearly derives from the Government's inability to deliver their majority in either House. Will time be available at the conclusion of our proceedings on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill for a debate—albeit brief—on the message from the House of Lords?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should point out that the time is coming out of that allocated by the guillotine motion to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill debate.
  Mr. Newton: Further to those points of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It will, I think, be visible that I had asked for the shadow Leader of the House to be informed of our intention to take this business; but I wanted to let the House know as soon as possible.
  There is no question of interrupting proceedings on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. It is proposed that the Lords messages be taken at the conclusion of those proceedings. The guillotine motion that the House passed yesterday provides time for the consideration of Lords messages.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to the points of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is important. The Leader of the House has, in effect, used a point of order to make a business statement. There was no indication on the screens that such a statement was to be made. Hon. Members who would have wanted to be present have therefore been denied the opportunity. The change in tonight's business should have been shown on every screen in the House, in the ordinary way. The failure to announce it is utterly disgraceful.
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the Lord President said, his office attempted to notify us; unfortunately, that happened only about 30 seconds ago. I did not realise that the right hon. Gentleman would be on his feet almost as soon as I had put the phone down.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has made an important point. I do not wish to take up the House's time in a guillotined debate, but it is extremely important for all hon. Members to have every opportunity to learn what is likely to happen. I hope that every attempt will be made to communicate that to them.
  Mr. Newton: I assure the right hon. Lady that every attempt will be made to act along the lines that have been suggested.
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: Let me reply to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). This is purely a drafting amendment to ensure that the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill is consistent with the repealing legislation.
  Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:-
  The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 133.

  Division No. 391]

  [7.04 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Alexander, Richard

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Evennett, David

  Alton, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Amess, David

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Arbuthnot, James

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Ashby, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Forth, Eric

  Atkins, Robert

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Baldry, Tony

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  French, Douglas

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fry, Peter

  Bates, Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gallie, Phil

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bellingham, Henry

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bendall, Vivian

  Garnier, Edward

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gill, Christopher

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gorst, John

  Booth, Hartley

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Boswell, Tim

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Bowis, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Hague, William

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Brazier, Julian

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bright, Graham

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hannam, Sir John

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Harris, David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Harvey, Nick

  Burns, Simon

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Burt, Alistair

  Hawkins, Nick

  Butler, Peter

  Hawksley, Warren

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Heald, Oliver

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hendry, Charles

  Cash, William

  Hicks, Robert

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Clappison, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Horam, John

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Colvin, Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Congdon, David

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

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hunter, Andrew

  Couchman, James

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cran, James

  Jack, Michael

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

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jessel, Toby

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Dicks, Terry

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dover, Den

  Key, Robert

  Duncan, Alan

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dunn, Bob

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knapman, Roger

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Elletson, Harold

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  403

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

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knox, Sir David

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Sackville, Tom

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Legg, Barry

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Leigh, Edward

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lidington, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Lightbown, David

  Sims, Roger

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lord, Michael

  Soames, Nicholas

  Luff, Peter

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spring, Richard

  Maclean, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Maclennan, Robert

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Steen, Anthony

  Madel, David

  Stephen, Michael

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stern, Michael

  Malone, Gerald

  Stewart, Allan

  Mans, Keith

  Streeter, Gary

  Marland, Paul

  Sumberg, David

  Marlow, Tony

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sykes, John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Merchant, Piers

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Milligan, Stephen

  Thomason, Roy

  Mills, Iain

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

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

  Needham, Richard

  Tracey, Richard

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Trend, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Trotter, Neville

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Tyler, Paul

  Norris, Steve

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Viggers, Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Ottaway, Richard

  Walden, George

  Page, Richard

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Paice, James

  Wallace, James

  Patnick, lrvine

  Waller, Gary

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Ward, John

  Pawsey, James

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Waterson, Nigel

  Pickles, Eric

  Watts, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Whitney, Ray

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wilkinson, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Willetts, David

  Rendel, David

  Wilshire, David

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wolfson, Mark

  Richards, Rod

  Wood, Timothy

  Riddick, Graham

  Yeo, Tim

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Robathan, Andrew

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Mr. Derek Conway.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Ashton, Joe

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Barnes, Harry

  Allen, Graham

  Bayley, Hugh

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  404

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Livingstone, Ken

  Betts, Clive

  Loyden, Eddie

  Blunkett, David

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Bradley, Keith

  McFall, John

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

  McKelvey, William

  Burden, Richard

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Byers, Stephen

  McMaster, Gordon

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Madden, Max

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Marek, Dr John

  Cann, Jamie

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Coffey, Ann

  Martin, Michael J. (Springbum)

  Connarty, Michael

  Martlew, Eric

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Maxton, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Milburn, Alan

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Miller, Andrew

  Cryer, Bob

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Cummings, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Murphy, Paul

  Dafis, Cynog

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Darling, Alistair

  O'Hara, Edward

  Davidson, Ian

  Parry, Robert

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Patchett, Terry

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Pendry, Tom

  Dixon, Don

  Pike, Peter L.

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Pope, Greg

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Enright, Derek

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Etherington, Bill

  Purchase, Ken

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Radice, Giles

  Flynn, Paul

  Raynsford, Nick

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Reid, Dr John

  Fraser, John

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Garrett, John

  Rogers, Allan

  Gerrard, Neil

  Rooker, Jeff

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Rooney, Terry

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Rowlands, Ted

  Gordon, Mildred

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Gould, Bryan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Graham, Thomas

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Simpson, Alan

  Hanson, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hinchliffe, David

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Home Robertson, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hood, Jimmy

  Spellar, John

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Turner, Dennis

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Hutton, John

  Wareing, Robert N

  Illsley, Eric

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Wise, Audrey

  Janner, Greville

  Worthington, Tony

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Wray, Jimmy

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

  Leighton, Ron

  Mr. Peter Hain.

  Lewis, Terry

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House faces an appalling situation tonight. The Government are in a shambles. They have been defeated for the third time in the House of Lords. Now they have had to come here and disrupt a debate on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, which is of immense importance to the people of Cardiff—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must put the question on Lords amendment No. 3, and inform the House that it involves privilege.
  Lords amendment: No. 3, after clause 21, to insert the following new clause—

  Powers to deal with consequences of altered groundwater levels—
  (". The Land Drainage Act 1991 shall have effect as if each of the references to flooding in sections 14, 15 and 66 of the Act included a reference to any other adverse consequence of an alteration of groundwater levels occurring as a result of the construction of the barrage.")
  It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order this day, designated Lords amendment No. 3 as appearing to Madam Speaker to involve questions of privilege.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the designated amendment:—
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you please tell us what exactly we are voting on?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are voting on Lords amendment No. 3 to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. I thought that I had made that adequately clear. Hon. Members should pay attention.
  The House having divided:Ayes 294, Noes 140.

  Division No. 392]

  [7.19 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Butler, Peter

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Alexander, Richard

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Alton, David

  Cash, William

  Amess, David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Arbuthnot, James

  Clappison, James

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Ashby, David

  Coe, Sebastian

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Colvin, Michael

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Congdon, David

  Atkins, Robert

  Conway, Derek

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Baldry, Tony

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Couchman, James

  Bates, Michael

  Cran, James

  Batiste, Spencer

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

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Devlin, Tim

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dicks, Terry

  Booth, Hartley

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Boswell, Tim

  Dover, Den

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Duncan, Alan

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bowden, Andrew

  Dunn, Bob

  Bowis, John

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Dykes, Hugh

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Elletson, Harold

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bright, Graham

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Evennett, David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Faber, David

  Burns, Simon

  Fabricant, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  406

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lightbown, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lord, Michael

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Luff, Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Maclean, David

  French, Douglas

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fry, Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Gallie, Phil

  Madel, David

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Malone, Gerald

  Garnier, Edward

  Mans, Keith

  Gill, Christopher

  Marland, Paul

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marlow, Tony

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gorst, John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Merchant, Piers

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Milligan, Stephen

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mills, Iain

  Hague, William

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hannam, Sir John

  Needham, Richard

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Harris, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Norris, Steve

  Hayes, Jerry

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heald, Oliver

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Page, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Paice, James

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hicks, Robert

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Pawsey, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Pickles, Eric

  Horam, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

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

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Rendel, David

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Richards, Rod

  Hunter, Andrew

  Riddick, Graham

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jack, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jessel, Toby

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Sackville, Tom

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Key, Robert

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shersby, Michael

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

  Sims, Roger

  Knox, Sir David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Legg, Barry

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Leigh, Edward

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Spring, Richard

  Lidington, David

  Sproat, Iain

  407

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Tyler, Paul

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Steen, Anthony

  Viggers, Peter

  Stephen, Michael

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Stern, Michael

  Walden, George

  Stewart, Allan

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Streeter, Gary

  Wallace, James

  Sumberg, David

  Waller, Gary

  Sweeney, Walter

  Ward, John

  Sykes, John

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Waterson, Nigel

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Watts, John

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Whitney, Ray

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Whittingdale, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Thomason, Roy

  Willetts, David

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Wilshire, David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Yeo, Tim

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

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Tracey, Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Trend, Michael

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Trotter, Neville

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Gould, Bryan

  Allen, Graham

  Graham, Thomas

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Ashton, Joe

  Hain, Peter

  Barnes, Harry

  Hall, Mike

  Battle, John

  Hanson, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Heppell, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Hinchliffe, David

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hood, Jimmy

  Betts, Clive

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Blunkett, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Bradley, Keith

  Howellls, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

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

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Byers, Stephen

  Hutton, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Illsley, Eric

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Janner, Greville

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Coffey, Ann

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Connarty, Michael

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Corbett, Robin

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Leighton, Ron

  Cryer, Bob

  Lewis, Terry

  Cummings, John

  Livingstone, Ken

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Darling, Alistair

  McAllion, John

  Davidson, Ian

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McFall, John

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McKelvey, William

  Denham, John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Dixon, Don

  McNamara, Kevin

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Marek, Dr John

  Dowd, Jim

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Eastham, Ken

  Martlew, Eric

  Etherington, Bill

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Flynn, Paul

  Milburn, Alan

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Miller, Andrew

  Fraser, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Garrett, John

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mullin, Chris

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Murphy, Paul

  408

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Skinner, Dennis

  O'Hara, Edward

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Olner, William

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Patchett, Terry

  Spearing, Nigel

  Pendry, Tom

  Spellar, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Stevenson, George

  Pope, Greg

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Turner, Dennis

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Walley, Joan

  Purchase, Ken

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Radice, Giles

  Wareing, Robert N

  Raynsford, Nick

  Watson, Mike

  Reid, Dr John

  Wise, Audrey

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Wray, Jimmy

  Rogers, Allan

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mr. Gordon McMaster.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question accordingly agreed to, the Commons being willing to waive their privilege.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords amendments:
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. Piers Merchant(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There appears to be some delay in the No Lobby. I should be grateful if that could be investigated.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate any further delay.
  The House having divided: Ayes 301, Noes 144.
  Question accordingly agreed to.

  Division No. 393]

  [7.36 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Brazier, Julian

  Alexander, Richard

  Bright, Graham

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Alton, David

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Amess, David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Burns, Simon

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Burt, Alistair

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Butler, Peter

  Ashby, David

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Cariile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Atkins, Robert

  Carrington, Matthew

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Cash, William

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Baldry, Tony

  Chapman, Sydney

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Clappison, James

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Bates, Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Batiste, Spencer

  Coe, Sebastian

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Colvin, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Congdon, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Conway, Derek

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Cormack, Patrick

  Booth, Hartley

  Couchman, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Cran, James

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

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

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Bowis, John

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  409

  Devlin, Tim

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Dicks, Terry

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Key, Robert

  Dover, Den

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Duncan, Alan

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dunn, Bob

  Knapman, Roger

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Elletson, Harold

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

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knox, Sir David

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evennett, David

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Faber, David

  Legg, Barry

  Fabricant, Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Fairbaim, Sir Nicholas

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lidington, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lightbown, David

  Flshburn, Dudley

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lord, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Luff, Peter

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  MacKay, Andrew

  French, Douglas

  Maclean, David

  Fry, Peter

  Maclennan, Robert

  Gale, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gallie, Phil

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Madel, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gill, Christopher

  Malone, Gerald

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mans, Keith

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marland, Paul

  Gorst, John

  Marlow, Tony

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Merchant, Piers

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Hague, William

  Milligan, Stephen

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Mills, Iain

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hannam, Sir John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Needham, Richard

  Harris, David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Harvey, Nick

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hawkins, Nick

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Norris, Steve

  Heald, Oliver

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Page, Richard

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Paice, James

  Hicks, Robert

  Patnick, Irvine

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Pawsey, James

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Horam, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rendel, David

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Richards, Rod

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jessel, Toby

  Robathan, Andrew

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  410

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Thurnham, Peter

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Sackville, Tom

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

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Tracey, Richard

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Tredinnick, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Trend, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Trotter, Neville

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Tyler, Paul

  Shersby, Michael

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Sims, Roger

  Viggers, Peter

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Walden, George

  Soames, Nicholas

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Wallace, James

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Waller, Gary

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Ward, John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Spring, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sproat, Iain

  Watts, John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Whitney, Ray

  Steen, Anthony

  Whittingdale, John

  Stephen, Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stewart, Allan

  Wilkinson, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Willetts, David

  Sumberg, David

  Wilshire, David

  Sweeney, Walter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sykes, John

  Wood, Timothy

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes and

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

  Thomason, Roy

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Eastham, Ken

  Allen, Graham

  Enright, Derek

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Etherington, Bill

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Ashton, Joe

  Flynn, Paul

  Barnes, Harry

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Battle, John

  Fraser, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Gapes, Mike

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Garrett, John

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Gordon, Mildred

  Betts, Clive

  Gould, Bryan

  Blunkett, David

  Graham, Thomas

  Bradley, Keith

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

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

  Grocott, Bruce

  Byers, Stephen

  Hain, Peter

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hall, Mike

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hanson, David

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coffey, Ann

  Hoey, Kate

  Connarty, Michael

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Corbett, Robin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cryer, Bob

  Hutton, John

  Cummlngs, John

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jamieson, David

  Davidson, Ian

  Janner, Greville

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Dixon, Don

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Khabra, Piara S.

  411

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pope, Greg

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Lewis, Terry

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Purchase, Ken

  Loyden, Eddie

  Radice, Giles

  McAllion, John

  Raynsford, Nick

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Reid, Dr John

  McFall, John

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  McKelvey, William

  Rogers, Allan

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Rowlands, Ted

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marek, Dr John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Martlew, Eric

  Spearing, Nigel

  Meale, Alan

  Spellar, John

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Milburn, Alan

  Stevenson, George

  Miller, Andrew

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morley, Elliot

  Turner, Dennis

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Walley, Joan

  Mullin, Chris

  Wareing, Robert N

  Murphy, Paul

  Welsh, Andrew

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Wise, Audrey

  O'Hara, Edward

  Worthington, Tony

  Olner, William

  Wray, Jimmy

  O'Neill, Martin

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Patchett, Terry

  Pendry, Tom

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Pickthall, Colin

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

  Pike, Peter L.

  Mr. Gordon McMaster.

  Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 12 accordingly agreed to.
  Mrs. Beckett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know how conscious you are, as are all the occupants of the Chair, of your duty to, in particular, Back-Bench Members—a duty which I previously thought was of considerable importance to the Leader of the House. Do you feel that it is in order for the business to be changed in this grossly discourteous way without any proper business statement, without any notice appearing on the Annunciator that anything was being raised in the Chamber and with only a cursory phone call, barely terminated before the Leader of the House rose to his feet, from his office to mine? All that is in order to interrupt guillotined business to tell the House that the Government propose to change the order of business within a few minutes. There can hardly be an hon. Member who can say that they have had adequate notice of what was taking place or adequate time to respond properly. Is that respectful treatment of Back Benchers?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House will have an opportunity to vote on whether the Lords amendment is taken forthwith.
  Mr. Michael: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you will understand the anger with which I raise this point of order when you consider that the measure that has been interrupted was the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill and that the Cardiff Bay development corporation area is entirely within my constituency. Is it in order for business to be totally disrupted in this way by the Leader of the House wandering in here without notice and taking up time on guillotined business? The Bill is of enormous importance to my constituents, to Cardiff and to the whole of south Wales. The Leader of the House showed no courtesy to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) or to other hon. Friends on the Front and Back Benches. Is that in order?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, it was in order or it would have been ruled out of order by the Chair at the time.
  Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you will appreciate, there were many angry people in the House when the Leader of the House used a point of order to, in effect, make a business statement. My understanding is that notice of a business statement is not required by Standing Order, but it is a convention—an important convention—of the House. In addition, enumerators have been provided throughout the length and breadth of the House of Commons to provide hon. Members with information. There was no information on the enumerators—
  HON. MEMBERS: 'Annunciators'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is difficult for me to rule on a point of order if I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Cryer: There was no information on the annunciators to tell hon. Members that a business statement disguised as a point of order was being made.
  In addition, I raised a further point of order at that time—only a relatively short time ago. I said that the further information about the way that the House was going to deal with Lords messages on the Bill should be on the enumerator—[Interruption.] I mean the annunciator. This vital issue is being trivialised by the pin-striped hooligans on the Government Benches.[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must now settle down. I cannot hear what the hon. Gentleman expects me to rule on.
  8 pm
  Mr. Cryer: I do not propose to start again, except to say that there have been difficulties with the various television sets which announce the business of the House across the length and breadth of the Palace. I understand that the information has been changing rapidly and that it did not get the usual amount of time that is allocated to a change of this nature.
  The unusual and exceptional circumstances have been brought about by the Government's incompetence. They are organising the prorogation of the House on Friday, not the Opposition. We are prepared to come back and work. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think I have now taken the hon. Gentleman's message, and I fully understand the point that he is making. He made a similar point earlier. Will he conclude his point of order, and may we have quiet to allow the Chair to hear?
  Mr. Cryer: May I ask, in view of the serious confusion which is prevailing tonight, that the House adjourns for 15 minutes? That would allow the usual channels to arrange for the proper conduct of business. It would also allow hon. Members who are not here to receive a clear message on the television sets which announce the business that there will be a debate on the messages from the Lords, according to the decision which was made yesterday, for one hour once that debate has started. That is a reasonable request, and I put it to you that it should be accepted.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will deal with points of order one at a time. Before I deal with the point of order

  413
  that has just been made, I hope that all points of order are genuine and are not delaying tactics. I have noted the hon. Gentleman's point, and I am sure that the Government have also noted it. I have nothing further to add.
  Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that, at the end of the proceedings last night, we appointed a Committee to draw up reasons to persuade the House of Lords that they should agree with this House.
  Can you explain how I can see a copy of the reasons that were drawn up? What process is there for the Lords to communicate to this House the reasons why they turned down our request? I hope that you will accept that it is unsatisfactory for the Government to rush through a measure such as this. I have a large number of British Rail pensioners in my constituency, and a large number of constituents who use British Rail. They have every right to know the reasons why the Government are pushing the measure through the House with such disgusting and indecent haste.
  I hope that you can explain what was said in the Committee that drew up the message to the Lords, why the Lords did not accept the message and what further action hon. Members can take to make sure that we are properly informed before we are rushed into a further debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. They have been included in today's Votes and Proceedings. The Lords have not disagreed.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether you are aware of it, but it was announced on the House of Lords annunciators that the Lords would have to hang around for a while. It seems rather strange to me that the Government, who do not have the guts to tell the House of Commons, informed Members of the House of Lords to hang about late tonight before they made the announcement in this House.
  We have come to a tidy pass when the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons are bypassed to tell their people in the Lords to stay on. Some of those people were not ready to stay on in the House of Lords. The net result is that doctors and nurses will be needed over there. The matter needs investigating.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's point of order has nothing to do with this House.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I put it to you that the last vote should be taken again. There is no doubt that the Division Bells did not ring on the ground floor of the House. A few hon. Members who were down there were not aware that a Division was taking place.
  I understand, and I have seen it happen on previous occasions, that, according to the rules of the House, if Members say that they were misled by the annunciators and by the Division bells, they have the right to demand that the Division be taken again. I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it was not a fair Division.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is too' late now. No complaint was made at the time.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to the earlier points of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would ask you to rule on whether the Government are playing games with democracy in this place. They could
  414
  have made a business announcement days ago about what would happen if the Lords disagreed with us. However, they chose not to. The Leader of the House should have made a business statement, and there was no excuse for his not making one, once the Lords disagreed with the Commons earlier this evening.
  There is an issue more important than either of those examples, and it follows the point of order made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). It was announced that the House of Lords had been "suspended during pleasure"—that slightly odd phrase[Interruption.] I am told that the mind boggles, but it is not for us to comment on that. The important point is that hon. Members have no opportunity of knowing what was debated in the Lords. We have not had a chance to read Hansard, and have not had an opportunity to hear the Lords' reasons. They were asked to reconsider, and they refused that request, presumably for good reason. The Lords are not so accountable to the Whips as we are.
  I would ask you to rule, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we do not proceed until we get a proper business statement and until we see the Hansard report of the Lords debate. I would further ask that we do not proceed until consultation takes place, not only with the Labour party's appropriate channels, but certainly with those of my party and—I hazard a guess—those of the other parties, none of whom was consulted at any stage during the day.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already ruled that the House will have the opportunity to decide whether or not it accepts the decision of the Lords. I have already ruled on the point of order made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
  I believe that we have now had sufficient points of order.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will take a final point of order from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will have heard the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who raised what you must recognise was a very serious matter. He was in a room in the House of Commons and the Division bell did not ring. He was relying on that Bell to tell him that a Division was taking place. My hon. Friend tells me that he missed the vote. If he did miss the vote, surely it is legitimate to request that the Division be repeated.
  In the circumstances, surely a check should be made to establish whether the bell was working. If it was not working, one would have thought that the House would want to divide. Surely these are principles that we have established on many occasions before.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I want an opportunity to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). There was no report that there was a problem with the Division bell. It is now too late to go back on the proceedings. That is my ruling.
  Mr. Bennett: I beg to move, That strangers do withdraw.

  415
  Notice being taken that strangers were present, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of Strangers from the House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. Peter L. Pike(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is an important constitutional issue where there is a difference between the two Houses and we are waiting to receive a message from the other place. I understand that, when we receive it, the Government will move a manuscript amendment to that message from the Lords. I do not know whether you are even aware of the terms of that manuscript amendment, but it is clear that Members of both Houses are not aware and I therefore seek your guidance. Would it be appropriate to adjourn for 15 minutes to consider exactly what the Government propose to do before they try to do it?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the amendments have been in the Vote Office for some hours. I understand that hon. Members from all parties have copies of the amendments.
  Mr. Pike(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I accept that the three amendments from the other House are in the Vote Office, but we are told that Government are to move a manuscript amendment, which is not available in the Vote Office.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall be discussing only the three amendments.
  Mr. Bennett(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I understand it correctly, you have just ruled that we shall not be able to debate the manuscript amendment. I find that a little puzzling because I thought that normally the Chair would have to look at the amendments before ruling that we should not debate them. If you have seen them, surely the House should be able to see them.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: No amendments have been submitted to the Lords amendments. [Interruption.] Order. I understand that there are hon. Members still in both Lobbies, so will the Serjeant at Arms investigate both Lobbies?
  The House having divided: Ayes 29, Noes 389.

  Division No. 394]

  [8.10 pm

  AYES

  Ashton, Joe

  McAllion, John

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Martlew, Eric

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Cann, Jamie

  Olner, William

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Parry, Robert

  Dafis, Cynog

  Pickthall, Colin

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Purchase, Ken

  Enright, Derek

  Salmond, Alex

  Etherington, Bill

  Simpson, Alan

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Stevenson, George

  Heppell, John

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Janner, Greville

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Mr. John Spellar and

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Mr. Alan Meale.

  Loyden, Eddie

  416

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Cran, James

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cryer, Bob

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cummings, John

  Alexander, Richard

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Alton, David

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Amess, David

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Denham, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Devlin, Tim

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Dicks, Terry

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Dixon, Don

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dobson, Frank

  Atkins, Robert

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Dover, Den

  Baldry, Tony

  Duncan, Alan

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Barnes, Harry

  Dunn, Bob

  Bates, Michael

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dykes, Hugh

  Battle, John

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Bayley, Hugh

  Elletson, Harold

  Beggs, Roy

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evennett, David

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Faber, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Booth, Hartley

  Reid, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Boswell, Tim

  Flynn, Paul

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Forman, Nigel

  Bowden, Andrew

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bowis, John

  Forth, Eric

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Brazier, Julian

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bright, Graham

  French, Douglas

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fry, Peter

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

  Gallie, Phil

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Gapes, Mike

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Burns, Simon

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Burt, Alistair

  Garnier, Edward

  Butler, Peter

  Garrett, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gorst, John

  Cash, William

  Gould, Bryan

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Clappison, James

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Coe, Sebastian

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Coffey, Ann

  Hague, William

  Colvin, Michael

  Hall, Mike

  Congdon, David

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Conway, Derek

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hanson, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Harris, David

  Cormack, Patrick

  Harvey, Nick

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Couchman, James

  Hawkins, Nick

  417

  Hawksley, Warren

  Lidington, David

  Hayes, Jerry

  Lightbown, David

  Heald, Oliver

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Livingstone, Ken

  Hendry, Charles

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Hicks, Robert

  Lord, Michael

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Luff, Peter

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Hinchliffe, David

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Hoey, Kate

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Home Robertson, John

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Horam, John

  MacKay, Andrew

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Mackinlay, Andrew

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

  Maclean, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Madel, David

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Hunter, Andrew

  Malone, Gerald

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Mans, Keith

  Hutton, John

  Marek, Dr John

  Illsley, Eric

  Marland, Paul

  Jack, Michael

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Jamieson, David

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Jessel, Toby

  Mates, Michael

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Merchant, Piers

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Milburn, Alan

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Miller, Andrew

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Milligan, Stephen

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Mills, Iain

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Key, Robert

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Moriey, Elliot

  Knapman, Roger

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Mudie, George

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

  Mullin, Chris

  Knox, Sir David

  Needham, Richard

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Legg, Barry

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Leigh, Edward

  Norris, Steve

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  O'Hara, Edward

  Lewis, Terry

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  418

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Spring, Richard

  Ottaway, Richard

  Sproat, Iain

  Page, Richard

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Paice, James

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Steen, Anthony

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Stephen, Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Streeter, Gary

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Sumberg, David

  Pendry, Tom

  Sweeney, Walter

  Pickles, Eric

  Sykes, John

  Pike, Peter L.

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Pope, Greg

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Thomason, Roy

  Purchase, Ken

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Randall, Stuart

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rathbone, Tim

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

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

  Rendel, David

  Tracey, Richard

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Tredinnick, David

  Richards, Rod

  Trend, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Trotter, Neville

  Robathan, Andrew

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Tyler, Paul

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Viggers, Peter

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Walden, George

  Rooney, Terry

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Wallace, James

  Rowlands, Ted

  Waller, Gary

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Walley, Joan

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Ward, John

  Sackville, Tom

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Waterson, Nigel

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Watts, John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Whitney, Ray

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Whittingdale, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Wilkinson, John

  Shersby, Michael

  Willetts, David

  Sims, Roger

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wilson, Brian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wolfson, Mark

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wood, Timothy

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Yeo, Tim

  Soames, Nicholas

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Spearing, Nigel

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mr. Michael Brown

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Question accordingly negatived.

Railways Bill
8.33 pm
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I have to acquaint the House that the message has been brought from the Lords by— [Interruption.]Order. [HON. MEMBERS: "On a point of order."] Order. I will take one point of order, of which I have already been given notice, from Dr. John Marek.
Dr. John Marek: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I raise my point of order with you particularly in view of your statement that the only amendments that will be before us are the amendments brought from the House of Lords, labelled 1A, 1B and 1C in the Vote Office. I looked at amendment 1B in the Vote Office, and it says:
"Subsection (4), line 6, leave out from ('for') to ('in') and insert ('selection as the franchisee.')."
If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, look at line 6 of subsection (4) of amendment (a) from last night, you will not see the word "for". That means that you either have a different amendment from the ones that we have in the Vote Office or the amendment patently is nonsense. May I suggest to you that the only way out of this impasse is for us to have a period of consideration and for you to suspend the sitting of the House for 15 minutes?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: In answer to the hon. Gentleman, the line number is correct, but it refers to the italics on the bottom of the sheet.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to acquaint the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "On a point of order."] Order. I have to acquaint the House that
"The Lords do not insist on their Amendment to the Railways Bill to which the Commons have disagreed; they agree to an Amendment proposed by the Commons in lieu of a Lords Amendment with Amendments to which they desire the agreement of the Commons; they agree, without Amendment, to certain other Amendments proposed by the Commons in lieu of that Lords Amendment; and they agree without Amendment to Amendments made by the Commons to certain other Lords Amendments."
Motion made and Question proposed, That the Lords amendments be considered forthwith.—[Mr. MacGregor.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is that—
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I now speak to the Question that you are about to put?
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Settle down. I shall hear the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). The Secretary of State was not here.
Mr. Spearing: I am much obliged.
I seek to illustrate why these messages should not be received or agreed. The Government's technical incompetence on pensions, transport, procedure and prorogation
420
shows that the Government have got themselves into a tangle that is unprecedented and unfair on British Rail pensioners and, moreover, on Members of the House.
Last night, the House agreed to a Committee withdrawing to a special room behind the Chamber to draw up reasons for the—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the House has agreed to take the Question forthwith. The clock is running, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind and bring his point of order to a rapid conclusion. [Interruption.] Order. I am listening to a point of order. Mr. Nigel Spearing. If there is no point of order, I shall call the Secretary of State.
Question put and agreed to.
Lords amendments accordingly considered.

Clause 22

  PUBLIC SECTOR OPERATORS NOT TO BE FRANCHISEES
  Lords amendment to a Commons amendment in lieu of a Lords amendment: 1A, in Subsection (4), line 2, leave out from first ("to") to ("in") and insert ("award a franchise under this Part").
  Mr. MacGregor: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  I shall also be asking the House to disagree with the other two. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must settle down. I gave the hon. Member for Newham, South the opportunity to put his point of order. [Interruption.] Let me have an opportunity to hear the hon. Gentleman's point of order. Mr. Spearing.
  Mr. Spearing: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for making the matter clear. I was under the impression that I was speaking to the debate, not to a point of order. But you have ruled that I am on a point of order, so I shall now put it to you.
  Will you please confirm, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, in the normal circumstances of the House, business that is brought to the House at short notice which, by its nature, cannot be transferred to those who wish to debate here, can be stopped by the House accepting a motion that the House do now adjourn. Will you please confirm that the timetable motion, which was moved by Her Majesty's Government a couple of days ago and accepted by the House, precludes that safeguard for keeping the minorities' rights alive? Therefore, the fact that the Question that has just been put, which was taken forthwith without opposition, means that we will not have the opportunity to move the Adjournment of the House?
  Secondly—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In an attempt to cool down the excitement, I inform the House that the hon. Member approached the Chair and asked to put that point of order. I took it to be a point of order and that is why I allowed it. I have now got the hon. Member's message, so I call the Secretary of State. [Interruption.]
  8.45 pm
  Mr. MacGregor: I have already begged to move that the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment, and I shall be asking the House to disagree with the other two as well. [Interruption.] The three

  421
  amendments from the other place that we are being asked to debate are basically about one point, the bidding system for franchises. I remind the House of the objectives of the franchising system—
  Mr. Ken Livingstone: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you assure the House that, unlike other Ministers proposing privatisation legislation, the Secretary of State for Transport will not be rewarded by a well-remunerated position on the privatised railways once this legislation has been pushed through—a big fat backhander, like all the rest of them had?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me, and it has taken up precious time.
  Mr. MacGregor: —and they are all to improve the services for passengers. They will do so by promoting the competition for franchises, by encouraging management buy-outs to provide the franchises, by encouraging new entries into the passenger railway industry to provide more competition for franchises and by preventing the dominance of any one person or persons in the market. Those are the key objectives of the bidding system that we have for franchises.
  The amendments passed in the other place this afternoon would seriously undermine all those objectives, for which the House voted last night by a clear majority. I have had reports of the debates in the other place, and the only speaker who addressed the amendments was my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping. The rest of the speeches were all extremely general.
  Therefore, I propose to address the amendments and explain to the House why we invite the House to reject the amendments.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. MacGregor: If the hon. Gentleman will listen, I shall tell him the purpose of the amendments. I shall not give way, because we have only one hour. The clock is moving, and I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. There is not much time, and it is important that the House understands what we are discussing. I intend to address that, rather then what was said in the other place.
  The first two amendments effectively say that the eligibility of a British Rail bid will be decided at the time of awarding the franchise rather than at the time of invitation for tender. [Interruption.] I am not at all surprised that Opposition Members do not wish to hear the arguments on the amendments; they have never done. That is part of the problem. They do not address the real issues. That is exactly why—[Interruption.]
  Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair, and I am sure every other hon. Member, is having great difficulty in hearing the Secretary of State. The House must now settle down and get down to the serious debate. Before we do that, I shall take one last point of order from the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).
  Mr. Winnick: The Minister has referred to the debate in the other place. My point of order is simple and clear. At the moment, we have not had an opportunity to study the arguments by which the other place came to its decision. It
  422
  makes a total mockery of the democratic process that we should be debating these matters when we are not in a position to know why their Lordships came to the decision that they did, and I am asking you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to rule on that.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House was fully aware of the situation when it decided to debate the amendments forthwith. Mr. MacGregor.
  Mr. MacGregor: It was made perfectly clear—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy speaker: Order. The House must now settle down and listen to the Secretary of State and any other hon. Member who is called to speak.
  Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made it clear that we might be considering Lords amendments this week when he made his business statement. This is a perfectly normal procedure at this stage of the Parliament. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) wants to hear the arguments and what this is about, he should listen, instead of Labour Members making that great noise which shows their hypocrisy and how little they care about the arguments. I shall repeat what the amendment does as I am sure that Labour Members and many of my hon. Friends did not hear because of the noise.
  Two of our amendments—the third amendment is closely linked to them—relate to the eligibility of a British Rail bid. Under the amendments, the decision of the franchising director as to whether a British Rail bid should be eligible will be made at the time of awarding the franchise, rather than at the time of the invitation to tender, as we proposed. Last night, we had a lengthy debate on this issue.
  I shall briefly explain what the effect of the amendments will be. First, most, if not all, management buy-outs will be totally discouraged from bidding for the franchise. If management buy-outs do not know whether British Rail will be made ineligible until after the invitation to tender and after the whole process, they will feel exactly as we agreed last night—that they are being squeezed out and wholly discouraged, and therefore will not incur the expense and the effort to make the bid in the first place.
  Secondly, other bidders whom we talked about last night and whom we wish to see bid will be deterred. Hence it will undermine one of the whole purposes of the franchise system and the bidding process, which is to encourage competition for franchises. It will not help—indeed, it will create chaos and confusion. It will not help with the argument that I raised last night—that the amendment from the other place, which we addressed yesterday, will mean that in each individual franchise, the people who may be framing the British Rail bid will be the ones who also wanted to do a management buy-out. As I spelt out yesterday, that is a recipe for total chaos and confusion. It will also mean that there will be a great deal of unnecessary cost.
  Our amendment is preferable because it avoids all the problems; it encourages management buy-outs and other bidders; it encourages competition for the franchises and it avoids the confusion and unworkability. Indeed, what we now face would work out in practice as simply having a

  423
  single monopoly supplier of the services again. The Bill is designed to prevent the dominant single supplier in the public sector.
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. MacGregor: I will not give way, because the debate is a short one.
  I must make the point that we have debated these issues on many occasions in the House. We debated them for two hours yesterday, although the vast majority of Labour Members were not present to hear the arguments. We have given much more time to these issues and debated them at greater length than did the other place. Fundamentally, this means that we will not get all the changes and benefits of competition that we are seeing in the former nationalised industries.
  Yesterday, some of my hon. Friends pointed out that we were debating this Bill at a time when we saw yet another benefit of privatisation with the reduction in British Telecom prices that had just been announced. We would not get that benefit.
  As I explained yesterday, our amendment will still enable British Rail to bid in defined circumstances. I do not need to repeat the arguments but that is one of the big changes that we accepted on the original Peyton amendment. Last night, I argued that, for a variety of reasons, it would be unworkable and would not meet our objectives. That will remain the position with the amendment that has come back from the other place.
  The third amendment is closely linked to the other two. It has two main effects—it will delete the promotion of competition for franchises from the criteria which the franchising director must take into account, and insert instead a requirement that the transfer of services to the private sector should not significantly increase the costs of the franchising director. [Interruption.] The reaction of Labour Members shows the frivolity with which they approach these matters. It is clear that they do not care and they are not serious.
  The amendment has one bad effect and is unnecessary. The bad effect is that it removes the objective of promoting competition for franchises. Since that objective is one of the basic purposes of the reforms that we are undertaking, it cannot be right that we should ask the House to remove it.
  The second point is that the amendment argues the case that an award should not significantly increase the cost to the franchising director. That is unnecessary, because the process that we have made clear—the process that is involved in our proposals, which I have talked about on many occasions—means that the franchising director will take into account the costs in any awards that he makes, not least because he will have as his benchmark the historic track record of the existing passenger franchise, the new shadow franchise, when he examines the bids.—[Interruption.]] I am explaining precisely what it is about so that everyone understands. If the franchising director decides that the bids are not viable or competitive, or involve increased costs, he will not award any franchise and it will return to the existing British Rail operation.
  In addition, value for money, which the amendment is supposed to be about, is already one of the franchising
  424
  director's objectives. So I have explained clearly and precisely that we object to the amendments for the very reasons that, last night, the House passed our amendment by a substantial majority. That is why I invite the House to disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. John Prescott: This controversial Railways Bill, this arrogant Government and this incompetent Secretary of State for Transport have reduced Parliament to a running farce today. It started because the Secretary of State decided to deny this House and the other place the right to debate by introducing a guillotine in the way that he did.
  The Government sought a cheap advantage by trying to rush the Bill through the House before proper debate could take place. That is the same charge that we lay against the Lords, who had to discuss Government amendments which were passed only last night and communicated by a reasons committee, of which I am member, which was set up at 2.30 in the Morning. I believe that I am still a member of that committee, which will have to meet again after this debate to tell the other place why we agree or disagree with their amendment. I resign from that committee. I cannot sit on it with any sense of democratic participation in view of the mockery of democracy that has been brought about by the Secretary of State. This is possibly my last appearance as the Opposition spokesman on transport.
  Since 1979, there have been 14 Secretaries of State for Transport. I have dealt with three of them, and this Secretary of State is by far the worst. He treats the House with utter contempt. The last three lasted only 18 months, and I believe that this month is this Secretary of State's 18th month. It is about time he went with the others.
  The problem that the House faces today arises directly from the amendments and the guillotine procedure with which we were faced yesterday. The guillotine denies us proper and adequate debate on these essential matters. I remind those who attended yesterday's debate of the speech by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) about the guillotine procedure. As he is an ex-Leader of the House, we all listen carefully to what he says. He said:
  "no House of Commons having even a modest regard for the self-respect of legislators would be presenting them with such an extensive .…. Bill to be dispatched in two days."—[Official Report, 2 November 1993; Vol. 231, c. 187.]
  9 pm
  That is at the heart of the problem that we face today. The problem in the House of Lords is exactly the same. This Government have deployed all the political trickery in the book to seek a political advantage to force down the throats of both Houses a view that they cannot substantiate in debate. They can enforce their view only by means of a guillotine and because of some Members who do not understand what they are doing. That has always characterised this debate. Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) described that, properly, as "a constitutional outrage". Any impartial person watching our debates on television might think that that is what is happening.
  The argument to be placed against the Government is not only that they are a Government of cheats, but that they treat the House with utter contempt. The dates of our proceedings show that. Monday was a classic example. When the Government tabled a 10 o'clock business motion, it was reasonable to assume that the debate would

  425
  be allowed to continue beyond 10 o'clock. The Government tabled that motion to lull the House into a false sense of security, thinking that there would be long enough to debate these matters, only to move a motion at 10 o'clock to close the debate and announce a guillotine. It was all to ensure that the debate would not centre on an examination of the real issues. The same procedures were adopted in the other place when a matter concerning these amendments was discussed, of which we have no record because it took place only hours ago.
  The Secretary of State will know that, in the previous guillotined debate, we made great play of the argument of the memorandum of understanding concerning pensioners. The Government signed it prior to the other place voting on pensions, in the belief that the memorandum of understanding meant what the Government said it meant. The Government abrogated their agreement on that, but sought and got the vote in the other place. They got that by trickery. That is what has characterised the whole approach of the Government during these debates.
  One of the Lords amendments changes a decision agreed by this House last night. I should remind hon. Members who have not attended our debates on these issues, as the Secretary of State has attempted to, what the issue is about. It is about the right of British Rail to bid for the franchise under the Bill's provisions for the privatisation of British Rail. There were some rebels—perhaps I should not use that word, because they did not materialise. If anybody thought that those amendments meant anything, they would buy anything.
  When the Bill was first debated in the House, the Government did not believe that British Rail should have the right to bid for the franchise because, they said, it would blow a hole in the Bill. In other words, they did not want the most competent authority to bid for the facilities. The real intention of the Bill, which is at the heart of these amendments, is to allow the private sector to get its hands on the profitable bits of British Rail at the expense of taxpayers and rail travellers. So the House of Lords considered the matter and then restored British Rail's right to bid.
  It is offensive for Ministers to talk about whether the other places gives proper consideration to legislation or whether it has the experience to do so. The two Tory Lords who have been leading the attack on this were both Secretaries of State for Transport in different Tory Governments. One was a chairman of British Rail. I can only assume that they must know what problems face a railway system. Both are Tories, and both have tremendous experience in government and in the management of the railway system. Both take the view that the Government's view is utter nonsense. Lord Peyton described it as "not common sense".
  Yesterday, the Government sought to provide a right for British Rail to bid for the franchise, and Back Bencthers agreed. Lord Peyton saw that as a small step forward. It was made clear that the person who was to award! the contract was to ensure that, if a private bidder bid against British Rail, even if his bid cost more, priority must be given to that private bidder, fixing the market, as the Government have done with the coal industry, to ensure that the private sector wins the argument.
  The Lords could not accept that; they rejected it. It is a reasonable proposition to reject, and that is precisely what they did. They have told the House that it is utter nonsense. They have now told us that they do not reject it totally.
  426
  They welcome the Government's move towards some form of privatisation—something that Opposition Members totally reject—but they have told the Government that, if British Rail is now allowed to bid, it should be allowed to make a bid up to the time of award.
  The Lords have also made it clear that they are concerned from our debates that, if a private sector bid comes along that is more costly than the British Rail bid, the taxpayer might get conned. Why does the Secretary of State want an extra £2 billion from the Treasury if it is not plunder to put in the pockets of the private sector to bid?
  In Sweden, the national operator has been able to provide a better service, and the franchise director has been able to give it the award. The Secretary of State fears that that will happen here. The Lords amendments before us say, "You will not give the franchise to a private sector bidder if its bid is substantially greater than the British Rail bid." They are even giving a margin of edge to the private sector. They are trying to protect, however, the pockets of the taxpayers. The House of Lords defended the taxpayers when the Government had already given up.
  Apparently, Lord Peyton and others do not understand that the purpose of privatisation is to take money out of public funds and put it in the pockets of private industry. That is precisely what it is all about. The Lords have said that they cannot accept that proposition; neither can Members of this House.
  The Government say that they stand for employee and management buy-out bids. The real reason is that the 50 private companies that were said to want to bid have not materialised; they have vanished. They have considered the problems and they are scared of what is likely to happen. In desperation, the Government now want to fix it so that a few managers can get into the market and bid against British Rail. That will cause confusion in the British Rail system and conflict in the management, who will divert their energies from running a railway system into making competing bids in the name of privatisation. That is not the way to run a railway system.
  The Lords amendment is right. We disagree about the principle of privatisation, but they are trying to limit the damage and protect the interests of the taxpayer. One would have thought that the Secretary of State and Conservative Members would have been worried, but no; they will troop into those Lobbies again today to tell the House of Lords that they totally reject their amendment.
  That is the issue. It is a matter of substance. Tonight we are debating the credibility of the Secretary of State, the arrogance of the Government and an affront to democracy. That is why we shall oppose the Government's amendment tonight.
  Sir David Mitchell: The Lords amendment is a thinly veiled attempt by Lord Peyton to destroy the Government's rail privatisation measure in its entirety. Successful franchising is an essential part of the Bill. Railtrack will remain in the public sector. All of the system that is not franchised will remain in the public sector. It is on the franchising front only that the private sector becomes involved. Therefore, the benefits of this massive Bill rely on the success of franchising.
  Franchising will bring three benefits to the public: first culture, secondly competition and thirdly cash. By "culture", I mean the interjection of the enterprise culture that has been so desperately missing from British Rail's

  427
  activities, and the wind of change that that will bring to the whole of the enterprise. By "competition", I mean that there will be astonishment when several bidders fight each other for the minimum amount of subsidy that they require to operate the service. That experience has been offered elsewhere in the transport world and will undoubtedly repeat itself if we are successful in enacting the Bill.
  The third benefit is cash to get rid of the Treasury's dead hand and enable those people to go to the markets for money and increase their investment in a way which the Treasury would never permit. Those benefits would be denied if the Lords amendments were accepted and the benefits of franchising were taken away.
  Bids for franchises will come from four main sources: management buy-outs; international rail engineering companies; existing transport companies such as P and 0 and Virgin; and City-backed entrepreneurs. None of those would bid if the amendments were accepted, because the amendments would destroy effective bidding by the private sector, which would have to bid against British Rail's unfettered right to bid. Only once that had happened would the franchise director assess the bids and question whether British Rail's bid should be barred.
  On that basis, there would be no bids, because there would be no level playing field. Bidders would be scared off by British Rail's financial muscle, the fear of deliberate artificial cross-subsidisation, the knowledge that British Rail would not know whether it was cross-subsidising, and British Rail's access to cheap public money, which would not be available to other franchise bidders.
  The amendments would put a tourniquet around the throats of managers considering a bid. None of them would dare to bid against his employer, knowing that afterwards he might lose his job and that his job would be on the line the whole time that he was preparing his bid.
  Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State be wary of amendments that have obviously been drafted by British Rail's lawyers for British Rail's benefit and sponsored in the Lords by past British Rail management? I go further and say that it is improper for British Rail to use public money to campaign against a Government programme approved by the electors.
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: The Secretary of State's speech contained three fatal errors. First, he said that, because we have spent hundreds of hours debating this Bill, we need not debate it any longer. But we have never debated this proposal from the Lords. It has never come before either House until today.
  Secondly, the amendment allows the franchising director to rule out absolutely any BR bid unless it is substantially cheaper than private sector bids. What possible objection could there be to that?
  Thirdly, he said that there would be a conflict of interests if BR managers put together a management buy-out bid in competition with BR, when BR were also bidding. But a conflict of interests will exist if those managers challenge their company by submitting an alternative bid while remaining in the company. If there is to be a level playing field, private sector firms will have to bid from outside BR. The managers who want to opt out of BR should prepare their bids from outside and leave BR free of interference from outsiders to put together its own bid.
  428
  The Government intend to vote down the Lords amendment for just one reason: they are afraid of the competition that BR would bring. They are afraid that, if BR is allowed to bid, it will provide better and cheaper services for the public. They are determined to destroy that possibility by means of their privatisation measure.
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: The opening speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) slid into personal invective, which is the last resort of anyone without a rational argument on which to rely. If we needed further confirmation of the need for that guillotine motion, which I found unfortunate, the atrocious behaviour of Opposition Members provides it.
  We must remind ourselves and the other place that yesterday's House of Commons majority of 34 confirmed the improvement that has been made to the Bill throughout its consideration on the Floor of the House of Commons, in Committee and in reaction to the previous set of Lords amendments.
  The other place, however, has clearly misunderstood those changes—perhaps because it did not have time to consider them. I hope that it is considering them now. Certainly it was not given time to debate them, in contrast with the time allowed for discussion of the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend and his colleagues.
  The Lords amendment undercuts the whole principle of the level playing field to which numerous speakers on both sides of the House referred in yesterday's debate. It also undercuts true competition between the franchises. Such competition must be in the interests of more efficient rail services, which are more cost-effective for the taxpayer.
  9.15 pm
  I believe that a misunderstanding existed in all their Lordships' minds when they voted last night. That was confirmed by the comment made by Lord Marsh in a broadcast at 6 o'clock this evening. I heard what he said, and I was not relying on annunciator screens or television sets—I was there when he said it. He said that, under the House of Commons amendment, the SNCF, the German Bundesbahn or any other foreign railway could bid for a franchise while British Rail could not, but that is not true. The whole point of the amendments that we discussed yesterday was that British Rail would be allowed to bid, except—
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Rathbone: No, I will not give way. I hope that other hon. Members will have a chance to speak later.
  British Rail will have a chance to bid, except when the franchising director believes that that is not in the interest of competition. That is the measure that we passed yesterday, and that is what went down the Corridor earlier today.
  I believe that Ministers and the House considered the so-called Peyton amendments, as their Lordships wanted them to do. They concluded that those amendments themselves required amendment, made the necessary changes, and passed them back to their Lordships for consideration. I believe that we should pass them back yet again in a few moments' time.
  Mr. Nick Harvey: The Government face this problem for the first time in 16 years entirely because of their own incompetence and obstinacy. Their handling of the Bill has been deplorable throughout its

  429
  passage. They have tabled so many amendments to their own amendments—tabling them in Committee when the ink was hardly wet on the first lot—that they have almost used up an entire Amazonian rain forest.
  There was a time when I believed that, however misguided and inherently evil Conservative Members might be, they at least understood how to run things, and were technically competent. I have come to realise that I completely misjudged them. They stand before the country exposed as the shambolic rabble that they undoubtedly are.
  When the public learn of this evening's events, and the passage of this measure from one end of the corridor to the other, they will be in no doubt about who is speaking for the nation. Members of the other place come in without deferring to the Whips, and with no hope of promotion; they do not even need gongs, because most already have them. We have been reduced to observing the spectacle of those people speaking for the nation, not those who speak in this Chamber—the men of straw on the Conservative Benches who depend on the Whips for their prospects of promotion and patronage.
  That is the position to which we have been reduced by the Government's shambolic conduct and a ridiculous measure which successive Secretaries of State for Transport have thought better than to introduce. The present Secretary of State, however, has insisted on pushing it through, at a deplorable cost to democracy and to his own electoral fortune. The Government will pay for that at the ballot box.
  Mr. Brian Wilson:ninghame, North): I must make one small correction before I proceed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I received the news of the Government's defeat; this afternoon, and I raised a point of order with Madam Speaker on the fact that the defeat had been on the pensions issue. Sadly, the defeat was not on the pensions issue, but on the franchise issue. I apologise for the fact that I inadvertently misled Madam Speaker this afternoon. That was the first time in the process of the Bill that I had a wrong piece of information. I think the whole of the British press were surprised when [said that the Government had been defeated on pensions rather than the franchises.
  It was a glorious victory, however, which has thrown the Bill into total chaos and confusion and led to tonight's debate. It is the Secretary of State who has created the chaos and confusion—
  Mr. Stephen Milligan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wilson: Certainly not. When the hon. Gentleman has the guts to vote for the pensioners in the Eastleigh works, I will give way to him.
  Today's events represent the final humiliation for the Bill and for the Secretary of State and confirmation of the reality that there is no majority for the Bill in the country, where polls have revealed that opposition to it stands at 83 per cent. There is no majority for the Bill in the leader columns of the Tory press or in Tory local authorities—even though there are not many of those left—and there is no majority for it among British Rail managers, 90 per cent. of whom have expressed their opposition to it, contrary to the misrepresentation by the Secretary of State.
  What we have seen tonight has been a constitutional outrage—I do not know the terminology used on these occasions—and a performance typical and worthy of the Government. Not only has the House and its right to debate
  430
  been trampled on; at the same time, the right to debate and consider legislation along the Corridor have been trampled on here. Some hon. Members who have been here for 30 years say that they have never seen anything like it; I have heard some Lords say that they have been in the other place for 70 years and never seen anything like it.
  The Secretary of State again adduces the interests of railway managers. He insists that they want to run private railways, in spite of the arguments, the statistics and the evidence of a lack of positive support for that. One of the greatest wrongs committed by the Secretary of State is to misrepresent the railway managers. He is driving them into a position of becoming involved in buy-out bids, forcing them into taking out mortgages on their homes to take financial risks. He does not even have the guts to admit that he is doing that for political reasons. He is persistently taking in vain the names of people who, by statute and regulation, he forbids to answer back.
  In the weeks ahead, I challenge the Secretary of State to tell the chairman of British Rail that all rail managers are to be free to speak openly about their views on this legislation and the appropriateness of management buy-outs. He will find that the 90 per cent. who have told the survey that they are opposed to rail privatisation will come to the fore. It is a disgrace to drive people into management buy-outs as a way of protecting their employment, and then to persist in the falsehood that the majority are anxious to do that.
  There are many Tory voters among the railway managers, but the Opposition will continue to speak for the 90 per cent. of them who do not want anything to do with these buy-outs. The Government can speak for the 10 per cent. who do. We shall speak for the 90 per cent. of railway managers who want to continue to run a safe, integrated public railway—many of whom are to be denied the right to do so.
  The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) seemed, in his attempt to rationalise his own behaviour, under a serious misapprehension about what is in the Bill. Let there be no doubt: the state railways of Germany, France, Ireland and other countries will be in a position superior to that of British Rail if they choose to bid for BR franchises. None of those state railways will be subject to the four conditions that can be used by the franchise director to preclude British Rail involvement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Wrong."] I repeat that none of them will be subject to the conditions that can be used under the Secretary of State's direction to preclude BR's involvement.
  There is a genuine question of competition at stake. No longer can Tory Ministers make up the rules as they go along. At some point they must answer to the laws of competition within a European context. One of the fixes in which the Government are engaging to try to encourage what remnant of private interest there may be is thus in contravention of European law—
  Mr. Rathbone: The hon. Gentleman does not understand the matter any better than the Lords do. The Bill will say that British Rail can enter into these franchises; it is only when there is no competition that the franchise director steps in.
  Mr. Wilson: I think that Lord Peyton and Lord Marsh, not to mention hon. Members here who understand the

  431
  Bill, have nothing to gain and nothing to hide—unlike those who engaged in a rebellion that collapsed before extracting a price.
  The new Lords amendment offered the genuine compromise which the hon. Member for Lewes and others like him failed to obtain. I do not like the amendment, in the sense that British Rail could still be the lowest bidder but be excluded from a franchise by the director. At least that represented a major advance, however, in that British Rail would have a right to bid in every instance. Under what the Government continue to propose, BR will often be excluded—not because it is not good enough, but because Ministers know that if it is allowed to bid it will succeed.
  The arguments will go on outside this House. The Government have lost the argument. They have lost their dignity and their credibility on this Bill. Today we read of the latest attempt to win over public support for the Bill. We are told that the Department of Transport plans to send a leaflet to every house in the country explaining the benefits of rail privatisation. Millions of pounds that could be used to run trains will be spent on a propaganda battle that the Government have already lost. The only result could be another threat to rail traffic: leaflets on the track.
  The hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) spoke of a tourniquet around the throats of railway managers who want to bid. I have always understood that the purpose of a tourniquet is to stop bleeding and save lives. Rather, this is a knife in the back of British Rail, and the Government have placed it there tonight.
  The debate goes on. It is understood in the country that rail privatisation equals higher fares, fewer services, and the loss of routes, of network benefits and of everything about the railway system that is widely understood in this country. The has-beens and never-weres on the Tory Benches can vote for the Government tonight and overturn the Lords amendment, but they will have to live with the consequences of their actions. Those consequences will be seen next year in the local government and European elections—and ultimately in the general election campaign, in which the future of the railways will play a major part.
  Conservative Members can vote down the Lords amendment, but they cannot defeat the arguments. They have lost those arguments in the House. In the country, rail privatisation is discredited. This is the last hurrah for the Railways Bill. The battle goes on in the country from now on.
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I am happy to live with the consequences of the Railways Act, as it will become. I firmly believe, as does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that it will improve the quality of rail services, and that is the object of the exercise. Interestingly enough, tonight we have heard no reference whatsoever to passengers.
  The purpose of the Bill is to improve the quality of service to passengers. It is not about preserving monopolies or preserving the rights of trade unions; it is about improving service to passengers.
  The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) referred to a matter that was raised in another place. Let me deal with it now. There is no question of
  432
  printing 20 million leaflets to distribute to every household in the country. Hon. Members should not believe what they read in The Guardian; there are no such plans.
  The hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) said that we cannot substantiate in debate our arguments. Not only have we had 190 hours of debate, but we have dealt with the issues at great length. We spent two and a half hours on amendment No. 31 and we won by a majority of 34. We debated specific issues concerning the responsibility of the franchising director. [Interruption.] Yes, we did. Perhaps the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) was not listening to the debate.
  9.30 pm
  We discussed when the franchising director would exercise his responsibilities under clause 22 in order to disqualify British Rail from bidding in certain circumstances.
  I speak for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport—[Interruption.] I am trying to make a serious point.
  In the Bill that we are considering tonight and when it receives Royal Assent, British Rail will be able to bid. My right hon. Friend and I firmly believe that British Rail—
  Mr. George Stevenson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Freeman: No. I was given only seven minutes and I must make my points.
  British Rail will be allowed to bid in certain circumstances and it will undoubtedly win franchises. That was the intention of the House of Lords. We responded constructively and my right hon. Friend and I believe that that will happen.
  Clause 22 gives the franchising director, at his own discretion, the right to determine, at the time of issuing the invitation to bid, whether British Rail is to be allowed to be one of those bidders.
  The criteria for deciding whether British Rail should bid are clear. The franchising director has to decide whether allowing British Rail to bid would not promote the interests of management-employee buy-out bids that might confound new entry to the railway industry and would not in any way reduce the dominance of one supplier to the railway industry. That is what clause 22 said.
  The Lords amendment that deletes "issue invitations to tender" and inserts "award a franchise" is wrong. We debated it at great length and there are two consequences that I believe the House will understand when it votes in a few minutes' time and use as reasons for rejecting the Lords amendments.
  First, if the franchising director is allowed to determine that British Rail should not be a bidder at the time of awarding the franchise, that puts British Rail management in a hopeless position. Are they preparing a bid themselves —a management and employee buy-out bid—or are they preparing a bid for British Rail corporate? It is a hopeless position and the direct consequence of the Lords amendments would be to prevent management-employee bids either being prepared or bidding.
  Mr. John Gunnell: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Freeman: No. Let me deal with the second consequence of the Lords amendments which we reject.
  Mr. Derek Enright: Get on to the passengers.
  Mr. Freeman: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) did not refer to passengers at all. [Interruption.] No, he did not. We are motivated by one clear aim—to improve the quality of service for the passengers.
  The second reason why we must reject the Lords amendments is that, if the franchising director allows British Rail to prepare bids in all circumstances and then decides to disqualify it at the time of awarding the franchise—[Interruption.] I am speaking from the heart and the head also.
  If we allow the franchising director to disqualify British Rail only at the final moment, at the award of the franchise, that would put off private sector bidders. They would undoubtedly be deterred by the cost and expense of preparing a bid, because they would face a state-owned company that is at present a monopoly. The net effect of the Lords amendment would be to deny the principal purpose of the Bill, which is to encourage and promote private sector interest in running passenger railways. That is what is in the Bill, and it is the prime purpose of our reforms—to introduce the benefits of additional capital and innovation.
  The Opposition's real motivation tonight is nothing to do with the amendment; they are determined to preserve British Rail's monopoly. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East threatened to sack British Rail managers who participated in the bidding process, and the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North said that he would renationalise the rail industry. The Opposition are determined to do one thing, and the one thing alone—to preserve British Rail's monopoly. But we are interested in promoting the interests of passengers. I commend what my right hon. Friend said, and urge the House to reject the Lords amendment.
  Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House proceeded to a Division:—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There appears to be some delay in the Lobby. Will the Serjeant at Arms please investigate?
  Mr. Bob Dunn(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If this practice of delay in the No Lobby continues, can those responsible be named?
  The House having divided: Ayes 301, Noes 260.

  Division No. 395]

  [9.35 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bates, Michael

  Alexander, Richard

  Batiste, Spencer

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Beggs, Roy

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Amess, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Ashby, David

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Atkins, Robert

  Booth, Hartley

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Boswell, Tim

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Baldry, Tony

  Bowden, Andrew

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Bowis, John

  434

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Brazier, Julian

  Hague, William

  Bright, Graham

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hannam, Sir John

  Bruce, lan (S Dorset)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Harris, David

  Burns, Simon

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Burt, Alistair

  Hawkins, Nick

  Butler, Peter

  Hawksley, Warren

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Heald, Oliver

  Carrington, Matthew

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cash, William

  Hendry, Charles

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Clappison, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Horam, John

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Colvin, Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Congdon, David

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

  Conway, Derek

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jack, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Cran, James

  Jenkin, Bernard

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

  Jessel, Toby

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dicks, Terry

  Key, Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dover, Den

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Duncan, Alan

  Knapman, Roger

  Duncan-Smith, lain

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

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

  Elletson, Harold

  Knox, Sir David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evennett, David

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Faber, David

  Legg, Barry

  Fabricant, Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lidington, David

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lightbown, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forth, Eric

  Lord, Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Luff, Peter

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  MacKay, Andrew

  French, Douglas

  Maclean, David

  Fry, Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gallie, Phil

  Madel, David

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Garnier, Edward

  Malone, Gerald

  Gill, Christopher

  Mans, Keith

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Martand, Paul

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marlow, Tony

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gorst, John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mates, Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  435

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Merchant, Piers

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Mills, lain

  Spring, Richard

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Sproat, lain

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Steen, Anthony

  Moss, Malcolm

  Stephen, Michael

  Needham, Richard

  Stern, Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stewart, Allan

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Streeter, Gary

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Sumberg, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Sweeney, Walter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Sykes, John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Norris, Steve

  Taylor, lan (Esher)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Page, Richard

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Paice, James

  Thomason, Roy

  Patnick, Irvine

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Pawsey, James

  Thurnham, Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Pickles, Eric

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

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Tracey, Richard

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Trend, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Trotter, Neville

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Twinn, Dr lan

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Richards, Rod

  Viggers, Peter

  Riddick, Graham

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Waller, Gary

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Ward, John

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Watts, John

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Whitney, Ray

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Sackville, Tom

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Wilkinson, John

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Willetts, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wilshire, David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Wood, Timothy

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Yeo, Tim

  Shersby, Michael

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Sims, Roger

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes and

  Soames, Nicholas

  Mr. James Arbuthnot

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Benton, Joe

  Ainger, Nick

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Allen, Graham

  Betts, Clive

  Alton, David

  Blair, Tony

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Blunkett, David

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Boateng, Paul

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Bradley, Keith

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ashton, Joe

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Austin-Walker, John

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

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Burden, Richard

  Barnes, Harry

  Byers, Stephen

  Barron, Kevin

  Callaghan, Jim

  Battle, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Bell, Stuart

  Canavan, Dennis

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cann, Jamie

  436

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hutton, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Clelland, David

  Jamieson, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Janner, Greville

  Coffey, Ann

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jowell, Tessa

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cryer, Bob

  Keen, Alan

  Cummings, John

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Darling, Alistair

  Leighton, Ron

  Davidson, lan

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lewis, Terry

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Livingstone, Ken

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

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Denham, John

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dewar, Donald

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dixon, Don

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Dobson, Frank

  McAllion, John

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dowd, Jim

  McCrea, Rev William

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Macdonald, Calum

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McFall, John

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McKelvey, William

  Eastham, Ken

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Enright, Derek

  McLeish, Henry

  Etherington, Bill

  Maclennan, Robert

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McNamara, Kevin

  Faulds, Andrew

  McWilliam, John

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Madden, Max

  Fisher, Mark

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Flynn, Paul

  Marek, Dr John

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Fraser, John

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Martlew, Eric

  Galloway, George

  Maxton, John

  Gapes, Mike

  Meacher, Michael

  Garrett, John

  Michael, Alun

  Gerrard, Neil

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Milburn, Alan

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Miller, Andrew

  Gordon, Mildred

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Gould, Bryan

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Graham, Thomas

  Moriey, Elliot

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Gunnell, John

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hain, Peter

  Mudie, George

  Hall, Mike

  Mullin, Chris

  Hanson, David

  Murphy, Paul

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Harvey, Nick

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Olner, William

  Henderson, Doug

  O'Neill, Martin

  Heppell, John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Paisley, Rev lan

  Hinchliffe, David

  Parry, Robert

  Hoey, Kate

  Patchett, Terry

  Home Robertson, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pike, Peter L.

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Pope, Greg

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Prescott, John

  437

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Purchase, Ken

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Stevenson, George

  Radice, Giles

  Stott, Roger

  Randall, Stuart

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Raynsford, Nick

  Straw, Jack

  Reid, Dr John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Rendel, David

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Turner, Dennis

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Tyler, Paul

  Rogers, Allan

  Wallace, James

  Rooker, Jeff

  Walley, Joan

  Rooney, Terry

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rowlands, Ted

  Watson, Mike

  Ruddock, Joan

  Welsh, Andrew

  Salmond, Alex

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wilson, Brian

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Winnick, David

  Short, Clare

  Wise, Audrey

  Simpson, Alan

  Worthington, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wray, Jimmy

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wright, Dr Tony

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

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Snape, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Soley, Clive

  Mr. Alan Meale and

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mr. John Spellar

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment to a Commons amendment in Lieu of a Lords amendment: 1B, in subsection (4) line 6, leave out from ("for") to end of subsection and insert ("selection as the franchisee.").
  Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 261.

  Division No. 396]

  [9.35 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Alexander, Richard

  Bruce, lan (S Dorset)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Amess, David

  Burns, Simon

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Burt, Alistair

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Butler, Peter

  Ashby, David

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Atkins, Robert

  Carrington, Matthew

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Cash, William

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Baldry, Tony

  Clappison, James

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bates, Michael

  Coe, Sebastian

  Batiste, Spencer

  Colvin, Michael

  Beggs, Roy

  Congdon, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Conway, Derek

  Bendall, Vivian

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Couchman, James

  Booth, Hartley

  Cran, James

  Boswell, Tim

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

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bowis, John

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Devlin, Tim

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Dicks, Terry

  Brazier, Julian

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bright, Graham

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Dover, Den

  438

  Duncan, Alan

  Knapman, Roger

  Duncan-Smith, lain

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

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

  Elletson, Harold

  Knox, Sir David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lang, Rt Hon lan

  Evennett, David

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Faber, David

  Legg, Barry

  Fabricant, Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lidington, David

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lightbown, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forth, Eric

  Lord, Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Luff, Peter

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  MacKay, Andrew

  French, Douglas

  Maclean, David

  Fry, Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gallie, Phil

  Madel, David

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Garnier, Edward

  Malone, Gerald

  Gill, Christopher

  Mans, Keith

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Marland, Paul

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marlow, Tony

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gorst, John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Merchant, Piers

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Milligan, Stephen

  Hague, William

  Mills, lain

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hannam, Sir John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Moss, Malcolm

  Harris, David

  Needham, Richard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hawkins, Nick

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hawksley, Warren

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heald, Oliver

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hendry, Charles

  Norris, Steve

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Page, Richard

  Horam, John

  Paice, James

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Patnick, Irvine

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

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

  Pawsey, James

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hunter, Andrew

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jack, Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jessel, Toby

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Richards, Rod

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Key, Robert

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  439

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Thomason, Roy

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Sackville, Tom

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Thurnham, Peter

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

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

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Tracey, Richard

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Tredinnick, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Trend, Michael

  Shersby, Michael

  Trotter, Neville

  Sims, Roger

  Twinn, Dr lan

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Viggers, Peter

  Soames, Nicholas

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Waller, Gary

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Ward, John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Spring, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sproat, lain

  Watts, John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Whitney, Ray

  Steen, Anthony

  Whittingdale, John

  Stephen, Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stern, Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Stewart, Allan

  Willetts, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Wilshire, David

  Sumberg, David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sweeney, Walter

  Wood, Timothy

  Sykes, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, lan (Esher)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes and

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mr. James Arbuthnot

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Ainger, Nick

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Allen, Graham

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Alton, David

  Clelland, David

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Coffey, Ann

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Connarty, Michael

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Ashton, Joe

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Barnes, Harry

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Barron, Kevin

  Cryer, Bob

  Battle, John

  Cummings, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bell, Stuart

  Dafis, Cynog

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Darling, Alistair

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Davidson, lan

  Benton, Joe

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Berry, Dr. Roger

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

  Betts, Clive

  Denham, John

  Blair, Tony

  Dewar, Donald

  Blunkett, David

  Dixon, Don

  Boateng, Paul

  Dobson, Frank

  Bradley, Keith

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dowd, Jim

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

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

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Burden, Richard

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Byers, Stephen

  Eastham, Ken

  Callaghan, Jim

  Eggar, Tim

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Enright, Derek

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Etherington, Bill

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Canavan, Dennis

  Faulds, Andrew

  Cann, Jamie

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  440

  Fisher, Mark

  Marek, Dr John

  Flynn, Paul

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Fraser, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Fyfe, Maria

  Maxton, John

  Galloway, George

  Meacher, Michael

  Gapes, Mike

  Meale, Alan

  Garrett, John

  Michael, Alun

  Gerrard, Neil

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Milburn, Alan

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Miller, Andrew

  Gordon, Mildred

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Gould, Bryan

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Graham, Thomas

  Morley, Elliot

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Gunnell, John

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hain, Peter

  Mudie, George

  Hall, Mike

  Mullin, Chris

  Hanson, David

  Murphy, Paul

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Harvey, Nick

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Olner, William

  Henderson, Doug

  O'Neill, Martin

  Heppell, John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Paisley, Rev lan

  Hinchliffe, David

  Parry, Robert

  Hoey, Kate

  Patchett, Terry

  Home Robertson, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pike, Peter L.

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Pope, Greg

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Prescott, John

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Purchase, Ken

  Hutton, John

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Illsley, Eric

  Radice, Giles

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jamieson, David

  Reid, Dr John

  Janner, Greville

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jowell, Tessa

  Rooney, Terry

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Keen, Alan

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Salmond, Alex

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Leighton, Ron

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lewis, Terry

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Livingstone, Ken

  Short, Clare

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Simpson, Alan

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Skinner, Dennis

  Loyden, Eddie

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

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

  McAllion, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Snape, Peter

  McCrea, Rev William

  Soley, Clive

  Macdonald, Calum

  Spearing, Nigel

  McFall, John

  Spellar, John

  McKelvey, William

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McLeish, Henry

  Stevenson, George

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stott, Roger

  McMaster, Gordon

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  McNamara, Kevin

  Straw, Jack

  McWilliam, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Madden, Max

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Tipping, Paddy

  441

  Tyler, Paul

  Wilson, Brain

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Winnick, David

  Wallace, James

  Wise, Audrey

  Walley, Joan

  Worthington, Tony

  Wardell, Garelh (Gower)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Wareing, Robert N

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Watson, Mike

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Mr. Dennis Turner and

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question pur, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House proceeded to a division—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It has been reported to me that the wrong teller is in the Aye Lobby. This Division is off. I will put the Question again.
  Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House proceeded to a division—
  Mr. Gyles Brandreth(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It will have come to your attention that, during the course of this evening's debate, a number of hon. Members have been using delaying tactics in both the Lobbies. Indeed, you called the Serjeant at Arms to clear the Lobbies so that we could get on with the business of the House. Have you invited the Seijeant at Arms to note who those hon. Members are?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, I have not.
  Mr. Brandreth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you have not considered doing so, and as the disruption is continuing, will you consider that possibility, because it is a little obstructive when we wish to proceed with the business before us?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no plans to do so.
  Mr. Ernie Ross(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am extremely concerned. I am not sure whether I have been shunted into a siding, or whether I am still on the track. What happened in the last Division? Did a Conservative Member attempt to act as a Teller and vote at the same time?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are still on the track, and I am sure that he will eventually find out what happened.
  Mr. James Paice(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that, yet again, the Aye Lobby—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot deal with points of order unless I can hear them.
  Mr. Paice: I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Aye Lobby is empty yet again; yet proceedings in the No Lobby are again being delayed.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can safely leave the matter in my hands.
  Mr. Mark Robinson(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There still seems to be a blockage in the No Lobby.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am well aware of the situation. Later—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: There seems to be some delay in the No Lobby. I will send the Serjeant at Arms to investigate.
  The House having divided: Ayes 301, Noes 258.

  Division No. 397]

  [10.20 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Dicks, Terry

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Alexander, Richard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Dover, Den

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Duncan, Alan

  Amess, David

  Duncan-Smith, lain

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dunn, Bob

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Ashby, David

  Elletson, Harold

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Atkins, Robert

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Evennett, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Faber, David

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bates, Michael

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Batiste, Spencer

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Beggs, Roy

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Bellingham, Henry

  Forman, Nigel

  Bendall, Vivian

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Forth, Eric

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Booth, Hartley

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Boswell, Tim

  French, Douglas

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fry, Peter

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gale, Roger

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gallie, Phil

  Bowis, John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Garnier, Edward

  Brazier, Julian

  Gill, Christopher

  Bright, Graham

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Gorst, John

  Bruce, lan (S Dorset)

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Burns, Simon

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Burt, Alistair

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Butler, Peter

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hague, William

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Cash, William

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hannam, Sir John

  Clappison, James

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Harris, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hawkins, Nick

  Colvin, Michael

  Hawksley, Warren

  Congdon, David

  Hayes, Jerry

  Conway, Derek

  Heald, Oliver

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hendry, Charles

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Couchman, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Cran, James

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

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

  Horam, John

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

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

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Devlin, Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  443

  Hunter, Andrew

  Pickles, Eric

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jack, Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Richards, Rod

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jopling, Rt Mon Michael

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Robathan, Andrew

  Key, Robert

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Knapman, Roger

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

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

  Sackville, Tom

  Knox, Sir David

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lang, Rt Hon lan

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Legg, Barry

  Shersby, Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Sims, Roger

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lidington, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lightbown, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lord, Michael

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Luff, Peter

  Spring, Richard

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Sproat, lain

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maclean, David

  Steen, Anthony

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stephen, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stern, Michael

  Madel, David

  Stewart, Allan

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Streeter, Gary

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Sumberg, David

  Malone, Gerald

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mans, Keith

  Sykes, John

  Marland, Paul

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Marlow, Tony

  Taylor, lan (Esher)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mates, Michael

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Thomason, Roy

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Thurnham, Peter

  Milligan, Stephen

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mills, lain

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

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tracey, Richard

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Tredinnick, David

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Trend, Michael

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Trotter, Neville

  Moss, Malcolm

  Twinn, Dr lan

  Needham, Richard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Nelson, Anthony

  Viggers, Peter

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waller, Gary

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Ward, John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Norris, Steve

  Waterson, Nigel

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Watts, John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Whitney, Ray

  Page, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Paice, James

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wilkinson, John

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Willetts, David

  Pawsey, James

  Wilshire, David

  Peacock. Mrs Elizabeth

  Wolfson, Mark

  444

  Wood, Timothy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Yeo, Tim

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes and

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Mr. James Arbuthnot.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Ainger, Nick

  Eastham, Ken

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Enright, Derek

  Allen, Graham

  Etherington, Bill

  Alton, David

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Fisher, Mark

  Ashton, Joe

  Flynn, Paul

  Austin-Walker, John

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Barnes, Harry

  Fraser, John

  Barron, Kevin

  Fyfe, Maria

  Battle, John

  Galloway, George

  Bayley, Hugh

  Gapes, Mike

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Garrett, John

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bell, Stuart

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Benton, Joe

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Graham, Thomas

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)

  Betts, Clive

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Blair, Tony

  Grocott, Bruce

  Blunkett, David

  Gunnell, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Hain, Peter

  Bradley, Keith

  Hall, Mike

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hanson, David

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

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

  Harvey, Nick

  Burden, Richard

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Byers, Stephen

  Henderson, Doug

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Heppell, John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hoey, Kate

  Canavan, Dennis

  Home Robertson, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Hood, Jimmy

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Coffey, Ann

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hutton, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jamieson, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Janner, Greville

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dafis, Cynog

  Keen, Alan

  Darling, Alistair

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Davidson, lan

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Leighton, Ron

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

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Denham, John

  Lewis, Terry

  Dewar, Donald

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dixon, Don

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dobson, Frank

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dowd, Jim

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McAllion, John

  445

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Morley, Elliot

  McCrea, Rev William

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  McFall, John

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  McKelvey, William

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Mudie, George

  McLeish, Henry

  Mullin, Chris

  Maclennan, Robert

  Murphy, Paul

  McMaster, Gordon

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  McNamara, Kevin

  O'Hara, Edward

  McWilliam, John

  Olner, William

  Madden, Max

  O'Neill, Martin

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Mandelson, Peter

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Marek, Dr John

  Parry, Robert

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Patchett, Terry

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Pendry, Tom

  Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Martlew, Eric

  Pike, Peter L.

  Maxton, John

  Pope, Greg

  Meacher, Michael

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Meale, Alan

  Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lew'm E)

  Michael, Alun

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Prescott, John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Milburn, Alan

  Purchase, Ken

  Miller, Andrew

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Radice, Giles

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Randall, Stuart

  446

  Raynsford, Nick

  Stott, Roger

  Reid, Dr John

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Rendel, David

  Straw, Jack

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rogers, Allan

  Turner, Dennis

  Rooker, Jeff

  Tyler, Paul

  Rooney, Terry

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wallace, James

  Rowlands, Ted

  Walley, Joan

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Watson, Mike

  Sheerman, Barry

  Welsh, Andrew

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Short, Clare

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Simpson, Alan

  Wilson, Brian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wise, Audrey

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

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Snape, Peter

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Soley, Clive

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mr. Eric Illsley and

  Stevenson, George

  Mr. John Spellar

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question,
  That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments to the amendment proposed by the Commons in lieu of amendment No. 31; that Mr. Michael Brown, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Roger Freeman, Mr. Secretary MacGregor and Mr. Brian Wilson be the members of the Committee; that three be the quorum; that the Committee do withdraw immediately.—[Mr. MacGregor.]
  put forthwith pursuant to Order [2 November]:—
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Madam Speaker: Serjeant, would you inspect the No Lobby? I understand that there is a blockage there, and I want it removed immediately.
  Mr. John Marshall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for the headgear, but I understand—
  Madam Speaker: Order. When I am in the Chair, the hon. Gentleman must wear a hat. He will look far more handsome.
  Mr. Marshall(seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that there are now blockages in both Lobbies.
  Madam Speaker: That makes it even, then. Will the Serjeant at Arms inspect the Aye Lobby?
  Mr. Alun Michael(seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Earlier tonight the question was asked why the bells did not ring when an earlier Division was called. It appears that the Serjeant at Arms is able to go into the Lobbies to ask Members to come out, but not to sort out why the bells did not ring or say whether they will ring on future occasions. Is it not appropriate that the Serjeant at Arms should be able to tell us that the bells will ring when they should so that everyone is aware when the Division is called?
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should not trouble himself, because I intend to find out tomorrow whether the bells rang or not.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton)(seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to make the point that yesterday I was accused of constitutional outrage for moving a timetable motion on this Bill. It should be registered that what we are experiencing tonight is a constitutional outrage—[Interruption]—and I hope that you will decide to have the matter thoroughly investigated.
  Madam Speaker: As the right hon. Gentleman and the House are aware, I am always prepared to defend this House nationally and internationally when it is robust and when it has quality debate and quality argument. I cannot defend it when it is in a state of disorder.
  The House having divided: Ayes 315, Noes 244.

  Division No. 398]

  [10.42

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Ashby, David

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Alexander, Richard

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Atkins, Robert

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Alton, David

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Amess, David

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Baldry, Tony

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  448

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bates, Michael

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Beggs, Roy

  French, Douglas

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Fry, Peter

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gale, Roger

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gallie, Phil

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Garnier, Edward

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gill, Christopher

  Booth, Hartley

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Boswell, Tim

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gorst, John

  Bowden, Andrew

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Bowis, John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Brazier, Julian

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Bright, Graham

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hague, William

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hannam, Sir John

  Burns, Simon

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Burt, Alistair

  Harris, David

  Butler, Peter

  Harvey, Nick

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hayes, Jerry

  Cash, William

  Heald, Oliver

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hendry, Charles

  Clappison, James

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Colvin, Michael

  Horam, John

  Congdon, David

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Conway, Derek

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Howarth, Alan (Strafrd-on-A)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hunter, Andrew

  Couchman, James

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cran, James

  Jack, Michael

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

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jessel, Toby

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Dicks, Terry

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Key, Robert

  Dover, Den

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Duncan, Alan

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Duncan-Smith, lain

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dunn, Bob

  Knapman, Roger

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Elletson, Harold

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

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

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Knox, Sir David

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evennett, David

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Faber, David

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Legg, Barry

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Leigh, Edward

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lightbown, David

  Forth, Eric

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lord, Michael

  449

  Luff, Peter

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  MacKay, Andrew

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Maclean, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Maclennan, Robert

  Sims, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Soames, Nicholas

  Madel, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Malone, Gerald

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Mans, Keith

  Spring, Richard

  Marland, Paul

  Sproat, lain

  Marlow, Tony

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Steen, Anthony

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stephen, Michael

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stern, Michael

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Stewart, Allan

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Streeter, Gary

  Merchant, Piers

  Sumberg, David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Milligan, Stephen

  Sykes, John

  Mills, lain

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Needham, Richard

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thomason, Roy

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thurnham, Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

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

  Norris, Steve

  Tracey, Richard

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Tredinnick, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Trend, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Trotter, Neville

  Page, Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Paice, James

  Tyler, Paul

  Patnick, Irvine

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Viggers, Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Pickles, Eric

  Wallace, James

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Waller, Gary

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Ward, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Waterson, Nigel

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Watts, John

  Rendel, David

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Whitney, Ray

  Richards, Rod

  Whittingdale, John

  Riddick, Graham

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Wilkinson, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Wilshire, David

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wood, Timothy

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Yeo, Tim

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sackville, Tom

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes and

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Mr. James Arbuthnot

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Ashton, Joe

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Austin-Walker, John

  Ainger, Nick

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Barnes, Harry

  Allen, Graham

  Barron, Kevin

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Battle, John

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  450

  Bell, Stuart

  Grocott, Bruce

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Gunnell, John

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Hain, Peter

  Benton, Joe

  Hall, Mike

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hanson, David

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Betts, Clive

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Blair, Tony

  Henderson, Doug

  Blunkett, David

  Heppell, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Bradley, Keith

  Hinchliffe, David

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hoey, Kate

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Home Robertson, John

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

  Hood, Jimmy

  Burden, Richard

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Byers, Stephen

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cann, Jamie

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hutton, John

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Jamieson, David

  Clelland, David

  Janner, Greville

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Coffey, Ann

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jowell, Tessa

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Keen, Alan

  Cousins, Jim

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Cox, Tom

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Cryer, Bob

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cummings, John

  Leighton, Ron

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Lewis, Terry

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dafis, Cynog

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Darling, Alistair

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Davidson, Ian

  Loyden, Eddie

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McAllion, John

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McAvoy, Thomas

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

  McCrea, Rev William

  Denham, John

  Macdonald, Calum

  Dewar, Donald

  McFall, John

  Dixon, Don

  McKelvey, William

  Dobson, Frank

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  McLeish, Henry

  Dowd, Jim

  McMaster, Gordon

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McNamara, Kevin

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McWilliam, John

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Madden, Max

  Eastham, Ken

  Mandelson, Peter

  Enright, Derek

  Marek, Dr John

  Etherington, Bill

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Martlew, Eric

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Maxton, John

  Fisher, Mark

  Meacher, Michael

  Flynn, Paul

  Meale, Alan

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Michael, Alun

  Fraser, John

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Milburn, Alan

  Galloway, George

  Miller, Andrew

  Gapes, Mike

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Garrett, John

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Gerrard, Neil

  Morley, Elliot

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Graham, Thomas

  Mudie, George

  Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)

  Mullin, Chris

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Murphy, Paul

  451

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Simpson, Alan

  O'Hara, Edward

  Skinner, Dennis

  Olner, William

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  O'Neill, Martin

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

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Snape, Peter

  Patchett, Terry

  Soley, Clive

  Pendry, Tom

  Spearing, Nigel

  Pickthall, Colin

  Spellar, John

  Pike, Peter L.

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Pope, Greg

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Stevenson, George

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Stott, Roger

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Prescott, John

  Straw, Jack

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Purchase, Ken

  Tipping, Paddy

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Radice, Giles

  Walley, Joan

  Randall, Stuart

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wareing, Robert N

  Reid, Dr John

  Watson, Mike

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Rogers, Allan

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Winnick, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Wise, Audrey

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wray, Jimmy

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Mr. Dennis Turner and

  Short, Clare

  Mr. Eric Illsley.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Beverages (VAT)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Value Added Tax (Beverages) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 2498), which was laid before this House on 18th October, be approved.—[Mr. Conway.]
11.1 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] It is rather important that hon. Members should appreciate this. I submit that it is not in order for the House to consider this VAT order because the appropriate papers are not in legible form and are not available to hon. Members.
The order was considered only yesterday by a Standing Committee and it appears to be designed to apply VAT at 17.5 per cent. to fresh orange juice. That would increase the price of a litre bottle of this important national food by—
Madam Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the matter and I am prepared to listen to a point of order, but not to an argument. The motion is not debatable. If the hon. Gentleman puts a point of order to me, I will deal with it.
Sir Teddy Taylor: I was simply pointing out that the order is rather important.
The order is not printed in the normal form. It appears to have been typed and photocopied. At the foot of the explanatory note, there is a reference to a paragraph of schedule 6 of a Finance Act the date of which cannot be deciphered. Another document is referred to as 1988/507, but its title is also illegible. The date of the order cannot be read, apart from the fact that it is 1993.
I understand that matters can be considered by the House only if the appropriate papers are provided to hon. Members. I suggest that we cannot consider the VAT order when the appropriate papers cannot be read in some parts and when the references cannot be read. I supplied your office with a copy of the order and I suggest that it is not in accordance with the proceedings of the House if hon. Members are asked to vote on a document that cannot be read properly.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made the point himself. The document was considered yesterday by a Statutory Instruments Committee. I realise that it is a bit fingerprinted and mucky, but the Chairman of the Committee and the Committee members could understand it. If the hon. Gentleman really tried hard, I am sure that he could manage to read it.
Question put:—
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mr. Simon Hughes(seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, there is a vote in progress and, as you also know, behind you the Committee is drawing up the reasons for our disagreement to send to the other place. Apparently, the members of that Committee are not being allowed out to vote in this Division and, apparently, there is coming and going and toing and froing of people not on the Committee who are requesting the attendance of the Clerk of the House and, therefore, I assume, interfering with that Committee's right to make its decisions. All that I am seeking is a ruling that, if any member of the Committee should want to vote, the Committee should adjourn to

453
allow them to do so, and, secondly, that the Committee be allowed to carry on its business without interference from other hon. Members or Officers of the House.
Madam Speaker: I do not interfere in the affairs of the Committee, but I am very surprised that any Member should be attempting to enter the room in which the Committee is deliberating. Far be it from me to try to enter that room. I hope that if any Members try to get in there they will be turned out.
The House having divided: Ayes 292, Noes 247.

Division No. 399]

[11.08 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Aitken, Jonathan

Devlin, Tim

Alexander, Richard

Dicks, Terry

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Dorrell, Stephen

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Amess, David

Dover, Den

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Duncan, Alan

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Ashby, David

Dunn, Bob

Aspinwall, Jack

Durant, Sir Anthony

Atkins, Robert

Elletson, Harold

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Baldry, Tony

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Evennett, David

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Faber, David

Bates, Michael

Fabricant, Michael

Batiste, Spencer

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Bellingham, Henry

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bendall, Vivian

Fishburn, Dudley

Beresford, Sir Paul

Forman, Nigel

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Forth, Eric

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Booth, Hartley

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Boswell, Tim

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

French, Douglas

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Fry, Peter

Bowden, Andrew

Gale, Roger

Bowis, John

Gallie, Phil

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Gardiner, Sir George

Brandreth, Gyles

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Brazier, Julian

Garnier, Edward

Bright, Graham

Gill, Christopher

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Budgen, Nicholas

Gorst, John

Burns, Simon

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Burt, Alistair

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Butler, Peter

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Grylls, Sir Michael

Carrington, Matthew

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hague, William

Chapman, Sydney

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

Clappison, James

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Hanley, Jeremy

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hannam, Sir John

Coe, Sebastian

Hargreaves, Andrew

Colvin, Michael

Harris, David

Congdon, David

Haselhurst, Alan

Conway, Derek

Hawkins, Nick

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Hawksley, Warren

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hayes, Jerry

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Heald, Oliver

Cormack, Patrick

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Couchman, James

Hendry, Charles

Cran, James

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

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

Hicks, Robert

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Horam, John

454

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Patnick, Irvine

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Howarth, Alan (Strafrd-on-A)

Pawsey, James

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Pickles, Eric

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hunter, Andrew

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Rathbone, Tim

Jack, Michael

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Jenkin, Bernard

Richards, Rod

Jessel, Toby

Riddick, Graham

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Robathan, Andrew

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Key, Robert

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Kilfedder, Sir James

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Kirkhope, Timothy

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Knapman, Roger

Sackville, Tom

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

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

Shaw, David (Dover)

Knox, Sir David

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Shersby, Michael

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Sims, Roger

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Legg, Barry

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Leigh, Edward

Soames, Nicholas

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Lidington, David

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Lightbown, David

Spink, Dr Robert

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Spring, Richard

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Sproat, lain

Lord, Michael

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Luff, Peter

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Steen, Anthony

MacKay, Andrew

Stephen, Michael

Maclean, David

Stern, Michael

McLoughlin, Patrick

Stewart, Allan

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Streeter, Gary

Madel, David

Sumberg, David

Maitland, Lady Olga

Sweeney, Walter

Major, Rt Hon John

Sykes, John

Malone, Gerald

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Mans, Keith

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Marlow, Tony

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Thomason, Roy

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Mates, Michael

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Thurnham, Peter

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Mellor, Rt Hon David

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

Merchant, Piers

Tracey, Richard

Milligan, Stephen

Tredinnick, David

Mills, lain

Trend, Michael

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Trotter, Neville

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Moate, Sir Roger

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Viggers, Peter

Moss, Malcolm

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Needham, Richard

Walden, George

Nelson, Anthony

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Waller, Gary

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Ward, John

Nicholls, Patrick

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Waterson, Nigel

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Watts, John

Norris, Steve

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Whitney, Ray

Oppenheim, Phillip

Whittingdale, John

Ottaway, Richard

Widdecombe, Ann

Page, Richard

Wilkinson, John

Paice, James

Willetts, David

455

Wilshire, David

Wolfson, Mark

Tellers for the Ayes:

Yeo, Tim

Mr. Timothy Wood and

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Mr. James Arbuthnot.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Adams, Mrs Irene

Eagle, Ms Angela

Ainger, Nick

Eastham, Ken

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Enright, Derek

Allen, Graham

Etherington, Bill

Alton, David

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Faulds, Andrew

Armstrong, Hilary

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Fisher, Mark

Ashton, Joe

Flynn, Paul

Austin-Walker, John

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Barnes, Harry

Fraser, John

Barron, Kevin

Fyfe, Maria

Battle, John

Galloway, George

Bayley, Hugh

Gapes, Mike

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Garrett, John

Beggs, Roy

Gerrard, Neil

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Bell, Stuart

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Golding, Mrs Llin

Bennett, Andrew F.

Gordon, Mildred

Benton, Joe

Graham, Thomas

Bermingham, Gerald

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Betts, Clive

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Blair, Tony

Grocott, Bruce

Blunkett, David

Gunnell, John

Boateng, Paul

Hain, Peter

Bradley, Keith

Hall, Mike

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Hanson, David

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

Harman, Ms Harriet

Burden, Richard

Harvey, Nick

Byers, Stephen

Henderson, Doug

Callaghan, Jim

Heppell, John

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hinchliffe, David

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Hoey, Kate

Canavan, Dennis

Home Robertson, John

Cann, Jamie

Hood, Jimmy

Chisholm, Malcolm

Hoon, Geoffrey

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Clelland, David

Hoyle, Doug

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Coffey, Ann

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Connarty, Michael

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Corbett, Robin

Hutton, John

Corbyn, Jeremy

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Corston, Ms Jean

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Cousins, Jim

Jamieson, David

Cox, Tom

Janner, Greville

Cryer, Bob

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Cummings, John

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Jowell, Tessa

Dafis, Cynog

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Darling, Alistair

Keen, Alan

Davidson, Ian

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Khabra, Piara S.

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

Kilfoyle, Peter

Denham, John

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Dewar, Donald

Lewis, Terry

Dixon, Don

Livingstone, Ken

Dobson, Frank

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Llwyd, Elfyn

Dowd, Jim

Loyden, Eddie

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Lynne, Ms Liz

456

McAllion, John

Reid, Dr John

McAvoy, Thomas

Rendel, David

McCrea, Rev William

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Macdonald, Calum

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

McFall, John

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

McKelvey, William

Rogers, Allan

McLeish, Henry

Rooker, Jeff

McMaster, Gordon

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

McNamara, Kevin

Rowlands, Ted

McWilliam, John

Ruddock, Joan

Madden, Max

Sedgemore, Brian

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Sheerman, Barry

Mandelson, Peter

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Marek, Dr John

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Short, Clare

Martlew, Eric

Simpson, Alan

Maxton, John

Skinner, Dennis

Meacher, Michael

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Meale, Alan

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

Michael, Alun

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Spearing, Nigel

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Spellar, John

Milburn, Alan

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Miller, Andrew

Steinberg, Gerry

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Stevenson, George

Morgan, Rhodri

Stott, Roger

Morley, Elliot

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Straw, Jack

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Mudie, George

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Mullin, Chris

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Murphy, Paul

Turner, Dennis

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Tyler, Paul

O'Hara, Edward

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Olner, William

Wallace, James

O'Neill, Martin

Walley, Joan

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Warded, Gareth (Gower)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Wareing, Robert N

Patchett, Terry

Watson, Mike

Pendry, Tom

Welsh, Andrew

Pickthall, Colin

Wicks, Malcolm

Pike, Peter L.

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Pope, Greg

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Winnick, David

Powell, William (Corby)

Wise, Audrey

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Worthington, Tony

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Wray, Jimmy

Prescott, John

Wright, Dr Tony

Primarolo, Dawn

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Purchase, Ken

Quin, Ms Joyce

Tellers for the Noes:

Radice, Giles

Mr. Eric Illsley and

Randall, Stuart

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr. Eric Illsley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During the previous Division, three Clerks were in the Aye Lobby, two recording the vote and one whose presence in the Lobby was not explained. I have raised the matter with the Clerk at the Table and the Clerk of the House, but I have been given no explanation of why the third Clerk should have been present in the Aye Lobby during a Division. The presence of a third Clerk, or anyone who should not have been in that Lobby, giving advice or whatever, tends to negate the value of that Division.
Madam Speaker: Of course the Division is not negated. I will make inquiries to find out precisely what took place.

Members' Salaries
11.24 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the following provision should be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—

(1) In respect of service in 1994—

(a) the salary of an ordinary Member shall be at a yearly rate of £31,687; and

(b) the salary of a salaried Member shall be at a yearly rate of £23,854.

(2) In respect of service in 1995—

(a) the salary of an ordinary Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the sum of £32,538 but increased by the relevant percentage for that year; and

(b) the salary of a salaried Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the sum of £24,495 but increased by the relevant percentage for that year.

(3) In respect of service in any subsequent year—

(a) the salary of an ordinary Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the salary of an ordinary Member for the preceding year but increased by the relevant percentage for that subsequent year; and

(b) the salary of a salaried Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the salary of a salaried Member for the preceding year but increased by the relevant percentage for that subsequent year.

(4) For the purposes of this Resolution—

(a) an ordinary Member is a Member of this House other than a salaried Member;

(b) a salaried Member is an Officer of this House or any Member of this House receiving a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 or a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972; and

(c) the relevant percentage for any year ("the relevant year") is the percentage by which, as a result of any pay settlement in the preceding year and any stage taking effect in that year of an earlier pay settlement, the average annual salary (disregarding allowances) on 1st January in the relevant year of the persons covered by the 1992 Pay Agreement for Grades 5 to 7 has increased compared with that average on 1st January in the preceding year.

Madam Speaker: I have to tell the House that all the amendments on the Order Paper may be referred to in the debate, but I have selected only amendment (a) in the name of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
Mr. Newton: I understand that it will be convenient to discuss the other two motions on the Order Paper:
That the following provision should be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—

(1) In respect of service in 1994—

(a) the salary of an ordinary Member shall be at a yearly rate of £31,687; and

(b) the salary of a salaried Member shall be at a yearly rate of £23,854.

(2) In respect of service in 1995—

(a) the salary of an ordinary Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the sum of £32,538 but increased by the relevant percentage for that year; and

(b) the salary of a salaried Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the sum of £24,495 but increased by the relevant percentage for that year.

(3) In respect of service in any subsequent year—

(a) the salary of an ordinary Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the salary of an ordinary Member for the preceding year but increased by the relevant percentage for that subsequent year; and

(b) the salary of a salaried Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the salary of a salaried Member for the preceding year but increased by the relevant percentage for that subsequent year.

(4) For the purposes of this Resolution—
458

(a) an ordinary Member is a Member of this House other than a salaried Member;

(b) a salaried Member is an Officer of this House or any Member of this House receiving a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 or a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972; and

(c) the relevant percentage for any year ("the relevant year") is the percentage by which, as a result of any pay settlement in the preceding year and any stage taking effect in that year of an earlier pay settlement, the average annual salary (disregarding allowances) on 1st January in the relevant year of the persons covered by the 1992 Pay Agreement for Grades 5 to 7 has increased compared with that average on 1st January in the preceding year.

That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 1st November, be approved.
I should first remind the House briefly of the background from our debate just under a year ago, on 25 November 1992, when the House agreed that there should be no pay increase for Members of Parliament in January 1993.
In that debate, I gave two clear undertakings, which were, I think, of importance to Members in coming to their decision at that time. The first was that the Government accepted the case for an automatic linkage with the civil service and would seek to re-establish it once the revised structure of civil service pay had been settled. The second was that the Government did not intend that Members should be permanently disadvantaged by the loss of the 3.9 per cent. awarded to civil servants in August 1992, which Members could in normal circumstances have expected to receive in January 1993.
In framing the proposals that I am putting to the House today, I have sought to fulfil those commitments, while at the same time imposing a significant constraint on the pay of Members, in line with the Government's approach to public sector pay. Thus, the realignment of Members' pay will take place over a period of two years, with the settlement for 1995 bringing Members in line with the civil servants with whom they were formerly linked.
The purpose of the motions is to honour the undertakings given, but to do so in a way which not only acknowledges the continued need for restraint. In fact—this is a point to which I shall return—taking the period from the end of 1992 to the beginning of 1995 as a whole, the motions ask Members to accept greater, not less, restraint than has been asked of civil servants and, indeed, others in the public sector.
Before returning to that point, let me outline the provisions of the motions. The first two deal with the pay of Members, including the reduced parliamentary pay of those who also receive a salary under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975. That latter category covers not only all Ministers but the Leader of the Opposition; the Opposition Chief Whip; the Opposition Deupty Chief Whip; you, Madam Speaker; my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) who, as a former Prime Minister, is in receipt of a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1972; the Chairman of Ways and Means; and the two Deputy Speakers.
The motions provide that, in January 1994, the full parliamentary salary should be increased from £30,854 to £31,687, and the reduced parliamentary salary from £23,227 to £23,854, both representing an increase of 2·7 per cent. They further propose that, in January 1995, the full parliamentary salary should be increased to £32,538,

459
and the reduced parliamentary salary to £24,495—in both cases an increase of 2·68 per cent. on the 1994 salary—together with an amount reflecting the pay settlement for civil service grades 5 to 7 in the forthcoming year. Thus, automatic linkage with civil service pay increases would be re-established in January 1995, after a two-year break. The same automatic linkage would then apply in each year thereafter, without the need for further resolution of the House.
The third motion concerns the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order which is also before the House. This applies the same percentage increase in salary in 1994 as for Members, except that Ministers in the other place who are not in receipt of a parliamentary salary would receive an increase in salary equivalent in cash terms to the increase experienced by their counterparts in this House.
The order relating to Ministers can, under the terms of the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975, deal only with 1994. However, I should make it clear to the House that the Government think that the right course henceforth is for the salaries of Ministers and the others whom I mentioned earlier to be dealt with on exactly the same basis as Members—that is to say, in effect linked to the percentage increases in the average salaries of civil service grades 5 to 7.
Before coming back to what Members will no doubt see as the main issue, I should perhaps explain in a little more detail the reasons for proposing this new form of linkage, the basis of it, and the way in which it is expected to operate.
As I said last year, the need for a new resolution arises from the move to performance-related pay in the civil service, which had the effect of making the previously established linkage—89 per cent. of the national scale maximum for grade 6 civil servants—no longer a reliable one.
That is because, whereas in the past a settlement of a certain percentage for grades 5 to 7 was applied evenly to all points on the salary scale, so that the top, middle and bottom of the scale progressed in the same proportions, under the new arrangements different points of the new pay range can move at different rates. In the current year, for example, the 1·5 per cent. award has been applied so that the bottom of the scale remains static while the maximum payable will increase by 8 per cent. In later years, a quite different pattern could occur. So linkage to a notional point on the range in the new system could produce uplifts markedly higher or lower than the overall award, which, in their effects on Members of Parliament, would be virtually arbitrary.
Some confusion has been caused by the current pay arrangements for grades 5 to 7 still showing the old scale maximum, and some Members have suggested to me that this could continue to be used. However, this point on the scale is being used only as part of the assimilation arrangements in respect of some reserved rights under the old system, will continue only for a short period and is therefore of no value for the permanent purpose which Members of Parliament wish to see restored.
What the Government are therefore proposing is a measure that would not link Members to a specific point, but would ensure that Members' pay progressed in line with the average settlement for grades 5 to 7. The linkage
460
would be with the average increase in pay experienced by grades 5 to 7 as a result of their pay settlement, and is the closest equivalent to the old linkage available under the new system.
Thus, as part of the return to parity with civil servants in January 1995, and in each January thereafter, Members will receive a pay award worth the same as that received the previous August by grades 5 to 7 under their pay agreement. Members will note from the resolution that they would also receive any element of staging awarded during the year. The cost of the grades 5 to 7 award, expressed as a percentage of the total pay bill, will be issued in a letter to civil service establishment officers soon after the settlement, and the same percentage would be used to uprate Members' pay. In other words, we shall then have a link which covers a broader range of civil service grades, which is durable and which can be used for the foreseeable future.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: That being so, will the Leader of the House take a few minutes to explain why there should be a linkage mechanism or formula that applies to Members of this House which is superior to any other pay formula affecting anyone in the public service? As everybody knows, there is one group of workers who have such a specific, dedicated fomula and it was to be overturned—the firefighters. Although that did not happen, there was such a specific formula. Why should the linkage for our salaries be superior to any other linkage operating in the public sector? Could he also say—[Interruption.] No, I will not ask my other question.
Mr. Newton: I do not fully understand how the hon. Gentleman can make that point when the basic proposition is that, far from being superior to what is proposed for other parts of the public sector, the whole point is to ensure that our salaries are specifically and directly linked to what happens across three grades of the Civil Service on average. That is clear, and cannot be presented as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise to the Leader of the House for intervening, but can a message be sent to the Reasons Committee to say that they need not hurry as their Lordships have risen for the day?
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.
Mr. Newton: I now return, as I said earlier that I would, to what the figures that we are proposing to ask of Members, bearing in mind the crucial fact that, unlike any other group in the public sector, they have had no pay increase whatever since January 1992, and that the proper comparisons are with what has happened elsewhere over a period of not one year but two.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Before the Leader of the House goes further, what consideration has he given to the widely reported cases of Members, mainly those behind him, who double or treble their salaries through consultancies and directorships, solely on the basis of being a Member of this House? Is it not time that all Members had one full-time job—that of being a Member of Parliament? Members should be expected to live on that salary and no other, in the interests of democracy and public decency.
Mr. Newton: The subject which the hon. Gentleman raises is touched on in one of the amendments which you, Madam Speaker, said could be discussed during the debate, and the hon. Gentleman will doubtless seek to make a speech if he catches your eye. I do not intend to let my speech be diverted from what I consider are the main issues to the sort of point which he has raised.
Although we do not yet know the precise increase in the retail price index in the period from January 1992 to next January when the 2·7 per cent. increase proposed in the motion would take effect, we know that it is already 4.6 per cent. higher in September than when Members' present pay was set. So it is simply not true to say that the increase exceeds inflation in the relevant period. It is significantly less.
The key points are, first, that Members received no pay increase in 1993, and that their current salary is based on an award made to grade 6 civil servants as long ago as August 1991. Secondly, civil servants have over the same period received two settlements totalling 5·45 per cent. —3·9 per cent in August 1992 and 1·5 per cent. under pay restraint in August 1993. Thirdly, the 2·7 per cent. now proposed for January 1994 is only half that amount. Indeed, under these proposals Members will not receive the remainder of the increase that civil servants received in 1992 until January 1995. Fourthly, when parity is finally restored in January 1995, Members will have experienced exactly the same overall restraint over the two years 1993 and 1994. They will have reached exactly the same point of increase as civil servants—no more and no less.
However, because the increases received by Members will have lagged significantly behind their civil service comparators during that period, they will have lost permanently—I need to put this uncomfortable fact to the House—some £2,000 each, compared to what they would have received had normal arrangements applied, and compared to what their civil service comparators actually received.
Several hon. Membersrose—
Mr. Newton: I am bringing my speech to a conclusion, and many hon. Members will wish to contribute to the debate.
We are asking not for less constraint but for more. Our proposals are a fair and balanced compromise between the commitments given to Members last year, the undoubted need for continuing pay restraint, and the desirability of re-establishing a clear and sustainable mechanism for determining Members' pay in the future. I commend them to the House.
11.39 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: As all hon. Members know, this is an issue for the House as a whole, and one on which there will be a free vote. It is for each hon. Member to make his or her own decision. I shall be as brief as I can, in order to allow those who wish to speak to do so.
As the Leader of the House properly pointed out, last year the Government announced a public-sector pay freeze which was opposed by many Opposition Members—especially because some of the most highly paid public servants were not being affected in the same way. We also
462
expressed concern about the breaking of the existing link with civil service pay, for which the House had voted repeatedly.
I welcome—on behalf, I think, of many hon. Members on both sides of the House—the announcement that some form of linkage will be restored. Whatever the problems with the present system, I cannot think that it is not superior to the previous system, under which hon. Members were required to make an inevitably somewhat arbitrary decision every year.
I admit to some nervousness about having to accept that the Government have changed the form of the link in case the result of the previous formula proved unacceptable; but that is simply to put down a marker for a precedent that might be being set. It would negate the purpose of the link if we all accepted that, every time the result did not suit the Government, they could change the link. In no sense am I arguing for the award of a larger sum than that contained in the settlement; however, I think it right to touch briefly on what was said by the Leader of the House, and to allude to what are, after all, the facts.
The pay of Members of Parliament has been frozen for two years. It has not increased since the end of 1991 and the beginning of 1992. As the Leader of the House pointed out, over that period inflation had risen by 5·4 per cent. The Government's proposal is for half that inflation rate to be recognised this year, and for the other half to be recognised in January 1995. That is not, as most commentators seem to have suggested, an increase above the rate of inflation; it is—properly, in the circumstances—below that rate.
Every hon. Member knows that there is never a good time to increase the pay of Members of Parliament by so much as a ha'penny, regardless of the rate of inflation or the circumstances of the rest of the community. Those in the news media, who earn far more than any of us, will be loud in their condemnation; in fairness, so will many members of the general public who do not earn as much. Most people, however, rightly expect their Members of Parliament to work full time in the interests of their constituents: they expect them to do a proper job, and I believe that most expect them to receive a proper rate of pay.
I am a trade unionist, and I believe in a fair rate for the job. I do not abandon that principle solely for Members of Parliament or other public servants—especially because I am aware that many Members of Parliament on both sides of the House, myself included, are forced to subsidise their office and other costs to maintain any semblance of a fair rate of pay for their staff.
That leads me to another point—one that I always feel should be made in these debates. I believe that a fair rate for the job should be paid irrespective of a person's other circumstances. I have always believed, however, that each hon. Member—free as he is both to speak and, in particular, to vote as he chooses—also has a degree of proper responsibility to his colleagues. For that reason, I have always exercised my freedom to comment on hon. Members' pay awards with some reticence.
When I was first elected, I was a single woman without family responsibilities. Within three months, I was drawing a junior Minister's salary. That made me very conscious, when issues of Members' pay arose, that I was not facing the financial pressures faced by many of my colleagues—particularly sole earners, often with family responsibilities, and those who, unlike me, had had to establish a fresh London base. I was working in London at

463
the time. That has always made me very sensitive to the problems that other hon. Members in less favourable financial circumstances might be facing, and very unwilling to add my voice to the condemnation of those who think that this is a fair rate for the job.
11.44 pm
Mr. Andrew Rowe: What is the worth of a Member of Parliament is a very difficult question. The salary that we are currently proposing to alter is attached to an arbitrary percentage of the pay of a grade in the civil service which no longer exists. It is the grade that I was on 27 years ago—scarcely the progress of a greedy man.
It is difficult to determine the amount that any one of us should earn, because as the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has said, some of us have young families, others have children who have left home, while some lucky ones have children who earn a living. It is therefore very difficult for any individual Member to comment on the pay that should be paid to others.
How should the public value us? What do they see? They see a number of supposedly grown-up people shuffling through the Lobbies not just once or twice but five or six times in succession, almost entirely careless and ignorant of the detail of what we are voting about. Among our number in the Lobby is almost every senior Minister, no matter how delicate the negotiations in which they are involved, nor how far they may have travelled that day or are about to travel across the world. Many members of the public wonder how well equipped our Ministers can possibly be to take on Jacques Delors, Gerry Adams or Saddam Hussein when they are faced with such a working schedule.
This Parliament of ours, of whose history we are so rightly proud, is dying on its feet in many respects. It is true that sometimes we have a moment of glory, or at least of undeniable idiosyncrasy, such as the interminable debates on the Maastricht treaty, which at least covered a number of the matters under debate. Those moments, however, are not typical.
We claim that we are here to control the Executive, but that claim is difficult to sustain when that Executive propose the business, guillotine the business and virtually never lose their business. We claim that we call the Executive to account. As we heard recently, the Public Accounts Committee, with its creature the auditor, does its best to track the path of some small part of public expenditure. To suggest that we here call effectively to account an Executive whose patronage extends ever further through British institutions is to delude ourselves. For half the Members in the House, the Chamber is but the antechamber to membership of the Government or the Opposition Front Bench. Of course they are very reluctant to see trimmed the powers to which they soon hope to aspire.
Much of this complaint is hardly new, but it is given a new urgency by two elements. The first is the creation of the European union and a real seepage of power from this place to Europe. Our mechanisms for monitoring the European Community are grossly inadequate. The House knows it and the public know it. The result is a further
464
erosion of our reputation as a legislature and with it an erosion of our reputation as individual Members of Parliament.
The second new element is that, after 14 years of Conservative government, virtually every other institution in the land has been subjected to scrutiny and reform. We alone seem to be content to watch our effectiveness decline and our power relative to the Executive diminish, without making any coherent attempt to change our ways.
We live in an age when respect for individuals and institutions has almost disappeared. That may not matter very much. A. J. P. Taylor suggested that the respect with which the British people held the people who were in authority varied in inverse proportion to the prosperity of the nation. So it may not matter if we are not held in great respect, but it does matter to this United Kingdom if its legislature spends most of its time on work peripheral to the nation's needs; and if that legislature leaves but little time for those things that it does especially well.
Before we start seriously considering what we should be paid, we should ask ourselves what on earth we are doing.
11.49 pm
Mr. Alfred Morris: I intervene briefly as chairman of the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund to report to the House on one effect of last year's decision to freeze parliamentary pay which, regrettably, is not very widely understood.
In the pay debate on 25 November 1992, I pointed out on behalf of the managing trustees that, if a Member of Parliament were to die during the pay freeze, the effect on the incomes of her or his dependants would-be lifelong if no way could be found to protect them. This is because the pensions and other benefits payable to widows, widowers and other dependants from the PCPF are based on the parliamentary salary in the deceased Member's last year of service and take no account of any subsequent increase in the salary to compensate for a period of pay freeze.
The untimely death of our much respected former colleague Judith Chaplin turned what was then a hypothetical problem into a very real and urgent one for the managing trustees of the pension fund. Unable to use that fund to help, we had to resort to the House of Commons Members' fund, to which all Members contribute, month by month, to help former colleagues and their dependants at times of urgent and special need.
Mr. John Garrett: What was the problem when the fund was so over-funded that the Treasury cut its contribution?
Mr. Morris: There is no power, as the Leader of the House will confirm, available to the trustees to top up the benefits of dependants in the case of a death of a Member in service.
Mr. Garrett: Change the rules, then.
Mr. Morris: The rules are frequently altered. We have secured, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, a great many improvements in the scheme in recent years, and others are in the pipeline; but others we have sought have still to be secured.
The Members fund, although it was not introduced for that purpose, was in fact the only possible means of ensuring that a bereaved family would not be made lifelong

465
losers by the pay freeze. What we did, with help from the Members fund, was to base the death in service payment and other benefits on a notional salary equal to that which our late colleague would have been paid if the freeze had not been imposed. We did the same of course, in the case of the late Robert Adley's family.
This could, however, only be a temporary measure to help the bereaved families most affected by the pay freeze and, as I hope to be able to explain in tomorrow's debate on pensions, the trustees of the pension fund have been working on the additional voluntary contribution scheme of which the Lord President is aware, and on which we can comment in more detail in tomorrow's debate. Among other provisions, the new scheme will give Members the opportunity to increase their pension benefits during periods of pay restraint.
It will be seen that the trustees have been at the thick end of problems created by the suspension, last year, of the parliamentary pay formula, and I hope that it will be agreed that they have done all that was possible to protect the families of Members who have died in service since the formula was suspended. The problem will be a continuing one until the value of the pay formula agreed by the House is restored, but the AVC scheme should at least limit its seriousness.
The moral of all this is that, when the House takes decisions like that taken last November to freeze parliamentary pay, it should have regard to the effect not only on members but also on widows and other dependants. For them, the consequences might not simply be of passing concern, but financially very hurtful, keenly resented and lifelong.
11.54 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: We have heard three really good speeches and. I add to that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe).
The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), the deputy leader of the Labour party, spoke briefly and with a great deal of common sense. Her speech will have been appreciated by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House spelt out the current position, which is generally well understood by the media. That is one reason why we were not subject to the attacks we have suffered in previous years.
Let me give my view of what we ought to be doing. The House should set a level of pay in one Parliament to come into effect at the beginning of the next Parliament and, once set at an appropriate level, it should be left unchanged from one general election to another.
The level of pay is debatable. My personal view, which is not a matter for debate, as there is not an amendment or a motion to that effect tonight, is that it ought to be set at roughly the same level as a general practitioner in medicine. I am not arguing for it now, but giving my view on what it should be.
I do not believe that the present level of pay is appropriate for those who are waiting to become Ministers in a future Government—for example those Labour Members who have waited 14 years, and who may have to wait another 14 years. It is always awkward to have increases during a Parliament, and to settle the pay increase just after a general election, as used to be the case, causes difficulty to many people.
466
In the interim, it is better that the Government's motions should be approved, but I shall vote for amendment (a) if it is moved, as I do not believe that, just because a level of pay is set, it is compulsory for Members to take it. The situations and circumstances of Members of Parliament vary enormously—mine have. In the years when I was the only Member of Parliament in my family, my circumstances were different from what they are now. It is not easy to say what other people should be putting up with.
What happens between elections is normally a consequence of inflation rather than a general readjustment of the level of pay. That is the argument against regular increases during a Parliament. If the electorate and those who select candidates believe Members of Parliament not worth the general level of pay, in effect they are saying that only the very rich or the very poor should afford to become Members of Parliament.
Most of our constituents like to be represented by people in the middle-income groups, and people with middling levels of achievement or some concern for the welfare of those around them, as well as for their own material well-being, should be able to become Members of Parliament.
It is not the most important issue to our electors or to us, but it is worth resolving. The Government were right to put these general motions to the House.
11.57 pm
Mr. Frank Field: I beg to move amendment (a), in subsection (1)(a) leave out '£31,687' and insert '£30,854'.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) mentioned the weakness of my position, and I wish to begin there. She was right to point out that some Members of Parliament have many more responsibilities than others and, therefore, it is less appropriate for those with fewest positions to speak to my amendment.
Given that I am mindful of the feelings of right hon. and hon. Members, particularly those with greater responsibilities than mine, I am grateful for the chance to explain why I tabled the amendment.
I should much prefer to address the House from a position of strength rather than one of weakness, but my position is bound up with an argument. At any one time, the number of people in work is linked to the size of the wage packets taken by those in work. Therefore, there is a link between the size of pay packets and unemployment.
Let us consider what may be the situation in the public sector next year, if the Government say that there should be a pay freeze. In any one year, about 500,000 people who work in the public sector die, retire or leave their jobs for other reasons. The question that workers in the public sector will face is whether we fill those positions from among those who do not now have jobs, or do not fill them, but instead share among ourselves the wage packets that would have gone to people who are unemployed. The Government will be able to maintain that there is a pay freeze, but that we can have a pay increase of 5 per cent. That will be a crucial issue for the public sector next year, and I wish to participate in the discussion. It will be difficult to participate if we have not applied the same lesson to ourselves.

467
All of us—not only Labour Members—now represent constituencies scarred by unemployment. I should like to be able to tell the House that I am now hardened to those men—I say "men" without shame, because, over the past 15 years, there has been an increase in jobs for women and a collapse in the number of decently paid jobs for men—who come to my surgery, laugh, and say that they are now impervious to the fact that they will not get a job, so they are working the system. But while their mouths smile, their wintry eyes tell another tale.
I should like to be able to tell the House that I am hardened to that, but I am definitely not hardened to the situation when male constituents come into my surgery and simply cry as they tell me how life has been shattered, and they believe that it will not be put together again, because all that the future holds for them is unemployment.
Rightly, we are debating the prospect of increasing our pay. If we do that, the wage bill increases by £1 million in any one year. That £1 million could be spent differently; it need not go to us. I do not in any way say that Members of Parliament do not deserve the money or should not have it, but I want to register the fact that at any one time there is a link between the level of pay awards and the number of people in employment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Prove it."] I have been trying to prove that case with my argument about the public sector. [HON. MEMBERS: "You have not done it very well."] Perhaps, as my hon. Friends are saying, I have failed to present a powerful enough logical case to convince hon. Members or to marshal my argument with enough eloquence to convince them.
None the less, I believe that, if we are to hold out any hope to our constituents, we all have to face the question: are we prepared to share our rewards with those who are unemployed? There may be less painful ways of moving back towards full employment, but, if there are, we have not heard of them. This is one, but only one, method that is practical and could be implemented.
We are debating our pay and our rightful rewards, but we could give the debate about unemployment a total change of gear. We could call a halt to the phoney war that has raged over unemployment for the past 20 years, and give the debate a change of direction the like of which has not been seen for a long time.
12.3 am
Miss Emma Nicholson: We are all embarrassed at having to discuss our own pay. It is an especially unpleasant thing to have to do, and I ask the House to have the kindness to listen for a moment or two while I explore why such a debate is so embarrassing, and whether there is any other way in which the pay of Members of Parliament could be determined. I was forced to think about the subject at lunchtime today, because "The World at One" telephoned me and said that the programme had to have a Member of Parliament to balance a health care worker in a discussion on the increase in Members' pay.
I wanted to vote against the motion, but I felt it my duty to vote in favour, for a variety of perhaps unquantified reasons. Because I had to speak on "The World at One", I had to think through my position, and I found myself justifying the motion as effectively as I could.
468
There is a natural suspicion among us all of those who set their own rate of pay. It is an odd piece of authority to have. It is quite rare in our society, but we do have that authority. Other people who have the capacity to set their own rates of pay, such as directors of public companies, are subject to fierce and proper criticism from us as well as from the public, and at least they are responsive to shareholders.
Although we are technically accountable to the electorate, in this matter we are so far away from electoral accountability that there is no link at all. No ballot box is based on the way we vote on Members' pay: it is based on a bundle of many things. Directors are accountable to shareholders at an annual general meeting, and their rates of pay can be formally criticised.
Despite the fact that hon. Members find this debate embarrassing and always have done—that is shown by the shortness of the speeches, if no other indicator exists—we continue to vote ourselves pay rises, so we presumably feel that we deserve them. I want to deal with the reasons for that view.
I have a high regard, both personally and professionally, for the deputy Leader of the Opposition. However, I argue strongly against her reason—it is a commonly held perception—for justifying our pay rises, which is that some people have larger family responsibilities than others. Without meaning to be personally critical, I must say that that is an outdated and irrelevant argument. In what other line of work in the modern world would we allow rates of pay to be determined by family responsibilities? The rate should be determined by the value of the person performing the job—in other words, market forces.
It is extraordinary that, in the modern world, we should be discussing rates of pay and justifying them for any job in the United Kingdom on the basis of family responsibilities, friendships or who has particular income levels external to their rates of pay. Are we not able to look at the job we do and assess whether it is worth a particular rate of pay?
Mrs. Beckett: I do not wish to detain the hon. Lady, but I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting that people's rates of pay should be set by their family circumstances. I am suggesting that those of us who are under less financial pressure than others should perhaps have regard to that fact in our criticisms of whether a pay rise should be awarded.
Miss Nicholson: With respect, that is merely the same argument turned round and addressed another way. Those of us who are or have been employers outside the House of Commons know that it would be nonsense to look at a group of employees and say that one must be more sensitive to a particular person's pay rise because of their background or family responsibilities. It is an inappropriate way in which to determine the rate of pay.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Miss Nicholson: No.
Another much stronger point was suggested, perhaps also by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)—that there is an over-large, if I may make a judgment in using that word, financial burden on Members of Parliament whose constituency pressures are exceptionally large for a variety of reasons. They may find that they have

469
to disburse part of their salary to fulfil their obligations. In those circumstances there is a corollary with the business world. In what other line of work has any of us been involved where, if one generates more productive work, one is not given more resources with which to fulfil one's commitments to the job? That is a compelling argument.
Where Members of Parliament fall down is that, in assessing the job, we do not take on board the necessity of examining the different ways in which we perform. We happily gloss over that. We have a rate of pay for our work irrespective of the way in which we perform. It is not an impossible conundrum. I believe that there might be ways in which our over-long hours, the distances that we travel and particular responsibilities pertaining to the job could be taken into account. Some Members have been here longer than many others. Surely there should be some way of rewarding them for their years of service. There are many determinants and indicators which are well used in other sectors of pay review.
It ought to be possible for us to remove this interminable debate from the House of Commons. I strongly believe that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House should seriously consider the appointment of a permanent pay review body which would ensure that we never have to go through this misery again.
We are fortunate in having an honest House of Commons. Despite all our difficulties and pressures and despite the complexities, we are proud to have a House of Commons which is completely honourable and where there is no cheating of any sort. Could we not take the further step of giving away the responsibility for determining our own pay, as other Parliaments do? We should have an external body and cut out these debates once and for all.
12.10 am
Mr. Doug Hoyle: I shall not follow the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). I find it strange that she believes that those in industry who award themselves large sums are accountable to shareholders. The suggestion was greeted with some hilarity on the Opposition Benches. I prefer to return to the practical side of the issue and to what the Leader of the House said.
When we discussed our pay last year, the Leader of the House promised us that he would try to ensure that the link with the civil service was not broken. I am pleased that he has returned this year to give us a notional link. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), I believe that we must wait to see how it turns out in practice.
When I spoke in the debate last year, I said that we would not get any plaudits for not taking the 3·9 per cent. increase which was awarded in August 1992 and should have been paid to us in January this year. Indeed, we received no recognition for instituting the pay freeze. The press has condemned us. The Daily Telegraph, the Daily Express, the Daily Mail and the Sunday Mirror brought out all the usual arguments about greedy Members of Parliament. None of them took into account the fact that we had had a pay freeze for the past 12 months. When we catch up, we shall be £2,000 out of pocket. If we cut our pay tonight, the press would say that we had obviously been overpaid. We would never win the argument.
470
We do not need lessons from editors who are on six-figure salaries. If they want to set an example, they should cut their own pay first and then talk to the rest of us about ours. In January next year, we will not even catch up to the 3·9 per cent. We will receive only 2·7 per cent. It will be two years before we catch up.
I found the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) rather unusual. He said that, if we all took a little less, we could find employment for more. If that were true, with the low wages that are paid in Calcutta, there would be no unemployment there. It is not true that taking a cut in wages generates employment for someone else. Of course no one is forced to take any increase that is awarded. It is up to each Member to make up his or her mind. If hon. Members take the increase, they can give it to a good cause or help other people.
If hon. Members take the increase, they can give it to a good cause or help other people.
There are two classes of hon. Members in this place. There are those who depend on their salaries and those who are not totally dependent on them. I am rather sorry that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), who also signed the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), is not in the Chamber. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West is not totally dependent on his House of Commons salary. He has consultancies, one of which involves accountancy. I wonder whether he will be giving those up. It is far easier to lecture the House when one is not totally dependent on the salary that one takes from this place.
Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend surprised by the absence of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern)?
Mr. Hoyle: I admit that we do not expect the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West to be here all the time. He is a busy man, ensuring that he is not totally dependent on the salary that he receives from this place.
If we accept the proposals, we will not have to return to this House year after year in respect of this matter. I congratulate the Leader of the House on making that possible. I hope that this is the last occasion in this Parliament that we have to debate the issue. I respect people who come along and say things to us. However, I will not be lectured by the barons of the press.
12.15 am
Sir Terence Higgins: The House always approaches the question of Members' pay with considerable diffidence. None of us would dispute the fact that there is a real presentational problem. We should be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) for setting out the real position so clearly.
There is no doubt that, at the end of last week, the coverage in the media, on the radio and television, was very distorted. Numerous reports stated that we were about to award ourselves pay increases of more than thrice the level of inflation, or certainly more than the level of inflation. There were varying reports, but that was their general tenor. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has made it absolutely clear that that is not the case. It is very important to get that point across.
My right hon. Friend made it clear that, if we consider the period from the end of 1992 to 1995, the proposal will

471
mean that we have exercised greater restraint on our pay than is the case with regard to the civil service. In the broad context of pay restraint, that is very important.
While the speech of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was heartfelt, and the repercussions on pay policy generally may have some of the implications to which he referred, we can reasonably claim that we sought to set an example. In the light of our experience last year, it would be optimistic to suppose, as the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) suggested, that this will have much effect. However, we have tried in this case.
I want to detain the House for a moment to consider a longer-term perspective. There is an excellent research paper in the Library. I have been an hon. Member for almost 30 years and I noted with some interest that the level of pay set just after I became a Member, in real terms, was higher than the present proposals. We have still not reached the level of our pay in the early 1960s.
After a little more research, I discovered that average earnings over that period have increased nineteenfold in cost terms and by 90 per cent. in real terms. While our level has remained exactly the same, in a broad sense the standard of living of the population as a whole has increased by 90 per cent. To a considerable extent, that shows the way in which successive debates on hon. Members' pay have affected our relative position.
We have made two attempts to take the matter out of the political arena and have some impartial assessment of it. The first involved the Top Salaries Review Body, or whatever it is called now. Over the years, that body has made several recommendations. The graph in the Library shows what the position was. In 1975, a recommendation was made and rejected. In 1979, a recommendation was made and rejected or, more accurately, we got half of it one year, a quarter the following year and a further quarter the year after that. The review body made recommendations in 1983, and they were rejected. It would be optimistic to suppose that that forms an effective way to deal with the problem outside the political arena.
We have also tried to link our salaries with those of the civil service. The first attempt to do that was as long ago as 1975. A vote in the House, by a majority, agreed that we should be linked to the level of deputy secretary, but after the election it was not implemented. I am not sure what level of salary a deputy secretary is now paid, but it is something like £60,000. In 1983, we ended up with the rather bizarre idea of having 89 per cent. of the salary of someone at grade 6. The reason for that is lost in the mists of time, but I think that it was part of a compromise by Sir Edward du Cann. That may explain why.
In 1987, we said that we would have a permanent linkage with the civil service, and, having voted for that on three separate occasions, we thought that we would get that, until the 1992 autumn statement, when there was a freeze, and the permanent link was broken. As a result, we are in our present dilemma, and we shall again have to catch up over a period of some years, before we get back to where we should have been in January 1992. I fear that the link is not a satisfactory arrangement. As the hon. Member for Warrington, North suggested, it is worth considering to what extent the freeze we had last year had any effect.
472
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House promised last year that he would ensure that there was not a permanent reduction in the level of Members' pay, with us being left further and further behind. The reality is that while he said that we would not be permanently disadvantaged, the time lag has, as he pointed out, meant that we are permanently disadvantaged, at any rate to the extent of £2,000. That has gone for ever. It is right that we should get back to the linkage.
What my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is proposing is in line with the Government's policy that we should encourage pay restraint. As the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has said, that is important. That being so, it is entirely reasonable, if the matter is looked at impartially and objectively, that we should support the Leader of the House, and those on the Opposition Front Bench, on what has been put before us this evening.
12.22 am
Mr. James Wallace: The right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) has done us a service in setting the debate in a historical context, and reminding us of what the Leader of the House said—that the increase that we shall get if the motion is approved will be, on 1 January 1994, a 2·7 per cent. increase when inflation, unless there is a miracle in the next two months, will have gone up by 4·6 per cent. As we have been reminded, as a result of having our pay frozen over the past year, we shall have lost £2,000 by the time we eventually reach the promised parity. It is important to set the context properly.
I can say on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, as the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said on behalf of the Labour party, that there will be no party line, and each of my colleagues will make up his or her mind according to how he or she sees fit. I shall support the motion. We should acknowledge that the undertakings that the Leader of the House gave last year, when he moved the motion setting up the freeze, he has earnestly sought to honour. It is a great credit to him that he has fought for that, and succeeded. There is no question of dishonour for those who support the motion, who debated the freeze last year on the basis that we would return to parity, and who wish to carry that through and vote accordingly.
One of the most significant comments so far was made by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who said that 27 years ago he received the grade 6 civil service pay—of which, until very recently, we were going to award ourselves 89 per cent. That shows that many right hon. and hon. Members do not come here only for the money. I do not complain about that. We have made a choice; we know what we are letting ourselves in for. Equally, it is not unreasonable that we should have a fair rate for the job and that we should be reasonably remunerated.
Certainly we are not so well remunerated as many legislatures in the European Community or the United States. Indeed, some statistics which my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) had the Library compile before last year's debate showed that
"adult males in April 1992 above the £590 paid to MPs were: general managers and administrators in national and local government … marketing and sales managers … medical practitioners … solicitors … ship and aircraft officers, air traffic planners … underwriters … brokers, and investment analysts".

473
One could go on. We are not seeking the earth. It is not unreasonable to seek reasonable remuneration.
We broke the link, no doubt for a good reason. Let us be fair: we did it as a gesture. Having broken that link, we have to go through the agony of again having to vote ourselves a pay rise. I hope that, by restoring a link, we can actually have the guts to stick to it. It is questionable what effect that gesture had, even if we were to vote for another pay freeze tonight. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) suggested that it would save £1 million. My calculation is that at 650 times—it is not actually 650, because the proposed increase for salaried Members is less than the proposed increase for ordinary Members—it would be only about £520,000, a good part of which would return to the Treasury in tax.
I do not believe for one moment that that will affect the economic direction of the country, no matter how difficult the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary have found things in the past few months. Therefore, we should support the motion and acknowledge that the Leader of the House has honoured his undertaking and that it is quite consistent, having voted for a freeze last year, to follow it through and support the motion.
12.26 am
Sir Jim Spicer: I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for the way in which he introduced this matter, in particular the way in which he reminded us of the pledge given to the House last year. It was on the basis of that pledge that a large number of right hon. and hon. Members accepted the need for the freeze and voted for it. I also thank the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), the deputy Leader of the Opposition, for the remarkable way in which, in a few minutes, she encapsulated the views of many right hon. and hon. Members.
I have the honour to serve under the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) as one of the trustees of the pension group. When the freeze was initiated, I spoke about pensions and the effect of that freeze on pensioners. Nobody should forget that that will not go away; it will remain with us for some time to come. Even when we catch up, we will still be that much behind. The effect on pensions will be not for one or two years but for 20 or 25 years for some widows or widowers.
We know that, whatever we do or say tonight, we will never get it right in the eyes of the general public. I have already received lovely letters saying, "I don't think that you should increase your pay; you shouldn't freeze it; you shouldn't have any bloody pay at all because you are all absolutely useless." We will receive those letters—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have not received one.
Sir Jim Spicer: My hon. Friend need not worry; he will.
I appeal to some hon. Members who might be inclined to say, "Okay, I am going to abstain. I know that the measure will go through tomorrow and I will be able to bravely say to my constituents or on the radio, 'I did not vote for this increase'." If they follow that course, in all honesty they should write to the Fees Office refusing the increase.
Alternatively, those who feel impelled to vote against what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has
474
proposed tonight could make a contribution to charity through the give-as-you-earn scheme. I did a little investigation this morning, and I was shocked to find that only about 55 Members currently do so. I hope that most hon. Members will follow the lead that has been given by the Leader of the House and the deputy Leader of the Opposition, vote in favour of this and accept the inevitable result of the public saying, "There they go again."
I am thinking not of my time in the House, but of what will happen in the years ahead. I want to get away from those awful first 16 years that I spent in the House when, year after year, we went through this awful ritual, and, whatever we did, we never found favour in the eyes of the general public.
12.30 am
Ms Rachel Squire: What the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) said about pensions could be even more of a reason why this debate should be about public service pay generally, not just the pay of Members of Parliament.
I have three points to make about the pay of Members of Parliament and public service workers. First, we are public servants. We are here to serve our constituents and to argue for the policies that we believe will be of benefit to them. There are 5 million other public service workers and they feel considerably aggrieved by the Government's treatment of them. They were given an undertaking last year that the 1·5 per cent. pay limit would not be repeated, yet it is being repeated.
I agree with many of the comments made by hon. Members about the embarrassment of debating our pay, particularly given some of the antics that take place in this Chamber, a good example of which occurred tonight. It is hardly any wonder that members of the public sometimes call into question their general opinion of politicians.
I accept what has been said about the media's responsibility for part of the impression of politicians, and I make it clear that many of us do not accept fat consultancy fees, but spend our entire office allowance on employing people and providing a service to our constituents. However, as we are well aware, the long hours and commitments of many hon. Members are often not reported.
My next point relates to the low pay of many public service workers, despite their hard work and commitment. More than half a million of them earn less than £174 per week. The 1·5 per cent. pay increase for, say, a nursing auxiliary, will amount to an increase of only about £2 a week before tax, and many of us have spent more than that tonight simply on one meal.
The increase in national insurance contributions, higher prices in general and VAT on fuel mean that many public service workers have had a pay cut.
My final point relates to talk about performance-related pay. The Government are saying that, for other public service workers, but not for us, there will be no pay increase in 1994–95 unless there is performance-related pay. I shall finish by suggesting that, if any people should base their salaries on performance-related pay, it should be Ministers. I predict that, if the salary of Ministers were related to the public view of their performance on economic policy, they would soon be arguing for a minimum wage to be introduced.
12.36 am
Mr. Quentin Davies: Clearly, one can make a case for continuing our pay freeze in a fashion which seems, at least at first sight, morally very attractive. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) did that with his usual ability and lucidity. One can make a case for continuing a pay freeze in a more demagogic or populist fashion, and the media seem to be good at doing that.
I shall vote for the motions with no hesitation or embarrassment at all. If we do not support the restoration of the link with civil service pay, we shall be doing something that is profoundly irresponsible, and for a simple reason. If we continue with a pay freeze, only one of two things logically can happen. Either each year we will continue to face a real decline in the value of our pay. That means that, if inflation continues at any rate, ultimately, logically and with mathematical certainty, eventually the real level of our pay will be virtually worthless. If that happens, we will have returned to the practice of the 18th and 19th centuries when people could come to this House only if they had substantial private means or, much more sinisterly, if they had a powerful patron or interest group prepared to pay to send them here. I do not think that any hon. Members seriously want that.
Otherwise, if we do not restore the link with civil service pay, the only logical alternative is that the gap between civil service pay and our own will steadily expand and we will simply have postponed dealing with a difficult problem, making it much more difficult to deal with it subsequently when we must do so. Surely that cannot be good politics, and it cannot be a responsible decision of the House.
Mrs. Fyfe rose—
Mr. Davies: I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me—I have very little time and I want to be uncharacteristically brief.
There is no doubt whatever that the gesture we made at the beginning of 1992 to accept a pay freeze went completely unappreciated. Certainly I never heard a single word from anyone in my constituency or elsewhere saying that he thought that it was a good idea or a noble thing to do, and certainly no one suggested that it would affect his or her pay bargaining or wage setting behaviour. Indeed, I do not believe that anyone took seriously that suggestion at that time, or at any other time.
We should not be misled into empty gestures. And certainly, we should not be influenced by demagogy, populism, or what is written in the media. It would be a form of moral corruption to allow our judgment in this or any other matter to be subject to intimidation by the press or anyone else outside the House. We should do what we believe is right in all the circumstances, and I believe that that means that we should support the Leader of the House this evening.
12.39 am
Mr. Bob Cryer: I am sorry that the two amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends have not been selected for a Division.
In reality, there are two classes of Members in this House. There are those who depend entirely on their parliamentary salary for their livelihood and those who, when elected, obtain parliamentary adviserships and
476
company directorships—[Interruption.]—are paid by lobby organisations and, sometimes, by the media. [Interruption.] Some of them are squealing now, because I am raising this in Parliament and they do not like it.
Many Members receive much more than their parliamentary salary from outside interests. Some Members directly prejudice their own position in the House because of their allegiance to their paymasters. It is entirely wrong to have two classes of Members and only one level of payment. My amendment would allow—
Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cryer: I do not have much time. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken, and I have only a few minutes left.
My amendment would allow Members who depend on this place for a livelihood to receive the increase, but not those who receive more than £2,000 a year from outside interests. That would allow some flexibility for the odd television appearance and the odd article. It could not be argued, for example, that a £10 payment for a television interview would prevent a Member from having the increase. It would allow Members who operate in a reasonable framework and Members who are determined to work full time in Parliament to do so. It would exclude from this place the corruption caused by outside interests.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cryer: I am not giving way. The hon. Gentleman is wasting his time standing up.
Sometimes it is argued that it is necessary to have Members with outside interests to bring experience to this House. Those who argue in that way are always those with a highly paid directorship, on £10,000 a year from parliamentary lobbyists and so on. They never spend time down some of the few remaining coal mines or in poorly paid manual occupations. Those with between two and eight outside jobs here simply exhibit the symptoms of greed.
Members who resent any criticism about our judgment and our salaries should bear in mind the fact that the Government set the level of payment for the poorest people. They set the levels for child support and income support. Members are in receipt of salaries that are greater than those of most constituents. The Government set the level of income at low rates because, when they get into an economic mess, they always hit the poor to get themselves out of it. It is not surprising, then, that, when salaries are discussed, they invite some criticism.
My second amendment relates to public sector workers.
Mrs. Fyfe: Does my hon. Friend agree that, since the House wishes, rightly, to assert the rate for our job tonight, it should at an early stage consider the rate for the job of elected members of local councils, who are disgracefully underpaid and have been for many years?
Mr. Cryer: That could reasonably be taken into account. My hon. Friend is right: there are double standards. The standards imposed by this Government and this House on local councillors for revealing their financial interests—it is a criminal penalty for any councillor to vote

477
on anything in which they have a financial interest—are not imposed in this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) was right to draw attention to that.
My second amendment, which I regret has not been selected, relates to other public sector workers, on whom the Government have imposed a 1·5 per cent. limit on pay increases. My amendment simply says that any increase given to Members of Parliament should automatically apply to other public sector workers. Why should not the police, nurses, firemen and other public sector workers receive the same percentage increase that we are to get? That would make sense and would only be fair. It would show that we value nurses, for example, as highly as Members of Parliament.
As my amendments have not been selected, I shall not support the motion. I shall support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), which I hope he will move to demonstrate that all is not well in this Parliament. Until the question of outside jobs is sorted out and Members of Parliament become full-time, because they are paid enough to be full-time, a big question mark will remain over pay in this House.
12.45 am
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: For an ex-Euro Member of Parliament to make such a speech brings unctuousness to a new achievement—[Interruption] That is an unparliamentary expression, so I cannot pick it up. On the basis of what we have heard from the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) tonight, he was overpaid then and he is overpaid now.
I shall certainly support my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. He made a powerful case in support of the motion before the House, and I understand any Member taking that view as well. The idea that we are somehow awarding ourselves more than the public sector is false, and my right hon. Friend set out dramatically the reasoning for that.
I was also highly impressed by the speech made by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). She set a theme for the debate which, with one possible exception, has been followed through: that it is unseemly—to be fair, it has not happened tonight—to have one Member lecturing another on what pay rise he is entitled to take. By any reasonable approach, the proposal is reasonable. But the hon. Lady was fair enough to say that different demands fall on different Members because of their different circumstances.
With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), we should not say that we should be paid because of the various responsibilities that we have taken on. That is not the point. For the current year, I shall ask the Fees Office to give me a 1·5 per cent. rise. The fact that I can do that must be influenced by the fact that I have private means. I should like to think that, if I did not, I would still reach that decision. I probably would but, in all conscience, I cannot put out of my mind the fact that I can afford to do it. I suppose that those of us with wealthy spouses also try to put it out of their minds and are not influenced by that. But they might be.
My position is somewhat ironic. Perhaps we made a mistake last year in freezing our pay. As the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) fairly said, our doing so got no plaudits out there in the marketplace. Ironically, had
478
we taken a 1·5 per cent. rise last year and a 1·5 per cent. rise this year, we would have done slightly better, and it would also have been justified.
Although it may not have done much good out there, in a sense I found it useful. When people came to my surgery banging my desk—sometimes literally—saying, "I am doing a very worthwhile job in the public sector, so I should be paid more," I could say, "I know. You are doing a thoroughly worthwhile job, but I can't take that into account. I take into account what the nation thinks it can afford for your duties." That underpins the motion which my right hon. Friend has brought to the House tonight.
No member of Parliament does not know, in his heart of hearts, that the overwhelming majority of us on both sides of the House put our backs into this job and, compared with the salary that we could command in the marketplace, we are paid considerably less. But a judgment must be made about what we can afford.
I am sure that this motion is right, and I well understand the action of any hon. Member who votes in favour of it. Moreover, I see nothing inconsistent in saying that we must all be answerable for ourselves: many different influences are brought to bear on us. I personally have decided to accept an increase of 1·5 per cent., for the current year at least; but that is an entirely personal judgment, which I do not urge on anyone else.
12.49 am
Dr. Tony Wright: Tonight's speeches—with the exception of one or two by Opposition Members—have been self-congratulatory. I want, just for a moment, to strike a rather more discordant note.
I take my cue from the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who said that for 14 years Parliament has not asserted itself against the Executive. I found myself agreeing with him. On only eight occasions since 1979 have the Government been defeated on the Floor of the House; it was seven before the recent Maastricht hiccup. On no fewer than three of those occasions, the issue has been Members' pay and allowances.
I ask the House to reflect on what the public will make of that. What conclusion will they reach about the ability of this Parliament to be a Parliament—to hold the Executive to account, and to take the action that our constituents expect us to take when they write to us? We should think seriously about the fact that we do not do those things, and about the fact that we can engineer this consensus tonight. When we are discussing other matters, we march through the Lobbies in the way decreed by the Whips and the executive.
That is one of my two reservations about the motion. The other is this. When I first became a Member of Parliament, I was told that I should buy a Ford Sierra with diesel. When I asked why, I was told, "It is the Member of Parliament's car. You get an allowance of 68·2p a mile if you drive a motor car with an engine capacity of more than 2300 cc." That is outrageous: it rewards vice, not virtue. [Interruption.] It rewards environmental vice. It encourages exactly the kind of behaviour that we should be discouraging.
When I first became a Member of Parliament, I went to a meeting at which there was a great movement to reform allowances. Someone made a proposal that prompted someone else to say, "Ah, but if we do that they will want

479
to do a proper audit on us." No proper audit is done on us: no proper audit is carried out on what Members of Parliament do, or on how they spend their allowances.
My first conclusion is that there ought to be such an audit; my second—this is another attempt to agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Kent—is that, if we want to carry our constituents and the country with us on issues such as this, we must become a different kind of Parliament from the Parliament that we are now. At present, we are an unreformed Parliament. There is a whole reform agenda out there, and, if we are serious about holding Governments to account and representing our constituents, we need to act on it.
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [29 October], That the amendment by made:—
The House divided: Ayes 38, Noes 279.

Division No. 400]

[12.54 am

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Alton, David

Paisley, Rev Ian

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Pickthall, Colin

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Pope, Greg

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Porter, David (Waveney)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Cryer, Bob

Rooker, Jeff

Dowd, Jim

Skinner, Dennis

Elletson, Harold

Spring, Richard

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Stevenson, George

Gallie, Phil

Trotter, Neville

Gill, Christopher

Walden, George

Gordon, Mildred

Walley, Joan

Harvey, Nick

Ward, John

Hawkins, Nick

Wareing, Robert N

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Kilfedder, Sir James

Mr. Harry Barnes and

McCrea, Rev William

Ms Liz Lynne.

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene

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

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Aitken, Jonathan

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Burns, Simon

Allen, Graham

Burt, Alistair

Amess, David

Callaghan, Jim

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Arbuthnot, James

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Ashton, Joe

Carrington, Matthew

Atkins, Robert

Chapman, Sydney

Austin-Walker, John

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Baldry, Tony

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Clelland, David

Bell, Stuart

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Bellingham, Henry

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Bennett, Andrew F.

Coffey, Ann

Bermingham, Gerald

Conway, Derek

Betts, Clive

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Booth, Hartley

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Boswell, Tim

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Bowis, John

Darling, Alistair

Brandreth, Gyles

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Bright, Graham

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

480

Devlin, Tim

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Dixon, Don

Key, Robert

Donohoe, Brian H.

Kilfoyle, Peter

Dorrell, Stephen

Kirkhope, Timothy

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Dover, Den

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Duncan, Alan

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Leigh, Edward

Durant, Sir Anthony

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Eagle, Ms Angela

Lewis, Terry

Eastham, Ken

Lightbown, David

Enright, Derek

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Etherington, Bill

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Luff, Peter

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

McAllion, John

Evennett, David

McAvoy, Thomas

Fabricant, Michael

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

MacKay, Andrew

Faulds, Andrew

Maclean, David

Flynn, Paul

McLeish, Henry

Forman, Nigel

McLoughlin, Patrick

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

McMaster, Gordon

Forth, Eric

McNamara, Kevin

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

McWilliam, John

Foster, Don (Bath)

Madden, Max

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Madel, David

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Maitland, Lady Olga

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Major, Rt Hon John

Fyfe, Maria

Malone, Gerald

Gale, Roger

Mandelson, Peter

Galloway, George

Mans, Keith

Gapes, Mike

Marek, Dr John

Garrett, John

Marlow, Tony

Gerrard, Neil

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Graham, Thomas

Martin, Michael J. (Springbum)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Maxton, John

Grocott, Bruce

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Meale, Alan

Gunnell, John

Merchant, Piers

Hague, William

Michael, Alun

Hain, Peter

Milligan, Stephen

Hall, Mike

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Morgan, Rhodri

Hanley, Jeremy

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Hannam, Sir John

Moss, Malcolm

Harris, David

Mudie, George

Hayes, Jerry

Murphy, Paul

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Needham, Richard

Heppell, John

Nelson, Anthony

Hicks, Robert

Neubert, Sir Michael

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Nicholls, Patrick

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Home Robertson, John

Norris, Steve

Hood, Jimmy

O'Neill, Martin

Hoon, Geoffrey

Oppenheim, Phillip

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Ottaway, Richard

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Paice, James

Hoyle, Doug

Patchett, Terry

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Pendry, Tom

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Pickles, Eric

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Pike, Peter L.

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Prescott, John

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Randall, Stuart

Illsley, Eric

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Jack, Michael

Rendel, David

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Richards, Rod

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Riddick, Graham

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

481

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Thurnham, Peter

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Tracey, Richard

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Tredinnick, David

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Trend, Michael

Sackville, Tom

Tumer, Dennis

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Twinn, Dr Ian

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Tyler, Paul

Shaw, David (Dover)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Short, Clare

Wallace, James

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Soames, Nicholas

Watson, Mike

Spellar, John

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Spencer, Sir Derek

Widdecombe, Ann

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Willetts, David

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Wilshire, David

Spink, Dr Robert

Wilson, Brian

Sproat, Iain

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Wise, Audrey

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Wolfson, Mark

Steen, Anthony

Wray, Jimmy

Stewart, Allan

Yeo, Tim

Stott, Roger

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Straw, Jack

Tellers for the Noes:

Streeter, Gary

Mr. Irvine Patnick and

Sweeney, Walter

Mr. Timothy Wood.

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 42.

Division No. 401]

[1.07 am

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Aitken, Jonathan

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Coffey, Ann

Allen, Graham

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Amess, David

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Cox, Tom

Arbuthnot, James

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Atkins, Robert

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Darling, Alistair

Baldry, Tony

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Bell, Stuart

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Bellingham, Henry

Devlin, Tim

Bennett, Andrew F.

Dixon, Don

Bermingham, Gerald

Donohoe, Brian H.

Betts, Clive

Dorrell, Stephen

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Booth, Hartley

Dover, Den

Boswell, Tim

Duncan, Alan

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Bowis, John

Durant, Sir Anthony

Brandreth, Gyles

Eagle, Ms Angela

Bright, Graham

Eastham, Ken

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Enright, Derek

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Etherington, Bill

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

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Burns, Simon

Evennett, David

Burt, Alistair

Fabricant, Michael

Callaghan, Jim

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Flynn, Paul

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Forman, Nigel

Carrington, Matthew

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Chapman, Sydney

Forth, Eric

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

482

Foster, Don (Bath)

Madden, Max

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Madel, David

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Maitland, Lady Olga

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Major, Rt Hon John

Gale, Roger

Malone, Gerald

Galloway, George

Mandelson, Peter

Gapes, Mike

Mans, Keith

Garrett, John

Marek, Dr John

Gerrard, Neil

Marlow, Tony

Golding, Mrs Llin

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Graham, Thomas

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Grocott, Bruce

Maxton, John

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Gunnell, John

Meale, Alan

Hague, William

Merchant, Piers

Hain, Peter

Michael, Alun

Hall, Mike

Milligan, Stephen

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hanley, Jeremy

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Hannam, Sir John

Moss, Malcolm

Harris, David

Mudie, George

Hayes, Jerry

Murphy, Paul

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Needham, Richard

Henderson, Doug

Nelson, Anthony

Heppell, John

Neubert, Sir Michael

Hicks, Robert

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Nicholls, Patrick

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Norris, Steve

Home Robertson, John

O'Neill, Martin

Hood, Jimmy

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hoon, Geoffrey

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Ottaway, Richard

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Paice, James

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Patchett, Terry

Hoyle, Doug

Pendry, Tom

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Pickles, Eric

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Pike, Peter L.

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Prescott, John

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Purchase, Ken

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Randall, Stuart

Illsley, Eric

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Jack, Michael

Rendel, David

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Richards, Rod

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Riddick, Graham

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Key, Robert

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Kirkhope, Timothy

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Sackville, Tom

Leigh, Edward

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Lewis, Terry

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Lightbown, David

Short, Clare

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Soames, Nicholas

Luff, Peter

Spellar, John

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Spencer, Sir Derek

McAllion, John

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

McAvoy, Thomas

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Sproat, Iain

MacKay, Andrew

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Maclean, David

Steen, Anthony

McLeish, Henry

Stewart, Allan

McLoughlin, Patrick

Stott, Roger

McMaster, Gordon

Strang, Dr. Gavin

McNamara, Kevin

Straw, Jack

McWilliam, John

Streeter, Gary

483

Sweeney, Walter

Watson, Mike

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Widdecombe, Ann

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Willetts, David

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Wilshire, David

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Thurnham, Peter

Wise, Audrey

Tracey, Richard

Wolfson, Mark

Tredinnick, David

Wood, Timothy

Trend, Michael

Worthington, Tony

Twinn, Dr Ian

Wray, Jimmy

Tyler, Paul

Yeo, Tim

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Wallace, James

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Mr. Irvine Patnick and

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Mr. Derek Conway.

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Khabra, Piara S.

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Kilfedder, Sir James

Alton, David

Lidington, David

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Lynne, Ms Liz

Aspinwall, Jack

McCrea, Rev William

Austin-Walker, John

Marland, Paul

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Bates, Michael

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Paisley, Rev Ian

Benton, Joe

Pickthall, Colin

Chisholm, Malcolm

Pope, Greg

Clelland, David

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Skinner, Dennis

Dowd, Jim

Spink, Dr Robert

Elletson, Harold

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Stephen, Michael

Gallie, Phil

Sykes, John

Gill, Christopher

Wareing, Robert N

Gordon, Mildred

Harvey, Nick

Tellers for the Noes:

Hawkins, Nick

Mr. Harry Barnes and

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Mr. Bob Cryer.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [29th October],
That the following provision should be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—

(1) In respect of service in 1994—

(a) the salary of an ordinary Member shall be at a yearly rate of £31,687; and

(b) the salary of a salaried Member shall be at a yearly rate of £23,854.

(2) In respect of service in 1995—

(a) the salary of an ordinary Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the sum of £32,538 but increased by the relevant percentage for that year; and

(b) the salary of a salaried Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the sum of £24,495 but increased by the relevant percentage for that year.

(3) In respect of service in any subsequent year—

(a) the salary of an ordinary Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the salary of an ordinary Member for the preceding year but increased by the relevant percentage for that subsequent year; and

(b) the salary of a salaried Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the salary of a salaried Member for the preceding year but increased by the relevant percentage for that subsequent year.

(4) For the purposes of this Resolution—

(a) an ordinary Member is a Member of this House other than a salaried Member;

(b) a salaried Member is an Officer of this House or any Member of this House receiving a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 or a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972; and

(c) the relevant percentage for any year ("the relevant year") is the percentage by which, as a result of any pay settlement in the preceding year and any stage taking effect in that year of an earlier pay settlement, the average annual salary (disregarding allowances) on 1st January in the relevant year of the persons covered by the 1992 Pay Agreement for Grades 5 to 7 has increased compared with that average on 1st January in the preceding year.—[Mr. Newton.]

Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [29th October],
That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 1st November, be approved. —[Mr. Newton.]
Question agreed to.

Business of the House
1.19 am
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I should like to make a short business statement. The business for tomorrow will now be:

Motions on Members' pensions

Motions relating to statutory instruments on sports grounds and sporting events

Motions on parliamentary Questions

Proceedings on the following consolidation Bills:

The Crofters (Scotland) Bill [Lords], the Scottish Land Court Bill [Lords], the Health Service Commissioners Bill [Lords], the Probation Service Bill [Lords], the Pension Schemes Bill [Lords], the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords] and the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [Lords];
followed by a motion relating to financial assistance to Opposition parties. The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. Could he answer two simple questions? First, he has courteously come tonight with a statement about tomorrow's business. Why could he not have come at seven o'clock with a statement about the business earlier this evening? Secondly, will he tell the House, so that there is no doubt, what will be the procedure if the Lords sustain their opposition to the Railways Bill when they receive our report tomorrow? What is the constitutional position?
Mr. Newton: On the first question, it will be within the hon. Gentleman's recollection, because he was here, that there was criticism from some quarters of my intervention at seven o'clock on the ground that, even as a brief point of order, it took time out of a guillotined debate. Some of that criticism was perhaps subsequently deployed for other reasons, but at any rate that criticism was made.
If I had made a statement, which would have been followed by extensive questioning, that would certainly have damaged a guillotined debate and would have been a legitimate cause for complaint among those involved with the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. As for the hon. Gentleman's second question, it is for others to give advice on the rest of the matters that he raised.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: In thanking my right hon. Friend for an interesting and entertaining evening, may I ask whether he agrees that it does not bestow any great dignity on the House if certain Members, from whatever party, sabotage democratic procedures in such a way that the—
Madam Speaker: Order. We are dealing with a business statement. We are discussing tomorrow's business, not making long statements about what has gone on, which I deplore as much as anyone in the House. If the hon. Gentleman has a question about tomorrow's business, I will hear it. But that is all that I will hear.
Mr. Hayes: I am most grateful for that, Madam Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend agree with Madam Speaker that it would be quite wrong for any Further sabotage to take place tomorrow?
Mr. Newton: I can hardly decline to agree with Madam Speaker. More to the point, I should like to make the point in response to my hon. Friend—it is relevant to the business statement—that one of the reasons for the statement was our inability to get through business that was properly laid for today, because of tactics in the Division Lobbies which exceeded anything that I have seen in 20 years in the House.
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I had not intended to respond to the business statement, because I did not want to detain the House at this hour. However, it should be put on the record that it is because the Government sought to stampede their business through the House earlier tonight that they will have to come back tomorrow with business which, if they had proceeded reasonably through proper discussion and agreement, we could have dealt with tonight. It serves the Government right.
Mr. Newton: If the right hon. Lady thinks that that kind of point justifies the blocking tactics that we saw in the Division Lobby today, this is a very sorry day for this place.
Mrs. Angela Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the disgraceful behaviour of Opposition Members, the filibustering and the delays in the Lobby showed the real negation of democracy tonight?
Mr. Newton: I agree that were those tactics to be seen again, that would raise real questions about the commitment of those on the Opposition Front Bench to democratic procedures in the House.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will not tomorrow's business be rather crowded, as there are already many orders set out in the Remaining Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions on the Order Paper? Instead of having to come to the House to make repeated business statements, would it not be better for the Government to recognise that they have put themselves in a hole through their insistence on regarding Parliament as a legislative sausage machine and extend the business into next week so that we can have a proper timetable for debate on issues such as unemployment, the difficulties of manufacturing industry and the difficulties facing people on low incomes? We could very usefully spend next week debating a host of subjects if we did not have this pressure behind us all the time.
Mr. Newton: If there is any pressure on tomorrow's business of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman objects, the fault lies with the tactics that were used by the Opposition tonight.
Mr. Tony Marlow: If there are any messages from the other place tomorrow, at what stage in our proceedings with they be taken? Will they be taken before or after the debate on the motion on pay for Opposition parties?
Mr. Newton: I obviously cannot predict the timing without knowing the timing of progress in another place. However, I anticipate that the timing would be such that the debate on the motion to which my hon. Friend referred would be after the consideration of Lords messages.
Mr. Alex Salmond: The Leader of the House must stop whining about the proceedings earlier

487
this evening and address the points at issue. Why is it not possible to make a business statement after guillotined business, as opposed to making points of order during guillotined business?
Mr. Newton: Because, as I said at the time, the obvious need for the House to consider the message from the Lords in our view—and I make no apology for that—made it right to give the House notice of the intention to discuss those messages at the earliest possible moment, and that is what I did.
Mr. Peter Luff: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the appalling scenes that we witnessed earlier this evening, including deliberate attempts to undermine the authority of the Chair, owed a great deal to the Labour party's embarrassment over the fact that it did not have enough hon. Members in the House to achieve a decent vote in the Division Lobby? Labour played for time to allow Labour Members to return. What conversations will my right hon. Friend have through the usual channels to ensure that the Labour party has the courtesy to have adequate numbers of hon. Members here in good time for the debates tomorrow?
Mr. Newton: I have no doubt that there will be some discussions about that matter and others through the usual channels. At least, I hope that there will be such discussions. In view of the terms used by my hon. Friend, the worst thing about tonight is that there is no sign that those on the Opposition Front Bench even have the grace to be embarrassed about it.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the motions relating to football spectators are the motions that we should have debated this evening, and that those motions were on the Order Paper as a result of a request from the official Opposition? Bearing in mind the fact that that business was lost today as a result of the Labour party's disgraceful behaviour, why are we to debate it tomorrow? Why not just drop it?
Mr. Newton: That business was placed on the Order Paper properly. While I have every sympathy with and share the irritation expressed by my hon. Friend, it is proper that business that is placed on the Order Paper properly, as this busines was, should be discussed properly —if the Opposition allow that to happen tomorrow.
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: In responding to my right hon. Friend's business statement 48 hours ago, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said that it was a "constitutional outrage". Is not the true constitutional outrage the antics of the Labour party, which has lost both the argument and the votes tonight?
Mr. Newton: Yes.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Given that we are debating so many fascinating and interesting matters tomorrow, would it be possible to squeeze in an extra debate on the tactics that were adopted this evening, and give the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) the opportunity to repudiate Labour Whips who lied about the figures in the Division Lobby in an attempt to get divisions declared void?
Mr. Newton: I shall bear that request in mind, although it might cause some difficulty if I were to make a supplementary business statement immediately.
Mr. Eric Pickles: May I add my support to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)? Tomorrow's business is full, and perhaps it might be appropriate to drop the debate on money for the Opposition parties. Perhaps it might also be made clear that the use of books to block the Serjeant at Arms from coming through the door is singularly inappropriate parliamentary action.
Mr. Newton: It was the episode with the books, which I had heard about, that led me to say earlier that, while every hon. Member has seen ups and downs, to put it mildly, over a long period—in my case, 20 years—I have never seen tactics like that adopted, whether in this or any other cause.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Would it not be easier to handle business in the House if we met a little more often? When we come back to debate the Queen's Speech, we shall have been away for 14 out of 17 weeks. Since the election of the present Prime Minister, the House has not been sitting for 40 per cent. of those weeks. That is why some of us thought that the vote tonight was disgraceful.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has expressed those views in various other ways before. I can only say that they do not appear to be shared by the large number of hon. Members who clearly wish to see progress on the Jopling report.
Mr. Rod Richards: When we debate the financing of Opposition parties, will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is time to debate the appalling behaviour of the Labour party, and will he ensure that there is time to debate the lack of discipline in it, in the context of a complete absence of leadership? Will he also ensure that there is time tomorrow to ask the question, "When will the Buddha speak?"
Mr. Newton: I shall do my best to ensure that there is time available to debate those matters, but it will depend, once again, on the Opposition, being prepared to behave in a reasonably orderly fashion.
Mr. Derek Enright: Is it not the case that the incompetence and clumsiness of those on the Government Front Bench makes an elephant look like a dainty ballet dancer?
Mr. Newton: There is nothing in the behaviour of those on the Government Front Bench that leads to, or justifies, the blocking of Division Lobbies with books so as to prevent proper procedures in the House.
Mr. Nick Harvey: On the subject of the behaviour of the Government Front Bench, will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that if the Government get into similar problems over time tomorrow, the Government Whips will be restrained from physically assaulting hon. Members?
Mr. Newton: That is a serious allegation. I have no doubt that if the Hon. Gentleman wishes to persist with it, Madam Speaker will cause it to be looked at.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. That is enough. We have to move on to the petition.

PETITON

  Forestry Commission Land
  1.34 am
  Mr. Christopher Gill: I beg leave to present a petition signed by more than 800 people living in Ludlow and surrounding areas, expressing their concern about the loss of public access when Forestry Commission woodlands are sold. The petition states:
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons shall ensure that if any further land owned or managed by the Forestry Commission is sold, provision shall be made that the public shall continue to enjoy freedom of access for recreational activities in perpetuity.
  To lie upon the Table.

Elephant Conservation
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
1.34 am
Mr. Tony Banks: In retrospect, this is probably not the best night to have the Adjournment debate, but I am, none the less, grateful that I was given the opportunity.
You, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I have common concerns with regard to the welfare of animals. I strongly recommend to you a wonderful book by Heathcote Williams, entitled "Sacred Elephant". The book is a combination of epic poem, pictures and prose. It moves me to tears whenever I read it because it tells of a gentle giant of a creature with a complex social structure, a language, great intelligence, sensitivity and emotions—a glorious mystical creature at first revered by man but later killed, mutilated, exploited, tortured and humiliated by man.
The elephant's interaction with man goes back into the mists of antiquity. Brahma, it is said, concealed in each of the animals a profound secret. The elephant was
"a beast of the moon with crescent tusks who has emerged from the churning seas."
He said that he had concealed wisdom. Minerva, the goddess of wisdom, had the head of an elephant towering above her own, and elephants pulling her chariots of knowledge. To the early Christians, the elephant was the bearer of all infirmities and lord protector, treading serpents underfoot. The Romans believed that the elephant was a religious animal. Pliny observed it
"worshipping the sun and stars and purifying itself at the new moon, bathing in the river and invoking the heavens."
Those are the myths about the elephant—the facts are even more astounding. They reveal a creature remarkably like ourselves, but with one vital exception—elephants do not possess our obscene cruelty. When an elephant gives birth, another female—the midwife elephant—will stand by until the process is complete. The females will never desert their young. The young show respect for the old. Among land mammals, the only brain larger than man's is the elephant's. Elephants can communicate sub-sonically with each other. Low-frequency sounds can travel more than 12 miles. The only other example of low-frequency communication among animals is the call of the whale, another highly developed social creature. It is said that, with the single exception of the whale, the elephant is the finest swimmer of all mammals. Journeys of more than 300 miles have been recorded.
Elephants never attack the weak, even when being hunted. Threatened and attacked by overwhelming odds, the bulls will place themselves in the line of fire, dying in the cause of the greater good, and protecting the young. They can live for up to 200 years, but few are left to die naturally. Captured and tied up for hours in a logging camp, an elephant will commit suicide. Elephants mourn and bury their dead. A captured elephant will perform last rites upon itself. An elephant in distress will weep salt tears —something that we thought only human beings did.
In today's world, the elephant has much cause to weep, and so have we. Last century, there were probably 10 million elephants, in 1970 there were 2 million, in 1979 there were an estimated 1·3 million and in 1989 there were fewer than 625,000. When I had a similar Adjournment debate on the subject in May 1989, the information

491
provided by the Minister for Overseas Development indicated that the elephant population in Africa could be as low as 300,000 to 400,000.
Since 1970, the main cause of the decline has been killing for ivory—ivory for billiard balls, children's toys, jewellery, carvings and personal seals; magnificent creatures slaughtered for ephemeral trash.
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, CITES, listed the Indian elephant on appendix I in 1976. The African elephant was not placed in appendix I until 1989. A worldwide ban on the ivory trade was finally implemented in January 1990, but with a number of countries entering reservations, including the United Kingdom on behalf of Hong Kong. The price of ivory has been greatly reduced, but the demand is still there.
Before the last CITES meeting in Kyoto, an upsurge in poaching was reported in many parts of Africa. Clearly, ivory traders were hoping that the ivory ban would be weakened. They were disappointed, but the traders will try again, supported by a number of African countries.
Will the Minister give the House an unequivocal assurance that, at the next CITES meeting, the British Government will not waver when the question of reopening a legal ivory trade will undoubtedly be raised?
The Government informed me in July this year that they spend £2·85 million on conservation projects which may —I emphasise the word may—include benefits for elephants, but the sum is tiny in comparison with the scale of the problem and the significance of the objective: to save the African elephant from extinction. In Zimbabwe, the department of national parks and wildlife management literally ran out of money for four months of this year. As a consequence, rhino and elephant poachers had a free hand, and 85 white rhino and an unknown number of elephants were killed. Many elephant carcases were reported to have been seen along the base of the Zambesi escarpment.
Will the Government announce a substantial increase in funds dedicated to elephant conservation schemes in Africa? Money is needed for helicopters, infra-red detection equipment and Land-Rovers. All are desperately needed.
We in this country might have some economic problems, but saving the African elephant is far more significant. Economic problems, rather like Governments, come and go, but should the African elephant go it will never come back. An announcement of a significant increase in funding for elephant conservation schemes from the Government would receive widespread support in the House and country.
The great paradox of elephant conservation in Africa is that, while the total number of elephants is falling, there are a few areas where local over-population occurs. As a result, steps are being taken to control the elephant population, and culling is the usual method adopted. About 500 elephants are killed each year in the Kruger national park to keep South Africa's sole remaining sizeable elephant population at about 8,000.
Zimbabwe usually kills a few thousand each year, but in December 1991, the director of the Zimbabwe wildlife department announced the need to eliminate half the country's elephant population. If it goes through, it will kill some 35,000 animals.
492
Culling of elephants is cruel, inhumane and ethically wrong. There are alternatives, and I am deeply grateful to Ian Redmond, co-ordinator of the African Ele-Fund for providing me with details. Culling is portrayed as the humane, almost clinical, removal of a proportion of the population. Whole families of elephants are surrounded and killed in order to avoid leaving stressed individuals or groups who have lost their close relatives. That reasoning ignores the higher social organisation of elephant clans, their ability to communicate over several kilometres by means of infrasonic distress calls and their acute sense of smell. In addition, calves kept alive to be sold into captivity undergo severe trauma. Most are destined for a short life of social and sensory deprivation.
The question is whether culling can pay for conservation. It is often said that sales of elephant products resulting from culling operations can help to pay for conservation work. Yet culling elephants is itself an expensive business. In 1989, a Zimbabwean warden estimated that it cost $102 per elephant to cull 500, and a further $334 per animal to recover the carcases. At those prices, the proposed cull of 35,000 elephants would cost the Zimbabwean authorities more than $15 million.
Then the question of whose elephants they are arises. When elephants cross international boundaries, they create problems for wildlife managers. Elephant populations are calculated on a national basis, and management decisions taken accordingly. But is it right for one country, say, to provide artificial water holes which attract elephants from neighbouring countries, then count them all and decide that there are too many for the habitat to sustain and order a cull? That is questionable, especially when the resulting ivory and skins are intended to be sold to raise foreign exchange for the Government Treasury.
Revenue from tourism may suffer in two ways from culling—first, tourists who oppose culling are likely to visit other countries with more benign attitudes to elephants and, secondly, as long as elephants perceive humans in vehicles as harbingers of death, high-quality, high-profit, close-quarter observations by tourists will be difficult.
Many scientists believe that elephant populations will find their own level if left alone, but that may fluctuate in cycles. The natural way allows elephants to survive in extreme situations in genetic terms, but the survival of the fittest will prevail. Culling, on the other hand, does not improve the gene core. It reduces the genetic and cultural diversity of the population by wiping out families with the loss of their accumulated knowledge of local conditions and the end of their genetic lines. Most conservationists are fighting to maintain genetic diversity in populations of endangered species. Culling, as practised today, does exactly the opposite.
Increasing the areas available to elephants is an ideal solution, given the amount of pressure that man puts on herds. Given the profitability of eco-tourism, wildlife reserves are increasingly seen as an alternative, more sustainable way of managing elephant resources. It is much more profitable than agriculture.
Care for the Wild relies on voluntary donations for the removal of a large number of elephants. The relocation of elephants seems to be the way that management of the resource could be achieved. In Asia, elephants whose habitat has been converted to agriculture, or whose crop raiding behaviour becomes a problem, are moved. Individuals, especially bulls, are tranquillised and

493
transported on trucks or barges, and herds have been driven over considerable distances to save protected areas. African wildlife departments could learn from their Asian counterparts and adopt those techniques when conditions allow.
Recently, I had a meeting with members of Care for the Wild who were involved in the moving of complete family groups to suitable areas or other countries where elephant populations have been depleted by poaching. In July, Care for the Wild moved 500 elephants at a cost of £305 per head. New reserves are being set up in Zimbabwe by ranchers getting rid of uneconomic cattle. In one project, 800,000 acreas have been established and elephants moved there.
Zimbabwe national parks want a further 500 elephants removed from one of the areas early next year. Of course, an organisation such as Care for the Wild can greatly assist. It relies on voluntary donations. Recently, it received an exceedingly generous donation of £500,000 from Mr. Peter Borender, but more funds are desperately needed. Will the Government earmark special funds for removal schemes such as those operated by Care for the Wild?
Another possibility is elephant birth control. The Born Free Foundation has drawn up a three-year project for elephant fertility control under the supervision of Professor Roger Short, who recently published papers on the matter in The Lancet. Funds for the project are needed. They are not immense funds—certainly they are well within the compass of the Government to afford, and they would get the support of the House and the country as a whole. Will the Government discuss the Born Free Foundation project with a view to funding it?
Culling is not the only solution to the problem of local over-population of elephants. The alternatives presented here could, by capitalising on eco-tourism, be more profitable than culling, and would be more compatible with the mood of the public worldwide. They also have the advantage of saving rather than destroying the lives of elephants.
I quote:
"In Pali scriptures it is duly set forth 'that the form under which Buddha will descend to the earth for the last time, will be that of a beautiful young white elephant, open-jawed, with a head the colour of cochineal, with tusks shining like silver sparkling with gems, covered with a splendid netting of gold, perfect in its organs and limbs, and majestic in appearance'."
If that is the form in which Buddha returns to earth, he is likely to feel very lonely, as he could end up being the only elephant left.
1.49 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for raising this important issue, and pay tribute to him for his long-standing interest in elephant protection and conservation. Elephant conservation is an interest I share personally and a cause to which the Government remain fully committed, as evidenced by the support on the Front Bench of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope).
I led the United Kingdom delegation at the conference in Kyoto last year of the parties to CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. The discussion of the elephant issue loomed large. In talks with Ministers and senior representatives from African countries, I was able to hear
494
at first hand of the problems they face in conserving their elephant population in their differing countries and of their concerns.
Since the CITES conference, we have been playing a full and, indeed, leading role in maintaining dialogue with various Governments and we have also been active in promoting and funding conservation projects. I therefore welcome this opportunity to review action on promoting elephant conservation.
The United Kingdom was among the first countries to recognise the seriousness of the threat to elephants from poaching and pressure of human populations. A number of United Kingdom-based organisations, from the World Wild Fund for Nature to Elefriends and others mentioned, have been active in ensuring people had a good understanding of possible threats to elephant populations. The Government have long been in the forefront of international efforts to save this magnificent creature from extinction, so can I set out some of the action that we are taking.
Under CITES, the Asian elephant has always been fully protected, and monitoring of trade in some African elephants began in 1976. Numbers continued to decline, and tighter restrictions were introduced the following year. Commercial trade was then allowed only if sanctioned by the exporting country.
Sadly, despite these efforts, the African elephant continued to suffer losses at the hands of ruthless, determined and well-organised poachers. In 1980, there were estimated to be some 1·3 million elephants in Africa. Less than 10 years later, only 600,000 or so survived.
By 1989, it was clear that the threat to the elephant was both serious and immediate. We decided that the African elephant should, without delay, be given the maximum protection available by the international community. We made clear our intention to support a worldwide ban on trade in elephant products. We went further and persuaded our European Community partners to join us in imposing an immediate ban on imports of ivory into the Community without waiting for a decision on a general international ban through CITES.
The whole question of the conservation of the African elephant and the proposed trade ban was fully discussed at the CITES conference held in 1989. Amid some controversy, the conference agreed to ban the ivory trade, but acknowledged that different elephant range states had different problems. The conference accordingly decided to leave the door open for countries that had stable or increasing elephant populations, and were able to meet strict conditions, to apply in due course to resume trade in their elephant populations. Such countries argued that income from any trade in elephant products could be reapplied to the overall conservation and would give local farmers and local people an incentive to protect elephants.
At the Kyoto conference, South Africa, on its own, and the four other Southern African countries which form the Southern African Centre for Ivory Marketing—SACIM —put forward proposals to reopen such trade under the conditions laid down in 1989. The SACIM countries are Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia and Malawi. The essence of the conditions was that any proposals had to satisfy a panel of experts appointed by CITES that particular elephant populations were healthy and free from danger, and that any legal trade in ivory would not give rise to illegal trade threatening elephant populations in other countries.

495
The panel of experts' report indicated that some of those countries had managed to meet most of the conditions drawn up in 1989. Before the Kyoto conference, we had held extensive discussions with experts from around the world, and national and international organisations. We had examined all the available evidence, including the panel of experts' report, and I told the conference:
"the ban on trade imposed in 1989 has been highly effective: the price of ivory has plummeted taking with it interest in poaching. The UK is determined that there shall be no return to the dismal days before the ban, when poaching was rife. We have held extensive discussions with experts from around the world, and national and international organisations. We have examined all the available evidence and we have noted in particular that the Panel of Experts found continuing illegal trade elsewhere in Southern Africa. Further, the Panel commented on the problems of controlling open bush borders. We therefore remain unconvinced that any country can prevent the mixing of legal and illegal ivory. Allowing trade in other elephant products would inevitably be seen by some as a precursor to the resumption of trade in ivory. This would lead to more poaching and mounting ivory stock piles.
We recognise, however, that import bans alone can achieve nothing. A United Kingdom—or even a global—boycott of elephant products will not guarantee the survival of elephants. Their well-being depends instead on the efforts of the African countries where they are found. We understand the pressures which poverty and growing populations place on some countries. The burden of conserving elephants for all our children to enjoy must not fall on them alone."
That is what I said in Kyoto and, against that background, we and the rest of the international community agreed that the existing ban on the trade in elephant products should continue.
That decision left the SACIM countries feeling hurt and misunderstood, and it is clear that opinion within Africa remained worryingly divided on elephant conservation. There was even talk of some countries leaving CITES. So we saw an urgent need to develop greater understanding among all concerned on the question of elephant conservation and trade. The challenge was to look for a way forward that took account of the legitimate concerns and aspirations of elephant range states, without jeopardising the progress made since the introduction of the ivory trade ban, and which recognised the importance of a coherent and co-ordinated African approach to elephant conservation.
At our instigation, the European Community pressed strongly in Kyoto for the dialogue between elephant range states and other interested parties to be maintained between conferences. Since then, the United Kingdom has taken the lead in promoting and co-ordinating further discussions.
In November last year, the United Kingdom led a delegation of EC officials to Africa to discuss the issues of elephant conservation and trade in depth. The main objective of the mission was to explore the scope for building consensus among African states on the elephant and ivory trade issue before the next CITES conference in 1994.
During nearly two weeks of intensive discussions, the mission visited four countries and met representatives of nine African Governments, including the SACIM group, as well as a number of non-governmental organisations, field workers and independent experts.
The mission was thus able to gain a valuable insight into the problems which African countries face in trying to conserve their elephant populations. It recognised the validity of the concerns of the countries seeking a
496
reopening of trade, whose elephant populations were stable or increasing, and remained relatively unaffected by poaching—except possibly in Zimbabwe, which has had some recent problems.
On the other hand, other range states felt equally strongly that any relaxation in the CITES trade ban would put their own more vulnerable elephant populations at risk. From all Governments, there was a recognition that countries should be able, other things being equal, to use wildlife sustainably, and that trade could play a part in that.
It was therefore clear to the mission that there was both scope and need to work harder to diminish the misunderstandings and tension evident at the CITES conference. In the light of its discussions, the mission concluded that the best way of promoting dialogue and improving understanding would be to promote a further meeting of key African elephant range states and other interested parties to prepare the ground for whatever might be proposed at the 1994 CITES conference.
Following the mission, we consulted extensively on the proposals for a further meeting, which were supported in principle by African states, our EC partners and other interested parties. We proposed a meeting covering the concerns of the SACIM countries and South Africa as well as those of the other African range states.
We hoped that such a meeting would provide an opportunity for southern African countries and range states from elsewhere in Africa to explain their concerns in a calmer climate than has been possible at CITES conferences.
We have since been trying to finalise an agenda on the basis I have outlined, but this has not proved to be an easy task. In particular, the SACIM countries have suggested that the main purpose of the discussion should be to explore the possibility of persuading others to accept the SACIM position on the reopening of the ivory trade.
While we recognise SACIM's particular problems and concerns, and agree that it is important that any meeting should devote a substantial part of the agenda to those concerns, other parties have indicated that any meeting should allow enough room for their perspectives and points of view to be considered alongside SACIM's. That must be right. The conservation of the African elephant is essentially an African issue, which will be resolved only if we can find a way forward that all parts of Africa can support.
We are now trying to draw up a balanced agenda that provides an adequate opportunity for all the regions of Africa to express their views on this complex and sensitive subject. I remain hopeful that we shall be able to find a basis for discussion that is acceptable to all those involved.
Some African countries have already made impressive progress in improving the management of their wildlife resources. In Kenya, for example, the Kenyan wildlife service, under Richard Leakey's leadership, has dramatically improved the management of Kenya's wildlife and its network of protected areas. Kenya has succeeded in virtually eliminating elephant poaching, and has made impressive strides in developing intelligence networks and increasing the involvement of local communities.
Kenya's experience has shown how much the conservation of Africa's elephants and other wildlife depends on national wildlife departments that are adequately resourced, well organised and well managed. The problem is that not all elephant range states have the resources and expertise that they need to monitor,

497
manage and control their elephant populations. That is why I acknowledged in Kyoto that the burden of conserving elephants for all our children should not fall on African countries alone. I was therefore very pleased to be able to announce during the conference that the Government were committing an additional £600,000 to support a number of elephant conservation projects in Africa.
Following the conference, we were able to establish a close and constructive dialogue with African countries with strategically important elephant populations, and with conservation groups experienced in setting up and managing elephant conservation projects. As a result, we identified worthwhile projects to strengthen the capacity of African wildlife departments to combat poaching, and to assist local communities to develop conservation measures.
We have provided support for, among others, the wildlife species protection department in Zambia; the Botswana wildlife department, to purchase equipment needed for anti-poaching activities; and a project to involve local communities more closely in the conservation and management of desert elephants in Namibia. We are also co-financing non-governmental organisations in the community-level Campfire programme of wildlife conservation in Zimbabwe. The support of local people in Africa is vital if long-term protection for endangered wildlife is to be sustained.
More generally, since 1990 the Government have contributed nearly £20 million to wildlife conservation projects in Africa through the overseas aid programme, many of which contribute directly or indirectly to elephant conservation.
Good progress has been made since the introduction of the CITES ivory trade ban at the beginning of 1990. The market for ivory has collapsed, and elephant poaching has been dramatically reduced. Elephant
498
populations are recovering. However, poaching is still not under control in a number of African countries—hence the fears of many that a resumption of legal trade in elephants, without watertight controls, could provide a cover for illegitimate activities. The continuing and appalling decline of rhino populations in Africa is testimony to that.
We have therefore welcomed moves to improve cross-border co-operation and the exchange of intelligence on the illegal wildlife trade. A conference held in Lusaka in December last year, attended by law enforcement experts from a number of African countries and other interested governmental and non-governmental agencies—including our Overseas Development Administration—proposed the establishment of a task force of law enforcement officers from a number of African countries to investigate and smash criminal networks involved in illegal wildlife trafficking. Negotiations on that proposal are continuing, and we very much hope that they will be successfully concluded during the course of 1994.
We have, I believe, demonstrated our commitment by providing cash for elephant conservation projects, and through the prominent part that we have played—and will continue to play—in international efforts to promote dialogue, improve understanding and develop consensus. We have always made it clear that we shall seek to maintain the ivory trade ban for as long as necessary; however, trade bans alone cannot guarantee the elephant's survival. We shall continue to work constructively with African elephant range states, our EC partners, NGOs, other CITES parties and national and international conservation bodies that share our concern for the future of these magnificent creatures, described by John Donne as "nature's great masterpiece".
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Two o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Land Ownership
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps his Department is taking to prepare land ownership statistics for England and Wales which will identify the level of domestic ownership of England and Wales.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There are no plans to produce such statistics at the present time.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when his Department intends to make the registration of land ownership in England and Wales compulsory.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Compulsory registration of title on sale was extended to the whole of England and Wales on 1 December 1990 under the provisions of the Land Registration Act 1925. The Government indicated in the citizens charter White Paper that they would explore options to complete the land register in the absence of a sale of title. Responses to the subsequent consultation paper issued by the Land Registry, "Completing the Land Register in England and Wales", are presently being assessed and will be taken into account in formulating future policy.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Annunciator
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee what facilities will be available to hon. Members on the new annunciator service.

  Mr. Waller
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) on 13 July,Official Report, column 444.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee on which dates the new annunciator service will be operational for each building of the parliamentary estate.

  Mr. Waller
  The new annunciator equipment, which was demonstrated to the House on 22 July, is currently undergoing acceptance tests. If those tests are successfully completed, the equipment is expected to come into operation, serving screens throughout the parliamentary estate, early in 1994.

  Data and Video Network
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee (1) by which date each building on the parliamentary estate will be cabled;
  198
  (2) when the Information Committee expects to report to the House on the provision of a parliamentary data and video network.

  Mr. Waller
  The Information Committee hopes to report on the parliamentary data and video network early in the new year. It intends to deal with the timing of cabling as part of that study.

  Word Processing Training
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee if he will undertake a questionnaire to gauge the demand from hon. Members for training courses in the use of word processors.

  Mr. Waller
  As part of its inquiry into the parliamentary data and video network the Committee has sent a questionnaire to all Members. The responses will be considered by the Committee as part of its deliberations which, it is hoped, will lead to a report to the House early in 1994.

  Questions and Answers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee what plans he has to include in the parliamentary on-line information system the full text of answers in entirety relating to parliamentary questions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waller
  The Library is in the process of upgrading the software and hardware for the parliamentary on-line information system (POLIS). When the upgrading is completed in spring 1994, the Library, in co-operation with the Department of the Official Report, intends to create a database containing the complete text of oral questions and debates.

  Providing the text of written answers to parliamentary questions in the POLIS database is also in the Library's development programme, but this involves complications resulting from the format of some answers.

  Vote Bundle
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee (1) if he will list the recommendations of the last report on the format of the Vote bundle that were(a) implemented and (b) not implemented; and if he will consider a further review of the format and content of the Vote bundle;

  (2) what proposals he has to rationalise the content of the Vote bundle or otherwise reduce its cost.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee of the Services Committee carried out a full investigation into the Vote bundle in 1991. Its three recommendations which have been implemented were:(a) the removal of Division lists (b) the removal of daily minutes of proceedings of statutory instruments Committees (c) the abolition of the Blue Order Book and its replacement by a White Order Book available on demand.

  I see no reason at present for a further review, but the Committee would of course consider carefully any specific new suggestions made by hon. Members.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee (1) if he will examine the possibility of producing a one-page daily agenda for the front of the Order Paper;
  199
  (2) if he will take steps to separate the list of written questions from the Vote bundle and make them available only on request.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  Both these suggestions were made by my hon. Friend to the former Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee of the Services Committee which decided not to recommend their adoption. I see no reason to reconsider these specific proposals at this stage.

  Rifle Range
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what is the cost of maintenance of the rifle range; what is the rate of use of the rifle range; and if he will conduct a cost-benefit assessment of its current usage.

  Mr. Channon
  I have asked the Director of Works to write to the hon. Member in respect of the maintenance costs of the range. The other points raised by the hon. Member are matters for the Houses of Parliament Sports and Social Club, which operates the range.

  New Palace Yard (Filming)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if the Committee will consider introducing proposals to amend the rules relating to photography in the Palace of Westminster so as to prohibit filming in New Palace Yard after 12 noon.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The Administration Committee has already agreed to review the regulations governing photography and filming in the Palace of Westminster. Consideration is expected to begin early in the new year, and I shall ensure that the issue raised by my hon. Friend is included in the Committee's deliberations.

  Members' Services
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if the Commission will institute a survey of Members to ascertain what additional services they would like to have provided.

  Mr. Beith
  It is for the domestic committees to maintain an oversight of the needs of hon. Members in consultation with House Departments, and to make recommendations for additional services on the basis of a considered study. Their proposals are then considered as necessary by the Finance and Services Committee and the Commission, as well as the House in the case of a major new service.

  The Commission has no plans to undertake a survey of the kind suggested by the hon. Member.

  Training for Members
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will consider bringing forward plans for induction courses for new hon. Members and in-service training for existing Members in conjunction with the Civil Service college; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I have been asked to reply.
  200
  Departments of the House carry out a variety of introductions to their services for new Members. In addition, all Members receive a Members' Handbook describing the services provided by House Departments and other organisations such as the Transport Office, the Post Office and the Gymnasium. If the hon. Member has any specific proposals for induction courses or in-service training, he should bring them to the attention of the Administration Committee.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consideration he has given to the establishment of a charitable foundation to(a) operate the national lottery and (b) distribute the funds from the national lottery; and what would be the financial effects of doing so.

  Mr. Sproat
  The question of a charitable foundation to operate the national lottery was debated extensively in both Houses during the passage of the legislation.(a) The licence to operate the lottery will be awarded by the Director General of the National Lottery after a competitive tender exercise designed to maximise the proceeds for good causes. There is no reason why a charitable foundation should not bid for the licence.

  (b) Any new body established to assess applications for lottery funds would need expertise in the areas of art, sport and heritage. Statutory bodies with this expertise already exist. Duplication of the functions of these bodies would be inefficient and reduce the national lottery proceeds available for good causes.

  Art Funding, London
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what has been the amount of art funding granted to projects covering the Greater London area in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Brooke
  Government funding for the arts in London is channelled through the Arts Council, and is provided both direct to clients and through the London Arts Board. The amount of Arts Council funding for the Greater London area—excluding national companies—in each of the last three years is as follows:

  £ million

  1992–93

  27·93

  1991–92

  23·39

  1990–91

  19·31

  In addition, aggregate funding for the national companies, most of which are based wholly or mainly in London, for each of the three years was: £62·64 million, 1992–93; £58·11 million, 1991–92; and £51·46 million, 1990–91.

  Arts Council
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what percentage of the Arts Council's budget is spent on administration; and what were the equivalent figures five and 10 years ago.
  201
  Mr. Brooke
  The percentage of the Arts Council's budget spent on administration in 1992–93, 1987–88 and 1982–83 is set out in the table:

  1992–93

  1987–88

  1982–83

  £

  £

  £

  Grant in aid

  221,200,000

  139,300,000

  91,300,000

  Administration of subsidies and services

  7,611,522

  4,826,000

  3,455,716

  Percentage spent on administration

  3·44

  3·46

  3·79

  Source: Audited accounts.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many clients per head of staff were handled by(a) the Arts Council and (b) its music department (i) 10 years ago and (ii) now.

  Mr. Brooke
  The number of clients per head of staff handled by the Arts Council and its music department 10 years ago and in 1992–93 are set out in the table:

  1992–93

  1982–83

  Total number of individual clients

  1,317

  923

  of which music

  303

  182

  Total number of staff (excluding trading)

  151

  214

  of which music

  8

  13

  Total number of grants per staff member

  8·72

  4·31

  Number of music grants per staff member

  37·88

  14·00

  London Orchestras
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the members of the committee to review the funding of the four London orchestras; and if he will also list their relevant qualifications for this task.

  Mr. Brooke
  The membership of the committee, together with relevant background information, is as follows:

  Sir Leonard Hoffman (chairman):
  A Lord Justice of Appeal and member of the board of English National Opera;

  Sir Brian Bailey:
  Member of the board of the Bournemouth Orchestras;

  Anthony Camden:
  Oboist and Dean of Music, Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts;

  Henry Fogel:
  Executive Director, Chicago Symphony Orchestra;

  Ian Horsburgh:
  Principal, Guildhall School of Music and Drama, and Vice Chairman of the London Arts Board;

  Tony Pender:
  Chairman of the Northern Sinfonia.

  Private Investment Projects
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list those public investment projects within his Department's responsibility which have attracted private capital and have been commenced since the 1992 autumn statement.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 2 November 1993]: A number of projects are currently under consideration, but none has yet reached the stage where any details can be given. By their nature, such projects involve a long lead-time, but we will make announcements about any major projects as soon as we are in a position to do so.
  202
  Many of the bodies sponsored by this Department—notably museums and galleries—have, for a number of years, sought and received private funding for building and other projects. In addition, the Department is involved in a number of business sponsorship schemes which encourages matching funding from the public and private sectors.

  Remembrance Service, Cenotaph
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans there are to privatise the arrangements for the service of remembrance at the Cenotaph.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 2 November 1993]: Provision of individual works services such as the cleaning and repair of the Cenotaph has for many years been managed and carried out by Building Management South East as part of the Property Services Agency. Now that Building Management South East Ltd. is in the private sector it is important that other firms have the opportunity to compete for its work. I will therefore be inviting competitive tenders in due course. There will be no change in the actual service of remembrance.

ENVIRONMENT

  Biological Diversity Convention
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects that the United Kingdom will ratify the biological diversity convention; and what outstanding obstacles there are to the ratification.

  Mr. Yeo
  We intend, with our EC partners, to ratify the convention on biological diversity by the end of 1993, given satisfactory progress towards securing safeguards against our concerns on the financial provisions of the convention.

  Housing, Liverpool
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money will be spent by housing action trusts in Liverpool over the next five years.

  Sir George Young
  The HATs' spending plans for the next three years will be finalised once the current public expenditure survey has been completed. An external financing limit for 1994–95 and indicative EFLs for the subsequent two years of this survey period will be set next month.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department takes into consideration EC objective 1 status when assessing levels of grant and standard spending assessment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Standard spending assessments are the Government's assessment of the appropriate amount of revenue expenditure by each local authority taking account of its physical, demographic and social characteristics. The calculation of SSAs take no account of the likely level of funding from European Community institutions.

  Under arrangements agreed with the European Commission, my Department will provide public expenditure cover, in the form of supplementary credit approvals, automatically and in full, for forecast European regional development fund receipts arising on projects which fall within the "other services block", my Department's urban initiatives and projects for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage has the policy responsibility. To the extent that an authority chooses to use part of its allocation of basic credit approvals to provide matching funding within a project using ERDF grant, then the revenue consequences of these credit approvals will have been reflected in SSAs in the usual way.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria are applied for assessing spending on(a) refuse collection, (b) environmental health and (c) planning; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Refuse collection, environmental health and planning control are among those services included in the standard spending assessment for "All Other Services" at the district level. The formula for the distribution of resources for "All Other Services" is set out in the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1993–94 approved by Parliament in February 1993.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make it his policy to include(a) economic and (b) social deprivation indices in the standard spending assessment; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to base future standard spending assessments on research into the variations in spending needs between different authorities; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will make it his policy to include in the additional needs index a disability indicator of need in both special and ordinary schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have recently completed a review of the system of standard spending assessments. As part of the review we have considered the inclusion in standard spending assessments of a wide range of indicators, including measures of economic deprivation and disability. The existing system of standard spending assessments is based on statistical evidence and research into the factors which lead to variation in the costs faced by local authorities.

  Proposals for standard spending assessments for 1994–95 will be announced later this autumn as part of the provisional revenue support grant settlement.

  Poor-health Areas
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria his Department applies when assessing the needs of areas of poor health; whether age is a factor; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have recently completed a review of the system of standard spending assessments. As part of the review we have considered the inclusion of a range of health indicators, including standard mortality ratios, taking account of variations in the age structure of the local population.

  Work on the review has now finished and my right hon. Friend will announce the outcome later in the autumn as part of his proposals for revenue support grant for 1994–95.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has received from the Local Government Commission and the local authority associations of the transitional costs of local government reform in England.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Local Government Commission has included in its reports on each of the review areas in the first tranche, estimates of transitional costs associated with its recommendations. Neither the Association of District Councils nor the Association of County Councils has submitted estimates of any such costs. My officials have, however, been holding technical discussions with representatives of the ADC and ACC on the implications of local government reorganisation, including any potential transitional costs.

  Council Tax
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the original estimate of the council tax base in Barnet and Wandsworth; and what is the latest estimate.

  Mr. Baldry
  The council tax bases used for the 1993–94 local government settlement, derived from the proposed valuation lists sent to the authorities between 15 November and 1 December 1992, were 128,281 and 105,392 band D2 adult equivalents for Barnet and Wandsworth respectively.

  The latest estimates, derived from the valuation lists available to authorities on 7 June 1993, are 130,459 and 110,334 band D equivalents for Barnet and Wandsworth respectively.

  Refrigerant Containers
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultation his Department has undertaken with British aerosol manufacturers and users about the terms of the draft Environmental Protection (Non-Refillable Refrigerant Containers) Regulations.

  Mr. Yeo
  My Department issued a consultation paper in March 1992 setting out the proposals for these regulations. The British Aerosol Manufacturers Association (BAMA) was among the organisations consulted. Officials have since discussed the proposed regulations directly with representatives of BAMA.

  Housing
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table for the latest available year showing for each local housing authority in England(a) the total amount of capital receipts, (b) the reserve proportion thereof, (c) numbers in temporary accommodation and (d) the cost of temporary accommodation, with totals for London boroughs, metropolitan boroughs, shire districts, and England.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have today placed in the Library of the House tables giving final figures of(a) total receipts and (b) reserved receipts for 1991–92 and corresponding provisional figures for 1992–93 for each local housing authority in England.

  My Department does not collect information on the total numbers of those homeless households which have been placed by local authorities in temporary accommodation having been accepted by them as homeless, nor on the costs of the various types of temporary accommodation other than bed and breakfast accommodation.

  Data on the total numbers of households placed in temporary accommodation and some data on the costs are, however, collected by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. The latest information is for 1991–92 and is published in "Homelessness Statistics 1991–92 Actuals", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Radiation
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what advice he has received from the National Radiological Protection Board on the annual collective dose of radiation worldwide from(a) background radiation, fallout and non-nuclear industry sources, (b) medical exposure and (c) the operation of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what advice he has received from the National Radiological Protection Board on the annual collective dose of radiation to the whole United Kingdom population from all sources now; by what amount that dose would increase if THORP was operating; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Details of the annual collective doses of radiation from all sources to the United Kingdom population are published in the National Radiation Protection Board's (NRPB) "Radiation Exposure of the UK Population—1993 Review". Information on the collective doses to the world's population from all sources is published in "Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionising Radiation UNSCEAR 1988 Report to the General Assembly, United Nations". At the request of the Chief Medical Officer's Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE), NRPB has published estimates of the collective doses arising from proposed Sellafield discharges. These calculations indicate that the operation of THORP would increase the annual collective dose to the United Kingdom population by less than 0.003 per cent. and the world's population by less than 0.0006 per cent. I am arranging for copies of these publications to be placed in the House Library.

  Tower Blocks
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a list of tower blocks erected in England by local authorities for housing purposes,(a) currently in occupation or (b) demolished or awaiting demolition with details in the year in which approvals for construction and/or financing was given by his Department, and the number of dwellings in each block, where this occurred in 1963 and thereafter.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested is not collected by this Department.

  Rents
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for each financial year since 1978 the average unrebated rent for(a) local authority tenants, (b) housing association tenants for each local housing authority in England, with sub-totals for London boroughs, metropolitan boroughs, and shire districts, and England, in current prices, constant prices, and with a constant price index where 1978 equals 100.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have today placed in the Library a table showing the average local authority weekly unrebated rent for each housing authority for each financial year from 1988–89 to 1992–93, both at current and constant prices with the latter also expressed as an index with 1988–89 equal to 100. This information could only be provided for years before 1988–89 at disproportionate cost.

  From 1978 to 1989 the information for housing association tenants can be found in the publication "Statistical Note for Rent Officers: Statistics of Rent Registrations by Rent Registration Area and Rent Assessment Committee Determinations by Panel Area". From 1990 the information on registered fair housing association rents can be found in the publication "Rent Officer Statistics"; information on new lettings by registered housing association can be found in the National Federation of Housing Associations' quarterly bulletin; and information on rents for the whole housing association stock can be found in the report "Housing Associations in 1992" published by the Housing Corporation.

  Copies of all these publications are in the Library.

  Housing, Newcastle
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the present strategic guidance for the provision of new dwellings in Tyne and Wear; what meetings have been held with the city of Newcastle upon Tyne on this matter; and what allowance has been made for the need for more student accommodation in the city of Newcastle upon Tyne.

  Mr. Baldry
  The strategic guidance for Tyne and Wear, published in 1989, stated that the five unitary development plans should provide for a basic requirement of 30,100 dwellings to be built between the beginning of 1988 and the end of 2001. The necessity to review and roll forward this strategic guidance has been discussed at a number of meetings with officers from the city of Newcastle upon Tyne as part of a continuing dialogue. The need for more student accommodation in the city of Newcastle upon Tyne will be one of the factors taken into account when setting new guidelines for housebuilding beyond the year 2001.

  House Renovation Grants
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes he proposes to make to the house renovation grant system following his recent consultation exercise.

  Sir George Young
  After considering the response to the consultation paper on the future of private housing renewal programmes, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have today laid before the House Renovation Grant Limit Order, under which the upper limit for mandatory renovation grants to owners, tenants and landlords in England will be £20,000. The order will come into force on 14 January 1944. I propose no change, for the moment, to the Exchequer subsidy rate in England of 60 per cent. or to the test of applicants' resources.

  The consultation paper included longer-term options which I am considering further. The Government's objective is to ensure that the resources available for private housing renewal are targeted effectively.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is making an announcement today covering arrangements for Wales.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in implementing the system of local authority air pollution control introduced under part 8 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Yeo
  By the end of March this year, some 13,000 applications for authorisation had been received by local authorities, of which over 5,500 had been decided. Only 12 appeals were received by my Department during the first two years of operation of the new air pollution controls.

  I am pleased to say that the evidence from the data that have been collected and from a review of 25 local authorities conducted by my Department is that local authorities are getting on well with tackling their new responsibilities. None the less, there remains a heavy workload to determine the outstanding applications and to ensure that the necessary improvement are made by operators.

  Housing, Brent
  Sir Rhodes Boyson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made with the proposal for a housing action trust in Brent.

  Sir George Young
  I am pleased to announce that I have decided, after careful consideration of tenants' views and of the detailed feasibility study for the estate, that there should be a ballot of tenants on the proposal to establish a housing action trust for the Stonebridge estate in Brent. This is a further example of the Government's determination to tackle the problems of rundown estates and improve their management in close consultation with the people who live there.

  I shall announce the ballot date in due course. In the meantime, further consultations with the tenants will take place, so that they can ask the questions and receive the answers which will enable them to understand the implications for them of the establishment of a housing action trust.
  208
  I have decided to appoint Mr. Tony Wade MBE and Mr. Clive Lloyd CBE, respectively, as prospective chairman and deputy chairman for the trust. They will carry forward the further consultations with tenants and help prepare for the major tasks which the housing action trust will undertake, if established.

  Market Franchise Rights
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had from Manchester city council in regard to proposals on market franchise rights; what reply he is sending; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 October 1993]: We have received representations from the council objecting to the Government's proposals. The representations are being carefully considered along with other consultees' views.

  Correspondence
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to reply to the letters of 3 October and 14 October from Mr. N. T. P. Murphy, a constituent of the right hon. Member for Copeland, concerning Nirex.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 29 October 1993]: My officials replied to Mr. Murphy on 3 November 1993.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the total gross public spending for each year since 1981–82, and the projected expenditure for each year to 1995–96, in 1992–93 prices, for the urban development corporations.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 2 November 1993]: The urban development corporations' programmes are supported by grant in aid, receipts from their activities and receipts from the European Community. Actual grant in aid paid to the urban development corporations for each year from 1981–82 and the projected public expenditure plans to 1995–96, at 1992–93 prices, are set out in the table.

  Year

  Actual expenditure £ million

  1981–82

  37·1

  1982–83

  61·9

  1983–84

  94·8

  1984–85

  88·4

  1985–86

  81·9

  1986–87

  89·3

  1987–88

  1160·2

  1988–89

  254·7

  1989–90

  476·8

  1990–91

  607·5

  1991–92

  601·4

  1992–93

  515·8

  Public expenditure plans (1992–93 prices)

  1993–94

  349·2

  1994–95

  273·2

  1995–96

  255·3

  1 The figures include provision for the docklands light railway from 1987–88 onwards.

  Urban Regeneration Agency
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the projected expenditure for each year to 1995–96 in 1992–93 prices, for the Urban Regeneration Agency.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 2 November 1993]: The Urban Regeneration Agency's programme will be supported by grant in aid, receipts from its activities and receipts from the European Community. As the agency has yet to be established, the receipts it may generate cannot be predicted accurately. Payments from the European Community will depend upon approval for projects under the European regional development fund community support frameworks which have yet to be determined. Public expenditure plans for the grant in aid to the Urban Regeneration Agency, derived from the 1993 departmental annual reports and expressed in 1992–93 prices, are: set out in the table.

  Public Expenditure Plans (1992–93 prices)

  Year

  £ million

  1994–95

  169

  1995–96

  190

HEALTH

  Service Quality
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans she has to ensure that existing knowledge about effectiveness is used to improve service quality;

  (2) how the Government's autumn initiative on quality in purchasing will ensure that existing knowledge about effectiveness is used to improve service quality.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health's research and development division has published its strategy, "Research for Health", part of which relates to the dissemination of existing knowledge on effectiveness of treatment. A unit that will provide a focal point for review and dissemination of research will shortly be set up.

  In addition the Department has commissioned a series of effective health care bulletins. Each bulletin consists of a systematic review and synthesis of literature on clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of health service interventions. These bulletins are designed to aid purchasers in drawing up effective contracts.

  As part of the national health service research and development programme, the Cochrane centre has been set up in Oxford, to establish a database of controlled trials, and to provide an information service.

  The Department of Health's central health outcomes unit and the United Kingdom outcomes clearing house in Leeds have been set up to develop and promote the assessment of outcome of services. A recently published departmental consultation document on population health outcome indicators is based on the collation of existing knowledge about effectiveness.

  In addition clinical audit has been established whereby procedures used for diagnosis, care and treatment are compared against standards of proven effectiveness, with the aim of improving quality of patient care. As a part of
  210
  this, the health professionals are currently working with the Department to develop nationally agreed guidelines, based on knowledge about effectiveness and appropriateness of services, for use in purchasing high-quality care.

  Copies of these documents will be placed in the Library.

  NHS Race Unit
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the remit of the new NHS race unit; what are its planned staffing level and budget; and where it is to be sited.

  Mr. Sackville
  The remit of the national health service ethnic health unit is described in the executive letter sent to NHS general managers and chief executives—EL(93)89, —copies of which will be placed in the Library. The letter explains that the unit is being set up"to help to ensure that black people and people from different ethnic backgrounds derive full benefit from the Health of the Nation strategy, from local health purchasing policies, the Patient's Charter, the Care in the Community initiatives and the developing role of primary care".

  The unit will begin operation this November and will have a budget of £500,000 for the remainder of the financial year and a staff complement of not more than six people. Since the unit will be directly accountable to the NHS Management Executive, it, too, will be based in Leeds.

  Smoking
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the projects commissioned since 1975 by her Department and by its predecessor Department to evaluate methods of getting smokers to give up smoking; if she will list for each project the name and institution of the principal investigator and the titles of the reports in which the findings were published; and if she will place a copy of each report in the Library.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health and its predecessor has participated in a number of programmes of basic social/behavioural research on factors affecting smoking habits, and several large, ad hoc research studies. These provide a wealth of information on which more specific, targeted smoking cessation interventions are based.

  A list of the studies will be placed in the Library.

  The studies are listed and those marked* were concerned specifically with the evaluation of smoking cessation interventions. Also listed are three specific evaluation projects which are currently in planning.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the projects commissioned since 1975 by the Health Education Authority and its predecessor, the Health Education Council, to evaluate methods of getting smokers to give up smoking, and for each project the name and institution of the principal investigator and the titles of the reports in which the findings were published; and if she will place a copy of each report in the Library.

  Mr. Sackville
  Little of the research work of the Health Education Authority or its predecessor the Health Education Council has been specifically devoted to evaluation of smoking cessation interventions but many of the studies carried out by or on behalf of these bodies
  211
  contain information on the social/behaviourial factors affecting smoking habits. They therefore form the basis for specific targeted smoking cessation interventions.

  A full list of Health Education Council and Health Education Authority publications on smoking will be placed in the Library.

  Nuclear Emergency Planning
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued to health authorities on their expected role in nuclear emergency planning and the distribution of potassium iodate tablets; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department's guidance to English health authorities on their role in nuclear emergency planning is contained in the circular HC(89)8 and its annex, copies of which are available in the Library. Earlier this month, the circular was amended to include revised guidance to health authorities on planning for the distribution of potassium iodate tablets for use in the event of a nuclear emergency. Copies of this amendment will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. P. B. Horsburgh
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date Mr. P. B. Horsburgh will relinquish his position as chairman of the Doncaster Healthcare NHS trust; what reasons he gave for leaving his post; what position within the national health service he will be taking up; if he will be eligible for severance pay; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Mr. Peter Horsburgh's appointment as chairman of the Doncaster Healthcare national health service trust ends on 30 November 1993. He has no appointment pending to any other non-executive post in the region. Severance pay is not appropriate.

  GP Fund Holders
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action she will take regarding the waiting time policy being operated by the George Eliot hospital, Nuneaton, with respect to general practitioner fund holders;

  (2) what measures she will take to prevent disparities in waiting time developing between fund-holding and non-fund-holding practices in the Coventry and Warwickshire area.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Joint guidance—EL(91)84—issued by the Department and the profession, copies of which will be placed in the Library, makes it clear that contracts offered to one purchaser should not disadvantage the patients of another. National health service managers are responsible for ensuring that this guidance is implemented locally. The George Eliot hospital is meeting its contracts with the district health authority. General practitioner fund holders, like all purchasers, are free to purchase spare hospital capacity, on behalf of their patients, where this is available.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide details of the number of fund-holding general practitioners in each of the London boroughs in terms of numbers and as a percentage of general practitioners.
  212
  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number and percentage of general practitioner fund holders that have spent more than their budgets for 1992–93.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information will not be available until final accounts have been audited and the information collected at the end of November.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the items general practitioner fund holders can spend their savings on.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The purposes for which general practitioner fund holder savings may be used are clearly set out in regulation 24 of the National Health Service (Fund-holding Practices) Regulations 1993, Statutory Instrument No. 567 1993, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the extent to which general practitioner fund-holding patients are being treated ahead of non-fundholding patients with the same clinical need.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  All emergencies are treated immediately.

  Joint guidance issued by the Department and the profession—EL(91)84—and a letter from the national health service chief executive about urgent issues dated 22 February 1993 require hospitals to hold common waiting lists for urgent and seriously ill patients and to give urgent cases priority within local timescales. NHS managers and clinicians are responsible for implementing this guidance locally. Copies of the guidance, and the executive letter, will be placed in the Library.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will estimate the number of general practitioners and general practitioner fund holders who own their premises.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is not available centrally on which such an estimate could be based.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her oral statement of 21 October,Official Report, columns 398–400, if she will make a statement on the role and position of general practitioner fund holders within the restructured NHS.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  General practitioner fund holding has been one of the major successes of the reformed national health service. More than 6,000 GPs in 1,200 practices are now fund holders. From next April, over a third of the population will be served by fund-holding GPs. This reflects the real achievements in improving patient care. The new arrangements for district health authorities and family health services authorities will not undermine the role of GP fund holders in providing a competitive edge in purchasing.

  Cold-related Diseases
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in Britain died of cold-related diseases in each of the last five years.
  213
  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available.

  VAT (Domestic Fuel)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will conduct an analysis of the health implications of VAT on fuel.

  Mr. Sackville
  No. We are aware of analysis aimed at predicting the effect on household consumption of fuel, and of evidence concerning the effect on health of variation in domestic ambient temperatures. It is not possible, however, to combine these data to make any reliable inference about the health consequences of change in the cost of fuel.

  Disciplinary Procedures
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures exist in hospital trusts to ensure proper examination of wrongful or inappropriate conduct of consultants and other senior clinical staff.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Trusts are required to follow the existing arrangements in relation to the handling of clinical complaints against national health service consultants and other senior clinical staff set out in departmental circular HC(88)37, copies of which are available in the Library. It is for trusts to establish arrangements for investigating other allegations of misconduct by consultants or other senior clinical staff.

  Osteoporosis
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets she has for the reduction in osteoporosis; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  None specifically. However, alongside specific interventions such as hormone replacement therapy, available through general practitioners and clinics, important measures which should help reduce the incidence of osteoporosis include increasing levels of physical activity, cutting down excess alcohol, avoiding cigarette smoking, and eating a balanced diet. We are promoting all these lifestyle measures through the health strategy "The Health of the Nation", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Patient Expenditure
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what increase in patient expenditure is experienced within the NHS during January to March, over that of the months from July to September.

  Mr. Sackville
  From the information available to the Department, we estimate that hospital and community health services expenditure in the months of January, February and March 1993 was between 4 and 5 per cent. higher than that in the months of July, August and September 1992. The hon. Member should note that this information is based on unaudited management information as the audited accounts of health authorities do not include the figures required.

  Consultants
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the annual cost of the distinction award system for hospital consultants; and what plans she has to increase openness and public accountability for the scheme.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 27 October at column 694.

  Chrysoidine
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy on the use of the maggot dye chrysoidine and the link between it and cancer.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Committee on the Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment considered the dye chrysoidine up to 1985. On the last occasion, the committee reaffirmed its earlier advice that it would be prudent for anglers who wanted to use chrysoidine to avoid skin contact with the dye. The Government conveyed this advice to the National Federation of Anglers and the angling press at that time.

  Winter Hospital Admissions
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage increase in patient admissions occurs in the winter months, January to March, as opposed to the summer months, July to September.

  Mr. Sackville
  Providers reported that in 1992–93 the number of finished consultant episodes in the general and acute specialties in January to March was about 3 per cent. higher than in July to September.

  Surgery (Consent)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is in force laying out the procedures doctors and surgeons should carry out if they discover cases where they have reason to believe informed consent for radical surgery has not been obtained; and who has the responsibility of ensuring those procedures are properly carried out in(a) directly managed units and (b) hospital trusts.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is for doctors and health professionals themselves to ensure that valid consent is obtained from their patients for any treatment proposed. The common law requirement for consent is reflected in guidance issued by the National Health Service Management Executive and by health professionals' own ethical codes. Treatment of a patient capable of giving consent, without obtaining consent, could leave health professionals, health authorities or trusts open to legal action.

  Individual members of staff in the NHS have a right and duty to raise with their employer any matters of concern they may have about health service issues concerned with the delivery of care to a patient in their authority, trust or unit. Guidance issued to the NHS, EL(93)51, copies of which are available in the Library, recommends that local policies and procedures be introduced to allow these rights and duties to be fully and properly met.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines she regards as being in force for the obtaining of informed consent for radical surgery.
  215
  Mr. Sackville
  Guidance on consent to examination and treatment was issued to the national health service by the NHS Management Executive in August 1990, HC(90)22, copies of which are available in the Library. It advises that patients have the right under common law to give or withhold consent. Sufficient information must be given to patients to ensure that they understand the nature, consequences and any substantial risks of the treatment proposed.

  Diabetes
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the extent to which there is a shortage of specialist dieticians to counter diabetes; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The numbers of dieticians working in the national health service has grown from 1,140 in 1987 to 1,410 in 1992. It is for purchasers and providers to determine the numbers of dieticians required to provide an effective service to people with diabetes.

  Suicide
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what support is being given to voluntary organisations to meet the target set in the "Health of the Nation" regarding the rate of suicide.

  Mr. Bowis
  In the mental illness field, more than 40 grants are being made to some 28 voluntary bodies at a total cost of £2 million in 1992–93. Most of these organisations provide help and support for mentally ill people in the community and make a contribution towards meeting our "Health of the Nation" target to reduce the rate of suicide.

  Nebulisers
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to make the prescriptions of nebulisers available on the NHS; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Hand-operated nebulisers are already available on general practitioner prescription and powered nebulisers may be prescribed by consultants for patients in hospital and in the community. No changes are planned in these arrangements.

  Welfare Milk Tokens
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when welfare milk tokens ceased to be valid for exchange for soya, goat's, fully skimmed and long-life milks; and what were the reasons for the change.

  Mr. Sackville
  There has been no recent change in the products available under the welfare food scheme. Milk tokens have never been valid for soya, goat's or fully skimmed milk. Long life—UHT—milk is obtainable for milk tokens.

  Perioperative Deaths
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to require all surgeons and anaesthetists to provide audit data for national confidential inquiry into perioperative death.
  216
  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 28 October at column 766. We strongly support the participation of all clinicians in medical audit and in national confidential inquiries, but to be effective we believe that this must be done on a voluntary basis. All surgeons and anaesthetists are encouraged to take part in the national confidential inquiry into perioperative deaths by their respective royal colleges.

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the Government's response to the report of the national confidential inquiry into perioperative deaths published in September.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have welcomed the report of the national confidential enquiry into perioperative deaths—NCEPOD—and its general conclusion that across the range of specialties covered, patients can rely on excellent standards. The report acknowledges that progress has been made to resolve a number of problems identified in earlier enquiries and provides important messages about high standards of surgical and anaesthetic care in this country. We are committed to a programme of work to improve the quality of patient information, including the development of a single patient identifier to provide a means for health event linkage.

  Through careful assessment of clinical standards this enquiry helps to ensure that the medical profession retains a critical approach to its work. The Government wish to encourage all surgeons and anaesthetists to continue to support NCEPOD, and national health service managers and the profession to act on the results. We expect all doctors to participate in peer review activities, and we provide continuing financial support for medical and clinical audit, as well as for NCEPOD. In these ways doctors can develop confidence in their clinical performance and identify areas where they can further develop their expertise.

  NHS Management
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her oral answer of 26 October,Official Report, column 678, what percentage of the total cost is represented by (a) the management allowance for general practitioner budget holders, (b) the administrative costs to the FHSA, DHA, trusts, RHA, management executive and her Department, and (c) the computer allowance for fund holders.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  On average, the management allowance represents 2.1 per cent. of general practitioner fundholder budgets and the average computer reimbursement costs associated with managing a fund are 0.5 per cent. Administration costs of other national health service bodies associated with fund holding are not identified separately.

  Generic Prescribing
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost per prescription of packaging generic drugs in the same way as branded drugs.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.
  217
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to ensure that generically prescribed drugs have the same information for patients as brand prescribed drugs.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The United Kingdom labelling and leaflet regulations apply equally to all licensed medicines. Labels and patient information leaflets supplied with generically prescribed medicines will have to contain all the information required by regulations.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultation she intends to undertake, pursuant to her oral statement of 21 October,Official Report, columns 398–400, on proposals to reduce the number of regional health authorities from 14 to eight from 1 April 1994.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A consultation document has been published setting out my proposals to determine new national health service regions and to establish eight new regional health authorities to replace the existing 14. The consultation document is being sent to all Members of Parliament, NHS bodies, community health councils, local authorities, health service trade unions and other interested organisations. Copies will also be placed in the Library. The consultation document invites views on the proposals by 15 January 1994.

  Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she gave permission for the construction of a multi-storey car park at the RVI Hospital Trust, Newcastle; how much capital she has made available and in which financial years; and whether this is included in the capital programme of the Leayes wing at the RVI Trust.

  Mr. Sackville
  Permission for the construction of a multi-storey car park at the Royal Victoria infirmary and Associated Hospitals national health service trust has not yet been granted.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what capital resources she has committed and in respect of which financial years for the unification of opthalmology services at the RVI Trust Newcastle; what sums have been committed; and what plans she has to review this commitment in the light of proposals that may emerge from the current review of Newcastle hospital services by the Newcastle district health authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Capital funds of £7· million have been committed to the unification of ophthalmology service at the Royal Victoria Infirmary and Associated Hospitals national health service trust. The funds are phased over two years, with completion of the scheme in 1995. To date, £244,000 has been committed for planning costs.

  Proposals following the outcome of the review of acute services in Newcastle by Newcastle district health authority are awaited.

  NHS Corporate Governance Review Panel
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the membership, date of appointment and remuneration and other allowable expenses of the NHS corporate governance review panel, together with other positions within the NHS that each member holds.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on 12 July at columns 386–87. Members of the corporate governance task force are not remunerated for the assistance they are giving, but travel and subsistence expenses are payable at civil service rates. The members of the four working groups of the task force and their other positions are as listed.

  Group 1: Public Service Values

  Sir Bryan Askew (Chairman)

  Chairman: Yorkshire Regional Health Authority

  Andrew Wall

  Senior Fellow: Health Services Management Centre, Birmingham University

  Anthony Merifield

  Head of Public Appointments: Cabinet Office

  Chris Vellenoweth

  Special Projects Advisor: National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts

  Rabbi Julia Neuberger

  Chairman: Camden and Islington Community Health Services

  National Health Service Trust

  Ann Kelly

  Non-executive: Royal Berkshire and Battle NHS Trust

  Laurie Caple

  Chief Executive: Northumbria Ambulance Services NHS Trust

  Group 2: Matching The Roles and Functions of Chairmen and Non Executive Directors with their Part Time Commitment

  Dr. Stuart Burgess (Chairman)

  Chairman: Oxford RHA

  Professor Chris Ham

  Director: Health Services Management Centre, Birmingham University

  Steven Campion

  Performance Manager: Wessex RHA

  Elspeth Metcalfe

  Chairman: Hereford and Worcester FHSA

  Roger Hoyle

  National Health Service Management Executive Outpost Director: South Western

  Dr. Charlotte Williamson

  Vice Chairman: York Health Services NHS Trust

  Derek Smith

  Chief Executive: Kings Healthcare NHS Trust

  Group 3: Induction and Training of Chairmen, Non-Executive Director and Boards as a Whole

  Mike Marchment (Chairman)

  Chief Executive: Premier Health NHS Trust

  Michael West

  Occupational Psychologist: Sheffield University

  John Spiers

  Chairman: Brighton Healthcare NHS Trust

  Angela Sealey

  Chairman: Basingstoke and North Hampshire Health Authority

  Stuart Haywood

  Chairman: of the Committee of Management, The Retreat Hospital, York

  Philip Hunt

  Director: National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts

  Dr. Tina Townsend

  Director: NHS Training Directorate

  Group 4: Finance and Performance Reporting

  Ken Punt (Chairman)

  219

  Senior Fellow and Head of Centre for Healthcare Financial Management: Health Services Management Unit

  John Sherring

  Regional Director: Audit Commission, West Midlands

  Jane Wesson

  Non-executive Director: Wakefield Health Authority

  Paul Lilley

  Director of Finance: East Gloucestershire NHS Trust

  Simon Cussons

  Chairman: Macclesfield HA

  Viral Haemorrhagic Fever
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision she has made for viral haemorrhagic fever; at what locations in-patient provision against the possibility of this condition has been made; and at which locations in the last five years such provision has been discontinued.

  Mr. Sackville
  Patients with, or with suspected, viral haemorrhagic fever, are treated in high security infectious disease units; these units are funded directly by the Department of Health. There is presently one such unit with provision for four patients per year at Coppetts Wood hospital, north London. Discussions on the possibility of upgrading a similar unit in Newcastle are presently taking place. A unit at Fazakerley hospital in Liverpool closed in 1992.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what dedicated in-patient provision has been made for the treatment of HIV/AIDS; at which locations such provision has been made; and what additional in-patient provision she expects to make.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. Funding for the treatment and care of people with HIV and AIDS is included in the revenue funding allocated to regional health authorities each year. Regions and health districts then determine the type and level of service provision in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what capital investment has been made, or is committed, into the HIV/AIDS infectious diseases complex at Newcastle general hospital; and when any new or refurbished facilities are expected to open;

  (2) what were the capital and other costs associated with the Scids immune deficiency unit at Newcastle general hospital; how many patients this unit is expected to treat each year; and when it is expected to open.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Crute, the chairman of Newcastle health authority, for further details.

  Radium Treatment
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she has issued on the decommissioning of sites and buildings where high-dose radium treatment machines have been installed; what the planned life of such machines is expected to be; how long after the use of such machines has ceased she expects to wait before decommissioning can begin; and whether sites and buildings containing such defunct machinery will require extra security.

  Mr. Sackville
  Radium has been replaced as a radioactive source in radiotherapy machines by safer materials such as cobalt and iridium. Hospitals using such sources are registered with Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution—Department of the Environment—who provide guidance on safe handling. Replacement or removal of sources is carried out by approved contractors as part of the national disposal service. Hospitals also appoint local radiation protection advisers who implement the requirements of the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1985. Expected equipment lifetimes can be at least 15 years with a further 10 years maintenance support if required. However, existing machines are now being replaced by linear accelerators, which generate treatment beams without the need for radioactive sources and pose no radiation hazard when turned off. The existing disposal service imposes no undue delays or risk of contamination of premises.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of control assistants, using whole-time equivalents, for each ambulance service in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information available is shown in the table. Separate figures for control assistants are not available centrally.

  Control assistants and ambulance officers at 30 September (whole-time equivalents by region)

  1990

  1991

  1992

  ENGLAND TOTAL

  2,780

  2,340

  2,390

  Northern region

  180

  170

  180

  Yorkshire region

  240

  220

  220

  Trent region

  290

  280

  270

  East Anglian region

  130

  130

  120

  North West Thames region

  80

  40

  40

  North East Thames region

  70

  70

  70

  South East Thames region

  80

  120

  120

  South West Thames region

  100

  100

  100

  Wessex region

  140

  140

  140

  Oxford region

  130

  130

  130

  South Western region

  220

  220

  220

  West Midlands region

  340

  260

  320

  Date of journeys

  Places visited

  Purpose of visit

  Accompanying officals

  Total department expenditure £

  Overseas visits by Secretary of State

  4–5 May 1992

  Geneva

  WHO Meeting of Ministers

  1

  691

  14–15 May 1992

  Brussels

  EC Health Council Meeting of Ministers

  3

  1,167

  3 August 1992

  Copenhagen

  United Kingdom EC Presidency Ministers Meeting

  2

  1,335

  20 September 1992

  Madrid

  United Kingdom EC Presidency Ministers Meeting

  2

  1,385

  222

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Mersey region

  120

  90

  90

  North Western region

  240

  200

  170

  London ambulance service

  410

  170

  210

  Notes:

  1. Separate figures for control assistants and ambulance officers are not available centrally. These two groups of ambulance staff are aggregated for central pay information purposes.

  2. The figures include staff in ambulance trusts.

  3. Figures for individual ambulance services are not available centrally.

  4. The figure shown for Northern region in 1991 is a corrected one from previously published figures.

  5. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  6. Figures fell between 1990 and 1991 due largely to a number of ambulance officers taking up separate senior manager terms as well as a reduction in control assistants in response to a fall in the need for patient transport services in the London ambulance service.

  Sources:

  For 1990: the Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  For 1991 and 1992: the Department of Health form KM49.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of ambulance staff in England employed by the NHS in 1990, 1991 and 1992, using whole-time equivalents.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 21 October 1993]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Ambulance Staff in National Health Service Employing Authorities and Trusts

  18,130

  17,630

  17,680

  All figures are at 30 September and are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Figures fell between 1990 and 1991 due largely to a number of ambulance officers taking up separate senior manager terms and a fall in the demand for Patient Transport Services in the London Ambulance Service.

  Source:

  For 1990: Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  For 1991 and 1992: Department of Health form KM 49.

  Note: The figure shown for 1991 is a corrected one from previously published figures.

  Ministers' Overseas Journeys
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what journeys abroad, involving public expenditure, she and other Ministers in the Department have made since 9 April 1992; what were the dates of the journeys and the places visited; what was the purpose of the journey in each case; by whom the Minister was accompanied, and what additional public expenditure was involved; and what was the total cost of each journey made abroad by each Minister.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 26 October 1993]: The information available is shown in the table:
  223

  Date of journeys

  Places visited

  Purpose of visit

  Accompanying officials

  Total department expenditure £

  13–14 October 1992

  Cologne Holland

  United Kingdom EC Presidency Health Ministers Meetings

  2

  857

  12–13 November 1992

  Brussels

  EC Health Council Meeting of Ministers

  1

  1,867

  3 March 1993

  Copenhagen

  WHO Ministers Meeting

  3

  2,557

  3–8 April 1993

  Russia, Kazakhstan

  Trade Mission

  5

  3,543

  7–17 September 1993

  Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, Perth,, Sydney, Hong Kong

  Trade Mission—Health Care Industries

  4

  131,000

  18 October 1993

  Brussels

  To promote London as a site for the European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMEA)

  3

  11,200

  Overseas visits by Minister for Health

  5 October 1992

  Dublin

  United Kingdom EC Presidency Health Ministers Meetings

  Private Secretary

  501

  12–13 October 1992

  Brussels, Rome

  United Kingdom EC Presidency Health Ministers Meeting

  1

  1,010

  18 October 1992

  Larnaca

  10th Commonwealth Private Secretary Health Ministers Conference

  1

  2,825

  12–13 November 1992

  Brussels

  EC Health Council Meeting of Ministers

  1

  547

  26–27 May 1993

  Brussels

  EC Health Council Meeting of Ministers

  1

  873

  Overseas Visits by Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Health) (Mr. Sackville)

  17 June 1993

  Milan (Lombardy)

  Promoting United Kingdom waste incineration products and to bid for United Kingdom siting of European Medicines Evaluation Agency

  1

  611

  Overseas Visits by Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Community) (Mr. Bowis)

  30 March 19932

  Paris

  To address a conference on Management issues in Psychiatry sponsored by British drugs industry

  1

  574

  29 August-5 September 1993

  South Africa

  Trade Mission to promote British Medical Industry (Health Promotion)

  2

  111,500

  12–19 September 1993

  United States of America and Canada

  Mental Health—Fact finding tour

  3

  119,000

  14 October 1993

  Paris

  Meeting of EC Council of Ministers for Social Affairs

  1

  1574

  Overseas Visits by Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lords) (Baroness Cumberlege)

  7–8 December 1992

  Paris

  OECD Ministers' Meeting

  1

  794

  7–17 September 1993

  United States of America

  Fact finding visit in connection with Ministerial responsibilities

  2

  117,000

  1 Estimated cost.

  2 Mr. Yeo.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost of employing management consultants to assist in her Department's assessment of applications for trust status in each wave; how many assessments took place; and which were the consultants concerned.
  224
  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 1 November 1993]: The information is shown in the table. Information on the number and cost of the fourth wave assessment is provisional as the process is not yet complete.
  225

  Wave

  Cost £

  Number of assessments

  Lead management consultants

  1

  601,340

  66

  Coopers & Lybrand

  2

  601,013

  113

  Coopers & Lybrand

  3

  452,375

  155

  KPMG

  4

  275,000

  147

  Touche Ross

TRANSPORT

  Newcastle Western Bypass
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many payments have been paid under section 7 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 to property owners in the vicinity of the Newcastle western bypass north of the Stamfordham road interchange; what total sum has been paid; and when the last payment was made.

  Mr. Key
  No compensation is payable under section 7 of the Land Compensation Act 1973. However, compensation payments made due to the works on Newcastle western bypass north of the Stamfordham road interchange under the other provisions of part I of the Act is as follows:

  Number of payments made:

  1,051

  Total sum of compensation:

  £1,845,040

  Last payment made:

  27 October 1993

  Proposed East-west Route
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on(a) the present stage of preparation and estimated timetable for completion and (b) the latest estimate of cost of the (i) Braintree-Al2, (ii) Stansted-Braintree, (iii) A1-Stansted, (iv) A5-A1, (v) Leighton Linslade bypass, (vi) Wing

  Bids for transport supplementary grant-1994–95

  Structural maintenance

  Authority

  Major schemes £k

  Principal road carriageways £k

  Bridges £k

  Total TSG bid £k

  City of London

  0

  0

  1,106

  1,106

  Barking and Dagenham

  5,017

  587

  250

  5,854

  Barnet

  0

  200

  498

  698

  Bexley

  5,614

  1,250

  970

  7,834

  Brent

  190

  1,013

  1,249

  2,452

  Bromley

  497

  640

  344

  1,481

  Camden

  0

  1,773

  3,085

  4,858

  Croydon

  6,440

  2,263

  181

  8,884

  Ealing

  1,525

  571

  372

  2,468

  Enfield

  3,889

  404

  2,492

  6,785

  Greenwich

  1,615

  708

  708

  3,031

  Hackney

  1,418

  1,013

  1,700

  4,131

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0

  1,045

  2,255

  3,300

  Haringey

  990

  1,544

  700

  3,234

  Harrow

  7,551

  416

  953

  8,920

  Havering

  0

  72

  563

  635

  Hillingdon

  2,630

  364

  2,210

  5,204

  Hounslow

  3,159

  540

  937

  4,636

  Islington

  0

  1,220

  715

  1,935

  Kensington and Chelsea

  538

  166

  36

  740

  Kingston upon Thames

  3,992

  700

  567

  5,259

  Lambeth

  0

  630

  936

  1,566

  Lewisham

  8,552

  300

  260

  9,112

  Merton

  685

  222

  110

  1,017

  Newham

  3,808

  70

  6,526

  10,404

  Redbridge

  0

  705

  1,310

  2,015

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  260

  515

  775

  Southwark

  2,413

  500

  430

  3,343

  Sutton

  800

  210

  468

  1,478

  226
  bypass, (vii) west of Aylesbury-Wing bypass and (viii) M40-west of Aylesbury stages of the proposed east-west route.

  Mr. Key
  Most of the schemes which comprise the east-west route are at early stages in their development. It is difficult to be certain of the programme and cost. The latest planning data are as follows and are subject to the availability of funding and completion of statutory procedures.

  (i) Braintree-Al2: public consultation early 1994. Cost £39 million—all costs area at Q1/92 prices.

  (ii) Stansted-Braintree: awaiting decision following public inquiry. Cost £68·5 million.

  (iii and iv) A5-Stansted—includes A5-A1 and Al-Stansted: public consultation autumn 1994. Completion year 2001. Cost £462·1 million.

  (v) Leighton Linslade bypass: opened to traffic November 1991. Cost £22 million.

  (vi) Wing bypass: decision following planning inquiry expected shortly. Cost £15 million.

  (vi) West of Aylesbury to Wing bypass: public consultation period just completed. Decision about preferred route expected in 1994. Cost £97 million.

  (vii) M40-west of Aylesbury: no decisions have been made whether or when schemes will enter the trunk roads programme.

  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the value of the bids for transport supplementary grant 1994–95 which he has received from individual local authorities in their transport policy and programmes submissions within the following categories, dividing each total bid into the amounts for(a) major road schemes, (b) structural carriageway maintenance and (c) structural bridge maintenance.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The information is as follows.
  227

  Structural maintenance

  Authority

  Major scheme £k

  Principal road carriageways £k

  Bridges £k

  Total TSG bid £k

  Tower Hamlets

  400

  6,750

  549

  7,699

  Waltham Forest

  1,167

  330

  2275

  1,772

  Wandsworth

  0

  1,000

  3,996

  4,996

  Westminster

  10,684

  442

  4,552

  15,678

  Bolton

  1,378

  1,150

  2,477

  5,005

  Bury

  0

  962

  1,200

  2,162

  Manchester

  28,425

  2,544

  2,879

  33,848

  Oldham

  3,080

  980

  3,050

  7,110

  Rochdale

  35

  960

  2,200

  3,195

  Salford

  5,289

  1,540

  900

  7,729

  Stockport

  1,550

  1,527

  3,348

  6,425

  Tameside

  2,070

  1,500

  765

  4,335

  Trafford

  21,661

  312

  464

  22,437

  Wigan

  1,127

  750

  580

  2,457

  Knowsley

  17,600

  1,021

  550

  19,171

  Liverpool

  2,450

  2,200

  1,000

  5,650

  St. Helens

  5,039

  150

  277

  5,466

  Sefton

  1,362

  194

  853

  2,409

  Wirral

  2,835

  318

  750

  3,903

  Barnsley

  4,522

  1,128

  1,092

  6,742

  Doncaster

  8,475

  1,521

  1,739

  11,735

  Rotherham

  3,700

  629

  2,272

  6,601

  Sheffield

  13,389

  4,270

  4,871

  22,530

  Gateshead

  500

  300

  400

  1,200

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  12,236

  2,156

  429

  14,821

  North Tyneside

  400

  1,450

  680

  2,530

  South Tyneside

  10

  886

  660

  1,556

  Sunderland

  6,690

  2,600

  1,051

  10,341

  Birmingham

  34,504

  6,000

  3,420

  43,924

  Coventry

  12,645

  534

  922

  14,101

  Dudley

  11,822

  2,000

  946

  14,768

  Sandwell

  4,107

  2,953

  4,453

  11,513

  Solihull

  2,599

  180

  410

  3,189

  Walsall

  10,992

  1,297

  3,455

  15,744

  Wolverhampton

  14,554

  2,305

  6,200

  23,059

  Bradford

  4,545

  3,000

  3,962

  11,507

  Calderdale

  2,897

  3,796

  1,464

  8,157

  Kirklees

  97

  4,370

  1,949

  6,416

  Leeds

  19,813

  7,140

  2,527

  29,480

  Wakefield

  5,110

  2,370

  1,343

  8,823

  Avon

  22,814

  3,220

  2,980

  29,014

  Bedfordshire

  5,263

  1,350

  2,204

  8,817

  Berkshire

  20,628

  2,995

  1,300

  24,923

  Buckinghamshire

  6,069

  2,476

  755

  9,300

  Cambridgeshire

  2,627

  3,859

  3,439

  9,925

  Cheshire

  16,908

  12,480

  4,565

  33,953

  Cleveland

  9,655

  2,763

  1,495

  13,913

  Cornwall

  8,192

  3,310

  3,000

  14,502

  Cumbria

  3,110

  3,000

  2,750

  8,860

  Derbyshire

  2,960

  2,175

  2,016

  7,151

  Devon

  7,565

  6,845

  2,663

  17,073

  Dorset

  3,300

  1,500

  1,250

  6,050

  Durham

  9,935

  1,750

  2,176

  13,861

  East Sussex

  9,009

  3,946

  2,233

  15,188

  Essex

  18,966

  5,500

  3,616

  28,082

  Gloucestershire

  8,070

  2,593

  1,474

  12,137

  Hampshire

  28,228

  8,262

  2,614

  39,104

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,539

  3,441

  1,574

  6,554

  Hertfordshire

  8,970

  3,900

  3,450

  16,320

  Humberside

  11,062

  5,041

  2,784

  18,887

  Isle of Wight

  0

  780

  310

  1,090

  Kent

  105,776

  12,783

  3,650

  122,209

  Lancashire

  27,691

  7,007

  13,198

  47,896

  Leicestershire

  7,326

  3,909

  2,644

  13,879

  Lincolnshire

  3,025

  2,430

  2,600

  8,055

  Norfolk

  9,286

  5,383

  6,189

  20,858

  Northamptonshire

  6,253

  5,301

  1,920

  13,474

  Northumberland

  7,708

  3,500

  2,980

  14,188

  North Yorkshire

  13,385

  8,176

  4,160

  25,721

  Nottinghamshire

  6,373

  5,645

  2,612

  14,630

  Oxfordshire

  3,301

  2,799

  1,619

  8,716

  Shropshire

  4,982

  3,308

  2,118

  10,408

  Somerset

  9,367

  2,604

  3,510

  15,481

  Staffordshire

  12,296

  8,000

  2,000

  22,296

  Suffolk

  8,543

  5,000

  3,700

  17,243

  228 229

  Structural maintenance

  Authority

  Major scheme £k

  Principal road carriageways £k

  Bridges £k

  Total TSG bid £k

  Surrey

  27,072

  6,219

  8,791

  42,082

  Warwickshire

  495

  3,370

  2,605

  6,470

  West Sussex

  9,863

  2,800

  700

  13,363

  Wiltshire

  2,889

  2,308

  275

  5,472

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provision he has made in his Department's budget for the proposed west of Aylesbury-Wing bypass for compensation payments to householders whose homes would be reduced in value or otherwise affected by his Department's plans.

  Mr. Key
  No provision has yet been put aside for compensation. For planning purposes, a sum of £5·3 million—Q1/92 prices—has been esimated for the cost of land and properties including compensation.

  Persons who would be directly affected by the route of the bypass would be able to make a case for the purchase of their property under blight terms once a preferred route has been decided and protected.

  Persons who consider that the physical effects of public traffic using the new road once opened would affect the value of their property may make a claim against the Department under part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973. The claim period would commence one year after the new road opened to traffic.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the names by local highway authority of the major road schemes for which the authority is bidding for transport supplementary grant to enable main works to start during 1994–95.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Following are the bids received for such schemes in the current round:

  Authority

  Scheme name

  Enfield

  Genotin road link

  Greenwich

  Woolwich road improvement

  Harrow

  Sheepcote road widening

  Kingston

  Kingston north-south strategy—A240 corridor

  Tower Hamlets

  Poplar traffic calming area scheme

  Westminster

  Vauxhall bridge road improvement

  Manchester

  Hyde road (Tameside-West Gorton)

  Manchester

  Inner relief route—Regent road-Chester road— phase 2, stage 2

  Oldham

  A62/A627 Oldham way improvements

  Salford

  Trafford road—the Quays-White City

  Trafford

  Trafford road improvement

  Trafford

  Bridgewater boulevard

  St. Helens

  Blackbrook diversion

  Sefton

  Merseyside N corridor stage 1 Switch island/ Thornton link

  Sefton

  Merseyside N corridor stage 2 Thornton link/ Blundell link

  Wirral

  Heron road/Saughall Massie road improvement/ diversion

  Doncaster

  A630 Wheatley Hall road

  Sunderland

  Grangetown and Ryhope bypass

  Birmingham

  Lichfield road improvement phase 2

  Birmingham

  South Birmingham improvements—phase 1— A34 and A435

  Dudley

  A4036 improvement Merry Hill

  Sandwell

  Churchbridge improvement Sandwell

  Sandwell

  Expressway/All Saints way junction Sandwell

  Wolverhampton

  Willenhall road improvements phase 3

  Calderdale

  Brighouse Elland road/Brookfoot lane improvement

  230

  Authority

  Scheme name

  Kirklees

  Huddersfield ring road improvements phase 4

  Leeds

  Leeds Harewood bridge bypass

  Leeds

  Leeds guided bus—A61/A64

  Leeds

  Leeds city centre loop road—phases 3 and 4

  Wakefield

  Hemsworth bypass

  Wakefield

  Normanton bypass

  Avon

  Avon ring road 2—B4465 Shortwood to A420 Warmley

  Avon

  Park and ride—Bristol-site 2 Bath-site 3

  Bedfordshire

  Arlesey/Stotfold bypass

  Berkshire

  Reading Cross town route stage 2 broken brow to Vastern road

  Berkshire

  Reading Cross town route stage 3 Caversham road to Portman road

  Berkshire

  Reading A4 Bath road widening/dualling

  Berkshire

  Stafferton way link Maidenhead

  Buckinghamshire

  Wendover bypass

  Cambridgeshire

  Needingworth bypass

  Cambridgeshire

  Werrington to Glinton bypass—phase 2

  Cheshire

  Davenham bypass

  Cheshire

  Wheelock bypass

  Cleveland

  Skelton and Brotton bypass

  Cleveland

  Middleton road to Powlett road

  Cornwall

  Probus bypass

  Cornwall

  Carland cross—South of Trispen

  Cumbria

  Dalton in-Furness to Askam-in-Furness

  Derbyshire

  Derby-London road diversion

  Devon

  Hatherleigh bypass

  Devon

  Salcombe dip to Inverteign drive Teignmouth

  Durham

  Witton Gilbert bypass

  Durham

  Wheatley Hill to Bowburn

  East Sussex

  New route—Ditton to Seaside—Eastbourne

  Essex

  Aukingford Gardens to Talbot roundabout, Chelmsford stages 1 and 2

  Essex

  Bypass—A12-A132

  Gloucestershire

  Tewkesbury eastern relief road

  Gloucestershire

  Gloucester southern radial relief road

  Hampshire

  Northam road Southampton

  Hampshire

  Woolmer road link

  Hertfordshire

  Cheshunt link road

  Kent

  Wainscott northern bypass

  Kent

  Hale street bypass

  Kent

  Gillingham northern link

  Kent

  Bearsted road/Sittingbourne road

  Kent

  Staplehurst road link

  Lancashire

  Blackburn eastern radial route

  Lancashire

  Westgate link Burnley

  Lancashire

  South Ribble M65 interface improvements

  Leicestershire

  Glen Parva bypass

  Lincolnshire

  A15/A1 Market Deeping bypass

  Norfolk

  Ormesby bypass

  Norfolk

  Brockdish/Needham bypass

  Northamptonshire

  Warmington improvements

  Northamptonshire

  Higham Ferrers bypass-Stanwick dualling

  Northumberland

  Kitty Brewster bridge duplication

  Northumberland

  Longhorsley bypass

  Northumberland

  Longframlington bypass

  North Yorkshire

  A661 Spofforth bypass

  North Yorkshire

  B1228 Peasholme Green bridge

  Nottinghamshire

  Awsworth and Cossall bypass

  Nottinghamshire

  Mansfield eastern outer ring road—phase 2

  Oxfordshire

  Oxford integrated transport package

  Shropshire

  Hodnet bypass

  Somerset

  Wells relief road

  Somerset

  Yeovil relief road

  Staffordshire

  Biddulph bypass

  Staffordshire

  Victoria place link Stoke-on-Trent

  231

  Authority

  Scheme name

  Staffordshire

  Uttoxeter bypass phases 1 and 2

  Suffolk

  Kesgrave bypass

  Suffolk

  Rickinghall-Botesdale bypass

  Surrey

  Hazel avenue to Borough boundary, Guildford

  Surrey

  West End Bisley and Knaphill bypass

  Surrey

  Farnham bypass improvement

  Warwickshire

  Leamington-Kenilworth improvement

  West Sussex

  Rustington-Hangleton dualling—phase 2

  West Sussex

  Crawley transport package

  Wiltshire

  East Knoyle bypass

  M5
  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who has responsibility for the A369 at junction 19 of the M5 during and subsequent to the widening of the motorway.

  Mr. Key
  Avon county council is the highway authority for the A369 and the roundabout at M5 junction 19. The Secretary of State for Transport is the highway authority for the slip roads which are part of the M5 motorway.

  Phase 1 of the motorway widening works, provision of four lanes between junctions 18 and 19, will not change these responsibilities. In the longer term, highway authority boundaries may need to be reviewed if and when the junction configuration changes as part of the subsequent phases.

  Pleasure Craft (Light Dues)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the charging of light dues on pleasure craft.

  Mr. Norris
  We believe that users of services should pay towards their cost. We have over a long period sought to identify a means of charging light dues to pleasure craft which would be both fair and capable of generating a worthwhile income for the general lighthouse fund, without creating a disproportionate and expensive administrative system to collect the dues. Following a joint paper which the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland put to the European Commission, the Commission recognised in its communication "A Common Policy on Safe Seas", published in February of this year, that the different approaches applied by member states to the funding of marine navigational aids resulted in some ports operating at a competitive disadvantage. The Commission proposed that a system should be established on a Community-wide basis under which dues would be set, collected and then shared among the national authorities. The system would be based on the "User Pays" principle. The Commission is now carrying forward work on this subject.

  The Government have therefore concluded, because of these developments at the Community level, that they should not pursue further the charging of light dues to pleasure craft solely within the United Kingdom. We will wish to keep the situation under review depending on the progress of discussions at Community level.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library copies of the technical and other background studies prepared by Union Railways on the proposed route of the channel tunnel rail link.

  Mr. Freeman
  Union Railways' report, which I received on 29 October, and supporting appendices documents will, subject to commercial confidentiality, be published when the Government's decisions are announced. These documents contain a substantial amount of detail, drawing on the technical and background studies undertaken by Union Railways. It is not intended that the very large volume of raw material generated during the preparation of Union Railways' report be published.

  Drivers Test Centre, Wibsey
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to close Wibsey drivers' test centre in Bradford, South; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The Driving Standards Agency, which is responsible for driving test matters, set out its intention in its 1993–94 business plan to continue a programme of reviewing and rationalising its test centre estate. There are no proposals, however, at this time to close the centre at Wibsey.

  Rail Track Study
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what sums of money have been paid or are payable to Coopers and Lybrand for its study into a charging regime for the rail track; and to what time period of work such payment relates;

  (2) what progress has been made by Coopers and Lybrand in its study into a charging regime for access to the rail track; and what proposals it has put forward.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department has paid approximately £1·6 million for the studies carried out by Coopers and Lybrand on access charges, for work since December 1991. Sums for the most recent work have yet to be settled. Good progress has been made. Detailed proposals on charge structure and calculation methods of costs have been put forward and agreed.

  Highways Agency
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the job specification and terms and conditions and salary details for the post of chief executive of the Highways Agency; and to what extent they have been varied in the advertisements for the post.

  Mr. Key
  I am placing in the Library copies of the two editions—dated September and October 1993—of the leaflet outlining the job description and terms and conditions of the post, which have been issued to those responding to the advertisements. The only significant variation is in the paragraphs relating to salary and performance pay.

  British Rail (Cycle Carriage)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will require British Rail to increase the capacity for the carriage of cycles on the newly introduced Waterloo to Salisbury and Exeter trains.
  233
  Mr. Freeman
  Carrying bicycles by train is an operational matter for British Rail. I understand that its policy is to allow one bicycle in each three-coach unit. Trains operate with either three, six or nine coaches depending on passenger number. The new trains have been designed to provide the maximum number of seats for passengers and do not have room for more than one bicycle in each three-coach unit.

  Private Capital
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those public investment projects within his Department's responsibility which have attracted private capital and have been commenced since the 1992 autumn statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 2 November 1993]I gave my approval on 29 October for London Regional Transport to start work on the Jubilee line extension, to which the private sector is making a contribution of £400 million. Following conclusion of a joint venture agreement between BAA and British Rail in August, work is also going ahead on the Heathrow express link.

  Work is continuing on the privately financed second Severn bridge and draft orders were published in June for the privately financed Birmingham northern relief road.

  In addition, the Government have announced that it is the intention that both the channel tunnel rail link and crossrail schemes should be taken forward as joint ventures with the private sector.

  Roads and Railways
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated land take needed for,(a) the roads programme and (b) the railway programme for 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Mr. Key
  Meaningful estimates cannot be made. The land take needed for roads and railways depends on the progress and the design of individual schemes.

  In particular, with the channel tunnel rail link, the land take needed will depend upon the outcome of the detailed consultation currently taking place, as well as the timing of legislation to authorise the new line.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Counterfeit Goods
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for dealing with counterfeit goods and pirate tapes.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 already contains far-reaching provisions for dealing with counterfeit goods and pirate tapes. The Government are currently considering whether any new provisions are needed to strengthen the anti-counterfeiting measures introduced by that Act.

  The Government also support the proposals to extend Council regulation (EEC) 3842/86, which already provides effective controls at the external borders of the EC against counterfeit goods, to cover goods that infringe copyright.
  234
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give trading standards officers power to seize counterfeit cassettes and goods under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Trading standards officers were empowered by section 300 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to enforce the new offences relating to counterfeit goods, where this entails the fraudulent application or use of a trade mark. There are no plans to extend these powers to tapes which infringe copyright but do not use a counterfeit trade mark.

  US-Germany Telecommunications Treaty
  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 28 June,Official Report, column 371, whether Her Majesty's Government or the European Commission is now to take legal action against Germany for refusing to apply either article 29 of the utilities directive or the recent Council regulation implementing retaliatory sanctions against the United States of America in the field of Government procurement, in signing its recent treaty on telecommunications with the United States of America.

  Mr. Needham
  I am not aware of the signing of any treaty of telecommunications between Germany and the United States of America. Government procurement is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

  Merseyside
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if it is his policy to match the £600 million funding from the EC to Merseyside so that the area may benefit from opportunities available under its status as an objective 1 area.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The European Community funds make grants towards the cost of a variety of projects undertaken by various beneficiaries. That part of the cost of each project which is not met by the funds remains the responsibility of the beneficiary.

  This is the case not only on Merseyside, but generally, and will continue to be so.

  IMS Ltd.
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assets and liabilities were attached to the Export Credits Guarantee Department when IMS Ltd. was wound up.

  Mr. Needham
  IMS Ltd. has not been wound up and none of the company's assets and liabilities have been attached to the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

  Launch Aid
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the income and expenditure accounts of the launch aid programme in the last five years itemising the projects which have generated such moneys.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information is as follows:
  235

  Outturn

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Launch aid payments (£ million)

  Airframes A330/340

  88·5

  122·5

  134·0

  73·5

  28·6

  Helicopters EH101

  9·9

  11·1

  7·1

  5·2

  2·8

  TOTAL

  98·4

  133·6

  141·1

  78·7

  31·4

  Launch aid receipts (£ million)

  Airframes A320

  —

  10·0

  34·0

  55·4

  40·9

  Other1

  1·1

  0·6

  0·5

  0·3

  0·2

  Aero-engines RB211

  20·6

  29·9

  14·3

  25·6

  27·9

  V2500

  —

  —

  1·6

  0·1

  2·8

  Other2

  0·9

  2·0

  1·4

  1·6

  2·9

  TOTAL

  22·6

  42·5

  51·8

  83·0

  74·7

  1 BAC 1–11, DH Comet, HS Trident.

  2 Dart, Spey, Proteus, Avon, Tay, Tyne.

  Atomic Energy Authority Police
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many uniformed staff are in the Atomic Energy Authority police force; what powers these police have of arrest and to carry arms; and whether he intends to privatise this police force along with the rest of the Atomic Energy Authority.

  Mr. Eggar
  The current strength of the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary (AEAC) is 499. Officers of the AEAC are appointed as special constables and have powers of arrest in premises in the possession of or under the control of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and British Nuclear Fuels plc, and, in respect of their property, within a radius of 15 miles of these premises. The powers of the AEAC were extended by the Atomic Energy Authority (Special Constables) Act 1976. This Act gives authority for officers to be armed both in the general course of their duties and in relation to safeguarding of special nuclear material in storage and transit throughout Great Britain.

  The Act also authorises officers to exercise their powers in any place where it appears to them to be expedient to go in order to safeguard nuclear material or to pursue persons they believe to have removed or to have attempted to remove it unlawfully.

  No decisions have yet been taken on whether to privatise the AEA or any part of it. I am considering the results of the consultancy study I announced on 1 April, Official Report, column 407, as well as the AEA's own views, and an announcement will be made in due course. The future of the AEAC will be considered in the context of decisions about the future of the AEA as a whole.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) Ghanaian, (b) Nigerian, (c) Bangladeshi and (d) Indian citizens, admitted with visas as working holidaymakers, have been refused re-entry to
  236
  Britain after a trip abroad during the period for which their visa has remained valid, between 1 January 1992 and 30 June 1993.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not available.

  Suicide
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many verdicts of suicide were recorded for men aged 25 to 55 years for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on deaths recorded as suicide on death certificates for males aged 25 to 54 in England and Wales is given in the table.

  Registered deaths of males aged 25–54 years where the cause of death certificate as suicide or self-inflicted injury, England and Wales 1987–92

  Year

  Number of persons

  1987

  1,449

  1988

  1,616

  1989

  1,521

  1990

  1,700

  1991

  1,851

  1992

  1,837

  Source: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Prisoners (Assaults)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners from local and remand prisons in England and Wales have been treated at outside hospitals as a result of attacks on them in prison; and how many prisoners have been treated by medical services within prisons as a result of attacks in 1992.

  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.
  237
  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Peter Luff, dated November 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your Question asking how many prisoners in local prisons and remand centres received medical treatment as a result of attacks on them in 1992.
  I regret that this information is not statistically recorded.

  Crime, Leicester
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of(a) burglary, (b) house breaking and (c) violent assault were reported for the city of Leicester in each of the last 15 years.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not collected centrally. However, statistics by police force area can be found in the annual publication "Criminal statistics, England and Wales", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Vandalism
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the reported number of cases of vandalism in each of the police divisions covering the Greater London area in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information to recorded offences of criminal damage in police divisions in the Metropolitan police district been provided by the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. The information is contained in the following table:

  Recorded criminal damage offences in the Metropolitan Police District Metropolitan Police District

  Police district

  1990

  1991

  1992

  No. 1 Area

  Barkingside

  2,296

  2,597

  2,851

  Chingford

  1,744

  2,081

  2,101

  Ilford

  2,211

  2,207

  2,163

  Leyton

  1,952

  2,307

  2,456

  Islington

  2,677

  2,438

  2,725

  Holloway

  2,317

  2,518

  2,584

  Edmonton

  1,996

  2,533

  2,637

  Ponders End

  2,861

  3,206

  3,032

  Hornsey

  2,148

  2,124

  2,203

  Tottenham

  1,860

  2,285

  2,571

  No. 2 Area

  Hackney

  2,396

  2,802

  2,821

  Stoke Newington

  2,172

  2,731

  2,778

  Bethnal Green

  1,174

  1,313

  1,343

  Leman Street

  1,029

  1,404

  1,265

  Limehouse

  2,082

  2,168

  1,498

  Havering

  2,924

  2,390

  3,597

  Dagenham

  3,001

  3,425

  3,293

  Plaistow

  2,436

  2,968

  2,844

  Forest Gate

  2,841

  2,650

  2,648

  Thames River

  35

  31

  20

  No. 3 Area

  Southwark

  2,249

  2,485

  2,929

  Peckham

  2,143

  2,456

  2,689

  Carter Street

  1,997

  2,015

  2,119

  Catford

  1,933

  2,078

  2,448

  Lewisham

  2,233

  2,091

  2,614

  Orpington

  2,049

  2,535

  2,982

  Bromley

  1,863

  2,305

  2,932

  Greenwich

  2,400

  2,985

  3,662

  Plumstead

  3,302

  3,862

  4,344

  Bexley Heath

  3,055

  3,804

  4,476

  No. 4 Area

  Brixton

  2,436

  2,501

  2,315

  Kennington

  863

  1,002

  1,141

  238

  Police district

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Clapham

  1,733

  1,721

  2,040

  Streatham

  2,472

  2,489

  2,300

  Merton

  3,697

  4,060

  3,850

  Croydon

  2,513

  2,651

  3,108

  South Norwood

  3,127

  3,017

  3,439

  Epsom & Sutton

  3,697

  4,505

  4,639

  No. 5 Area

  Chiswick

  1,255

  1,531

  1,989

  Hounslow

  2,562

  3,266

  3,242

  Spelthorne

  1,187

  1,601

  1,779

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,269

  2,620

  2,726

  Kingston

  2,850

  3,104

  3,479

  Battersea

  1,925

  1,976

  2,009

  Tooting

  1,915

  2,158

  2,375

  Wandsworth

  2,059

  2,136

  2,176

  No. 6 Area

  Chelsea

  935

  1,470

  934

  Kensington

  1,172

  986

  1,085

  Notting Hill

  1,518

  1,787

  2,354

  Hammersmith

  2,462

  2,572

  2,727

  Fulham

  1,334

  1,389

  2,018

  Heathrow

  300

  297

  288

  Ealing

  2,962

  3,424

  3,739

  Southall

  2,717

  2,952

  3,382

  Hillingdon

  4,100

  4,638

  5,059

  No. 7 Area

  Hampstead

  1,818

  2,024

  2,088

  Kentish Town

  2,266

  2,163

  2,396

  Holborn

  1,123

  1,146

  1,247

  Harrow

  2,640

  3,632

  3,543

  Wembley

  2,020

  2,307

  2,276

  Kilburn

  2,612

  2,894

  3,161

  Barnet and Hertsmere

  2,175

  2,555

  2,689

  Golders Green

  1,578

  1,891

  1,970

  West Hendon

  2,005

  2,119

  2,429

  No. 8 Area

  Belgravia

  940

  984

  987

  West End Central

  796

  789

  712

  Charing Cross

  1,147

  595

  580

  Paddington Green

  1,451

  1,378

  1,098

  Marylebone

  811

  776

  552

  Harrow Road

  1,370

  1,497

  1,653

  Prisoners (Home Leave)
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations there are with the police and victims regarding home leave for prisoners serving custodial sentences for serious assaults.

  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 D. Lewis to Mrs. Ann Coffey, dated October 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about consultations with police and victims regarding home leave for prisoners serving sentences for serious assaults.
  Guidance on home leave is contained in Prison Service Circular Instruction 43/1992, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library. When deciding whether to grant leave prison governors should take account of the attitude of known victims in the local community, and they may also seek reports from the local police. If the police or any victims of crime are concerned about the possibility of a particular prisoner being allowed home leave, it is open to them to submit their observations to the governor, so that they can be included in his/her deliberations.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Malaysia
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the decision to grant support for the Pergau hydro-electric project in Malaysia was linked to any other bilateral trade agreement with Malaysia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No.

  Angola
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much aid was given by Her Majesty's Government to Angola in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  United Kingdom gross bilateral aid to Angola in 1992–93, for which provisional figures are available, was £1·824 million.

  Somalia
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the amount of aid given by the United Kingdom to Somalia during the past 12 months.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since January 1993, Britain has committed nearly £11·5 million in humanitarian and development assistance to Somalia, including our contribution to EC programmes.

SCOTLAND

  Connor Peripherals (UK) Ltd.
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action the Scottish Office will be taking to ensure that grant assistance paid to Connor Peripherals (UK) Ltd. to set up its Irvine plant is recouped by the Exchequer.

  Mr. Stewart
  This has been covered in discussions with the company. The details are commercially confidential.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much Connor Peripherals (UK) Ltd. has received in grant assistance from the Government since coming to Irvine.

  Mr. Stewart
  Details of grant payments made to individual companies are commercially confidential and are not divulged.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations were made by the Scottish Office to Connor Peripherals (UK) Ltd. prior to the company's announcement of job losses at their plant in Irvine.

  Mr. Stewart
  My officials in Locate in Scotland were in direct contact with senior executives of Connor Peripherals both here in the United Kingdom and in the United States in the months preceding the company's announcement. Moreover, I met Connor's senior management at their Californian headquarters during my recent visit to the United States.
  240
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement concerning the recent announcement of redundancies by Connor Peripherals (UK) Ltd. in Irvine.

  Mr. Stewart
  I am disappointed by the redundancies recently announced by Connor Peripherals but encouraged that the company is to retain its European repair and distribution facility at Irvine. This facility remains an important part of the infrastructural support for Scotland's personal computer industry. The redundancies derive from overcapacity and price competition affecting disc-drive manufacturers on a worldwide basis. It is important to note however that Conner's manufacturing operations in Irvine have been suspended pending improvements in world market conditions, and at this stage it is not possible to predict if these job losses will be permanent.

  Job Losses
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional assistance he will be offering to agencies in Ayrshire following the loss of jobs at Jetstream Aircraft Ltd., Wilson's Pipe Fittings and Connor Peripherals (UK) Ltd.; and if he will make it his policy not to wind up the Irvine development corporation before 1999.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend and I regret the recent announcements of job losses by companies in Ayrshire. The local enterprise company, Enterprise Ayrshire, has at its disposal a wide range of measures and flexibility to encourage broad economic development throughout Ayrshire; and to provide training, reskilling and to generate alternative employment opportunities. The overall allocation of resources to local enterprise companies is a matter for Scottish Enterprise to determine, with Enterprise Ayrshire currently allocated a budget of more than £24 million. While it is for the local enterprise company to set its own priorities within those resources, we place significant importance on its ability to react promptly and flexibly in addressing the consequences of closures and job losses. Enterprise Ayrshire has been closely involved with Jetstream on a number of fronts and will continue to maintain its contact. Any difficulties which might arise from the commercial decisions of it or other companies to cease or reduce operations will be fully considered by Scottish Enterprise in its future allocation decisions.

  My right hon. Friend set out the Government's policy on the wind-up of the Scottish new town development corporations in the reply given to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) on 27 October, Official Report, columns 682–84. This policy reflects the belief that Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise companies are sufficiently matured to undertake the leading economic development role for all areas within their boundaries.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many companies in Scotland currently receive regional selective assistance from the Government; and how much regional selective assistance has been paid by the Government to companies in Scotland in each of the last five years.
  241
  Mr. Stewart
  At 31 October 1993 there were 744 projects in Scotland which had received at least one instalment of regional selective assistance (RSA) and were either not yet complete or were still being monitored following completion. The expenditure figures requested are given in the table.

  Gross expenditure in Scotland on RSA grant

  £ million

  1988–89

  38·0

  1989–90

  40·6

  1990–91

  68·2

  1991–92

  63·7

  1992–93

  59·2

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Scottish Office is reviewing the current rules governing regional selective assistance; and how much money the Scottish Office has managed to recoup from companies in receipt of regional selective assistance when the conditions of the award are not met.

  Mr. Stewart
  The regional selective assistance scheme is kept under continuous review. In the five years to 31 October 1993 £3·685 million of regional selective assistance was recovered from companies in connection with projects in respect of which the terms of the offer were not subsequently met.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many companies in Scotland in receipt of regional selective assistance have subsequently announced job losses or the closure of their plants.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information in the form requested is not available.

  Amkor Anam Europe Ltd.
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland further to his answer of 3 March,Official Report, column 178, how much money the Scottish Office has recovered in grant assistance from Amkor Anam Europe Ltd. following the closure of its Irvine plant in November 1992.

  Mr. Stewart
  Details of grant recoveries from individual companies are commercially confidential and are not divulged.

  Sporting Rights
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider exempting sporting rights from rating liability.

  Mr. Lang
  It has long been recognised that a far greater range of subjects consisting of sporting rights are liable for non-domestic rates in Scotland than in England or Wales. I propose to rectify this anomaly by introducing a provision in the forthcoming Local Government Reform Bill to exclude sporting rights in Scotland from a liability for non-domestic rates with effect from 1995, when other subjects will be revalued.

  The Government have been concerned for many years to remove the anomalies whereby properties in Scotland may attract rates bills that are not attracted by similar properties in England and Wales. Many such anomalies
  242
  have now been dealt with successfully and we are hopeful that the remaining ones will be ironed out at the 1995 revaluation. One of the most prominent remaining areas of concern is that of sporting rights—shootings and fishings —and I am glad to announce that this problem can now be resolved. I know that many sporting proprietors consider their rates burden oppressive and the disparity with the situation in England and Wales unfair. I hope that my proposal to exclude sporting rights in Scotland from a liability for non-domestic rates will rectify this situation.

  Caledonian MacBrayne
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce new financial arrangements for Caledonian MacBrayne.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Capital expenditure on vessels by Caledonian MacBrayne will from now on be financed by grants of 75 per cent. from the Scottish Office with the balance being met by long-term borrowing, also from the Scottish Office. This arrangement replaces the previous arrangement under which capital expenditure on vessels was financed mainly through borrowing from the Ship Mortgage Finance Company, and is being applied to the financing of the new vessel for the Ullapool-Stornoway service. The purpose of the new arrangements is to eliminate the need for any capital expenditure to be financed by short term borrowing. Additional grant of £6·7 million is also being made this year to eliminate the company's accumulated overdraft and to enable the company's accounting year to be changed from a calendar year to a financial year basis. Capital grant for the Ullapool-Stornoway vessel will total £10·9 million, of which £3·45 million will be paid in 1993–94. All the changes will be accommodated by compensating reductions in the company's market borrowings and will therefore be contained within the existing external financing limit set for the company.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many people resident in the Edinburgh travel-to-work area are employed in the Haddington travel-to-work area;

  (2) how many people resident (a) in the Haddington travel-to-work area are employed in Berwickshire, (b) in Berwickshire are employed in the Haddington travel-towork area, (c) in the Haddington travel-to-work area are employed in the Borders region and (d) in the Borders region are employed in the Haddington travel-to-work area;

  (3) how many people resident in (a) the Haddington travel-to-work area, and (b) Berwickshire, are engaged in full-time work in (i) agriculture and (ii) fishing; and what proportions of the total work force those figures represent;

  (4) how many people resident in the Haddington travel-to-work area are employed in the Edinburgh travel-to-work area.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 27 October 1993]: Information at the level of detail requested can be provided only by using a specialised product from the 1991 census of population described as the special workplace statistics. This product is scheduled for release around the end of

  243
  November. Analysis by travel-to-work data will require the use of an appropriate software package, the results of which are not expected before spring 1994.

  Prisons
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each of Her Majesty's prison establishments in Scotland the key objectives reported by the Prison Service for the year 1993–94; and what they were for the year 1992–93.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 27 October 1993]: I have asked Mr. E. W. Frizzell, the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, to arrange for a reply to be given to the hon. Member.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 2 November 1993:
  The Secretary of State for Scotland has asked me to reply to your recent question asking for a list of the key objectives reported by the Scottish Prison Service for the year 1993–94; and what they were for the year 1992–93 for each of Her Majesty's prison establishments in Scotland.
  The key objectives for each establishment for 1993–94 are listed as an annex to our Corporate Plan; I have attached a copy. The key objectives for 1992–93 are listed in the Scottish Prison Service Annual Report for 1992–93 (Cm 2323), a copy of which I have also attached.
  A copy of this letter will appear in the Official Report and a copy will be placed in the Library, together with the attachments.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people resident in(a) Musselburgh, Prestonpans and Wallyford and (b) the rest of East Lothian are employed in (i) deep mining and (ii) opencast mining; and what proportion of the total work force those figures represent.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 27 October 1993]: Information at the level of detail requested is not available and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Health Care (Smokers)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he introduced guidelines to ensure equality of access to health care for smokers and non-smokers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 November 1993]: No such guidelines have been issued.

  The decision to offer any particular treatment to an individual is a matter for clinical judgment, taking into account a number of factors including the extent to which the patient is likely to benefit. The professional issues which may arise were discussed by the Chief Medical Officer in the September 1993 edition of Health Bulletin, Vol. 51, pages 269–70.

  Victim Support
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the funding allocated to Victim Support Scotland in each of the past 10 years expressed in current prices.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 November 1993]: The Scottish Office funding to the Scottish Association of Victim Support Schemes since its formation in 1985 has been as follows:
  244

  Financial year

  £

  1984–85

  600

  1985–86

  14,000

  1986–87

  43,610

  1987–88

  62,090

  1988–89

  155,000

  1989–90

  286,000

  1990–91

  349,000

  1991–92

  442,000

  1992–93

  642,000

  1993–94

  764,000

  These figures are the actual grant figures paid in the relevant years.

  Crime Victims
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has held with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities relating to the placing of a statutory obligation on local authorities to provide services for victims of crime in their areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 November 1993]: The Scottish Office have not held any discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities relating to the placing of a statutory obligation on local authorities to provide services for victims of crime in their areas.

  Local authorities already have a victim support role as part of their general duty to support those in need and this is augmented by specialist assistance from social work departments if required. The Scottish Association of Victim Support Schemes (SAVSS) provides short-term support to victims of crime. The volunteer commitment is the essential component of this important service in the Government's view, and does not lend itself to a statutory approach.

  Over the period 1 July 1992 to 30 June 1993, 38,447 victims were offered help by 62 local schemes.

  Trust Assessments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the cost of employing mangement consultants to assist in his Department's assessment of applications for trust status in each wave; how many assessments took place; and which were the consultants concerned.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 November 1993]: The cost of employing management consultants to assist in the assessment of applications for trust status was £97,760. There have been two assessments; the consultants involved were KPMG for second wave trust applications and Coopers and Lybrand for third wave applications.

  Private Investment Projects
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those public investment projects within his Department's responsibility which have attracted private capital and have been commenced since the 1992 autumn statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 November 1993]: Privately financed projects in the health service which have begun since last year's autumn statement are listed below.
  245

  Project

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals Trust

  Lease of laboratory analyser equipment

  Grampian Healthcare Trust

  Provision by Westminster Healthline of beds for the mentally ill

  Lanarkshire Health Board

  Contract with TAKARE PLC for the provision of 90 care beds for the elderly with dementia

  Greater Glasgow Health Board

  60 beds for long-term care of the elderly; 60 beds for long-term mentally infirm at Darnley

  Greater Glasgow Health Board

  120 beds for long-term care of elderly at Ruchill

  Greater Glasgow Health Board

  120 beds for long-term care of the elderly at Shettleston

  Lothian Health Board

  Molecular medicine centre, Western general hospital

  A number of large infrastructure projects are also being considered as potential candidates for private finance, including water and sewerage projects. For transport,

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  Scotish Enterprise

  Local enterprise companies

  Scottish Homes

  New town development corporations

  (a) statutory right to attend all board or committee meetings

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  (b) statutory right to inspect the minutes of meetings

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  (c) statutory right to inspect the annual reports

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  (d) statutory right to inspect the annual accounts

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  (e) statutory right to inspect a register of members' interests

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the total gross public spending for each year since 1991–92 and the projected expenditure for each year to 1995–96, in 1992–93 prices, for(a) Highlands and Islands Enterprises, (b) Scottish Enterprise and (c) local enterprise companies.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 November 1993]: The information for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise is set out in the table. Expenditure by the local enterprise companies is an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I have asked the chairmen of these bodies to write to the hon. Member.

  £ million

  Total expenditure at 1992–93 prices

  Scottish Enterprise

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  1991–92

  462·0

  74·6

  1992–93

  448·8

  74·6

  1993–94 estimated

  439·2

  77.0

  1994–95 plans1

  411·8

  74·0

  1995–96 plans1

  410·0

  72·4

  1 Subject to revision in the public expenditure survey.

  246
  building on the success already achieved in attracting private finance to the Skye bridge project, feasibility studies are already under way into the opportunities which may exist for attracting private sector investment to further transport infrastructure projects in Scotland, including the second Forth Road bridge and the associated road links and the fastlink project which could link the M74 and M8 motorways. In addition, many of the projects undertaken by bodies such as Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Scottish Home and the new towns attract private capital.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing whether the public have a statutory right to(a) attend all board or committee meetings, (b) inspect the minutes of meetings, (c) inspect the annual reports, (d) inspect the annual accounts and (e) inspect a register of members' interests, of (i) Highlands and Islands Enterprise, (ii) Scottish Enterprise, (iii) local enterprise companies, (iv) Scottish Homes and (v) new town development corporations.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 November 1993]: The information requested is set out in the table:

  Housing
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the figures for gross public investment in Scotland in the provision of housing, both new build and renovated, by(a) local authorities and (b) housing associations for each year since 1979–80 with the projected investment for both categories up to 1995–96, in 1992–93 prices; and if he will publish this information in the form of a table.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is in the tables. Table 1 provides details of the total gross expenditure on housing by local authorities and housing associations in each year since 1979, expressed in 1992–93 prices, using gross domestic product deflators. Table 2 provides details in cash terms of the resource planning assumptions issued to local authorities as a guide for investment planning up to 1995–96. There are no comparable assumptions for housing association investment.

  Table 1

  Local authorities £ million

  Housing Associations £ million

  1979–80

  538·451

  116·146

  1980–81

  477·082

  132·824

  1981–82

  469·353

  156·690

  1982–83

  443·245

  186·648

  1983–84

  502·831

  179·313

  247

  Local authorities £ million

  Housing Associations £ million

  1984–85

  403·206

  155·925

  1985–86

  435·898

  154·623

  1986–87

  497·226

  163·701

  1987–88

  624·071

  180·119

  1988–89

  571·722

  208·505

  1989–90

  579·965

  241·573

  1990–91

  544·214

  215·087

  1991–92

  490·434

  228·156

  1992–93

  457·736

  255·121

  1993–94

  1436·228

  1254·521

  1 Provisional.

  Table 2 Resource Planning Assumptions (1992–93 prices)

  £ million

  1994–95

  400

  1995–96

  405

  Higher Education
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the projected expenditure for each year to 1995–96, in 1992–93 prices, for the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 November 1993]: A table showing the requested information is contained in "Serving Scotland's Needs" (Cm 2214). Table 6·2 shows that provision of £416 million —£405 million at 1992–93 prices—has been made for the council's expenditure in 1993–94. For planning purposes only, sums of £434 million—£405 million—and £440 million—£396 million-have been indicated for 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Scottish Homes
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the total gross public spending for each year since 1990–91 and the projected expenditure for each year to 1995–96, in 1992–93 prices, for Scottish Homes.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 November 1993]: Scottish Homes total programme expenditure during the period 1990–91 to 1993–94 is shown in the table. Projected expenditure for 1994–95 and beyond is currently being considered as part of the public expenditure survey.

  Scottish Homes Programme expenditure expressed in 1992–93 prices using GDP deflators

  £ million

  1 1990–91

  304

  1 1991–92

  327

  1 1992–93

  364

  2 1993–94

  362

  1 (outturn).

  2 (plan).

  Learning Disabilities
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people with learning disabilities are presently living in long-stay hospitals in each health board area.
  248
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 27 October 1993]: The information in the table records the position as at 31 December 1992.

  Health Board of origin

  Number of Residents

  Argyll and Clyde

  335

  Ayrshire and Arran

  208

  Borders

  28

  Dumfries and Galloway

  99

  Fife

  223

  Forth Valley

  189

  Grampian

  359

  Greater Glasgow

  886

  Highland

  110

  Lanarkshire

  365

  Lothian

  434

  Orkney

  5

  Shetland

  6

  Tayside

  211

  Western Isles

  8

  SCOTLAND

  3,466

  NHS Trusts
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the current financial year's income from private patients at each trust hospital; and what proportion in each case it forms of the hospital total income.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 October 1993]: This information is not collected centrally.

WALES

  Home Renovation Grants
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes he proposed to make to the house renovation grant system following his recent consultation exercise.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  After considering the responses to the consultation paper on the future of private housing renewal programmes, I have today laid the House Renovation Grant Limit Order, under which the upper limit for mandatory grants to owners, tenants and landlords in Wales will be £24,000. The order will come into force on 14 January 1994. I propose no change for the moment, to the exchequer subsidy rate or to the applicants test of resources.

  The consultation paper included longer-term options which I am considering further. The Government's objective is to ensure that the resources available for private sector housing are targeted effectively.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she hopes to reply to the report sent to her Department in June by microbiologist Dr. Stephen Dealler of York district hospital in respect of BSE in cattle; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  At a meeting on 22 June Dr. Stephen Dealler gave a pre-publication copy of an article to MAFF
  249
  scientists, but requested that it be held in confidence and provided to no one else. On 18 August 1993 Dr. Dealler wrote to the secretary of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) giving his permission for the article to be circulated to the committee, and asking for it to be considered at its meeting in October. It was considered at the meeting on 7 October and the chairman of the committee, Dr. Tyrrell, FRS, wrote to Dr. Dealler on 27 October with the committee's comments on the article. That letter drew attention to the fact that Dr. Dealler had drawn his conclusions on the basis of assumptions made about the BSE infectivity of various tissues by extrapolation from the disease scrapie in sheep. Using these assumptions he had gone on to calculate the potential numbers of people who had been exposed to various levels of BSE agent.

  The letter from Dr. Tyrrell informed Dr. Dealler that recent experiments conducted with tissues from BSE-infected cattle have shown that only the brain and spinal cord have a detectable level of infectivity and the range of

  Number of suspect cases of BSE reported by county

  1992

  1993

  October

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  Eastern

  257

  233

  248

  265

  213

  271

  226

  162

  196

  214

  216

  255

  Bedfordshire

  12

  11

  10

  12

  7

  9

  9

  9

  8

  3

  8

  5

  Cambridgeshire

  10

  9

  19

  14

  15

  12

  18

  8

  5

  14

  10

  10

  Essex

  31

  13

  25

  21

  13

  23

  24

  12

  18

  22

  17

  16

  Hertfordshire

  17

  9

  19

  16

  8

  20

  14

  10

  11

  9

  18

  16

  Lincolnshire

  19

  26

  16

  19

  22

  33

  19

  15

  14

  26

  28

  34

  Norfolk

  104

  83

  94

  102

  84

  99

  76

  63

  78

  92

  71

  110

  Northamptonshire

  32

  35

  30

  31

  26

  23

  30

  19

  23

  19

  27

  22

  Suffolk

  32

  47

  35

  50

  38

  52

  36

  26

  39

  29

  37

  42

  Mid and West

  931

  859

  799

  872

  830

  936

  798

  780

  753

  777

  759

  810

  Cheshire

  165

  152

  156

  164

  150

  182

  132

  135

  137

  142

  132

  136

  Derbyshire

  100

  96

  89

  105

  101

  94

  83

  84

  73

  95

  90

  90

  Hereford and Worcester

  77

  65

  55

  59

  53

  77

  66

  50

  56

  54

  65

  47

  Lancashire

  186

  166

  152

  153

  157

  175

  134

  135

  121

  127

  120

  141

  Leicestershire

  74

  63

  59

  53

  88

  69

  63

  63

  64

  55

  69

  65

  Manchester

  12

  9

  6

  10

  16

  12

  18

  10

  9

  9

  6

  12

  Merseyside

  5

  2

  2

  1

  6

  5

  1

  4

  1

  3

  12

  10

  Nottinghamshire

  24

  19

  24

  26

  22

  33

  20

  23

  22

  19

  8

  16

  Salop

  114

  96

  86

  130

  100

  113

  95

  90

  90

  73

  65

  110

  Staffordshire

  137

  146

  135

  116

  100

  122

  149

  158

  145

  169

  151

  131

  West Midlands

  3

  0

  2

  5

  3

  5

  3

  2

  2

  2

  3

  5

  Warwickshire

  34

  45

  33

  50

  34

  49

  34

  26

  33

  29

  38

  47

  Northern

  464

  462

  441

  471

  452

  528

  417

  365

  365

  390

  422

  443

  Cleveland

  5

  4

  7

  8

  9

  8

  2

  6

  3

  8

  8

  7

  Cumbria

  140

  157

  153

  133

  150

  143

  124

  93

  94

  114

  113

  108

  Durham

  17

  19

  23

  17

  18

  23

  19

  12

  12

  9

  21

  26

  Humberside

  20

  24

  21

  24

  18

  31

  21

  22

  20

  16

  26

  16

  Northumberland

  45

  29

  31

  31

  38

  32

  23

  24

  22

  28

  22

  30

  Tyne and Wear

  0

  1

  5

  2

  1

  2

  3

  1

  2

  0

  1

  1

  Yorkshire, North

  197

  192

  159

  207

  180

  240

  202

  177

  173

  183

  191

  210

  Yorkshire, South

  12

  13

  14

  20

  18

  17

  8

  5

  19

  12

  13

  10

  Yorkshire, West

  28

  23

  28

  29

  20

  32

  15

  25

  20

  20

  29

  35

  South

  391

  366

  339

  386

  360

  424

  366

  304

  242

  290

  280

  366

  Berkshire

  13

  20

  16

  13

  10

  22

  16

  10

  6

  19

  11

  21

  Buckinghamshire

  28

  27

  36

  40

  27

  45

  33

  38

  26

  25

  31

  27

  Hampshire

  78

  66

  48

  97

  72

  88

  71

  71

  47

  54

  49

  81

  Isle of Wight

  13

  15

  17

  21

  16

  15

  9

  16

  10

  6

  16

  11

  Kent

  47

  34

  48

  32

  48

  49

  51

  29

  30

  35

  30

  44

  London

  2

  1

  0

  7

  2

  2

  4

  6

  1

  3

  1

  3

  Oxon

  68

  51

  45

  44

  53

  50

  43

  40

  38

  39

  31

  46

  Surrey

  27

  32

  25

  32

  27

  29

  31

  15

  18

  19

  20

  26

  Sussex, East

  43

  30

  38

  39

  39

  45

  38

  28

  15

  27

  32

  41

  Sussex, West

  72

  80

  66

  61

  66

  79

  70

  51

  51

  63

  59

  66

  South West

  1,452

  1,315

  1,476

  1,461

  1,441

  1,497

  1,218

  1,063

  1,037

  1,142

  1,056

  1,162

  Avon

  80

  80

  100

  91

  77

  78

  67

  57

  48

  58

  59

  63

  250
  other tissues considered by Dr. Dealler, including meat, liver, kidney and lung do not have any detectable infectivity. The implication of using these acutal results, rather than extrapolating from sheep disease, is that there is no evidence of any significant risk from the consumption of tissues other than brain and spinal cord from adult cattle. Brain and spinal cord are among the specified bovine offals whose use is banned under the BSE Order 1991 and which do not therefore enter the human or animal food chain. The SEAC has not advised the Government to amend their safeguards as a result of its consideration of Dr. Dealler's article.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list for each month for the last 12 months, and by region, the number of cases of BSE in cattle that have been reported.

  Mr. Soames
  The numbers of suspect cases of BSE notified to the Ministry in Great Britain, and placed under restrictions, by county for each month from October 1992 to September 1993 are as follows:
  251

  1992

  1993

  October

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  Cornwall

  285

  270

  283

  261

  283

  327

  225

  212

  193

  237

  177

  211

  Devon

  321

  315

  330

  367

  352

  356

  265

  251

  290

  287

  264

  263

  Dorset

  217

  181

  221

  204

  173

  199

  172

  153

  150

  142

  162

  144

  Gloucester

  80

  69

  80

  74

  79

  82

  64

  55

  50

  52

  57

  58

  Somerset

  303

  233

  278

  304

  299

  288

  260

  230

  197

  246

  226

  300

  Wiltshire

  166

  167

  184

  160

  178

  167

  165

  105

  109

  120

  111

  123

  Wales

  452

  437

  426

  493

  391

  456

  393

  354

  329

  365

  345

  376

  Clwyd

  73

  72

  57

  80

  55

  75

  53

  60

  45

  66

  56

  60

  Dyfed

  210

  204

  199

  253

  190

  215

  194

  163

  172

  179

  165

  172

  Glamorgan

  6

  9

  5

  6

  7

  6

  1

  7

  4

  4

  3

  7

  Glamorgan, South

  12

  5

  19

  15

  14

  14

  16

  11

  7

  8

  14

  9

  Glamorgan

  3

  6

  3

  2

  3

  5

  5

  2

  1

  2

  5

  5

  Gwent

  31

  37

  36

  37

  33

  31

  29

  25

  17

  34

  20

  28

  Gwynedd

  32

  23

  23

  24

  18

  22

  16

  12

  10

  11

  17

  27

  Powys

  85

  81

  84

  76

  71

  88

  79

  74

  73

  61

  65

  68

  Scotland

  260

  252

  233

  222

  246

  274

  221

  188

  185

  200

  219

  206

  Borders

  11

  20

  16

  20

  16

  21

  20

  10

  8

  12

  14

  13

  Central

  6

  5

  4

  8

  9

  7

  5

  6

  11

  9

  7

  1

  Dumfries

  84

  80

  72

  76

  64

  82

  68

  64

  57

  57

  54

  60

  Fife

  7

  13

  13

  9

  8

  13

  9

  5

  7

  11

  12

  6

  Grampian

  47

  38

  40

  37

  35

  50

  35

  33

  42

  27

  39

  49

  Highland

  13

  7

  10

  12

  13

  10

  8

  10

  8

  13

  9

  8

  Lothian

  10

  4

  4

  10

  8

  10

  4

  8

  2

  4

  6

  8

  Orkney

  4

  1

  4

  7

  2

  7

  3

  0

  4

  3

  5

  3

  Strathclyde

  60

  59

  54

  37

  69

  55

  55

  40

  29

  51

  54

  43

  Tayside

  18

  25

  16

  6

  22

  18

  14

  12

  17

  13

  19

  15

  Western

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Final figures for October 1993 are not yet available.

  Overall, about 85 per cent. of these suspect cases are eventually confirmed as BSE, the proportion varying at different times of the year.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 26 October,Official Report, column 560, what is the Ordnance Survey grid reference of each Forestry Commission property in Yorkshire and Humberside sold since 27 July 1981; and if she will place a map in the Library which names and identifies each of these properties.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list for each separate piece of land currently held by the Forestry Commission in Yorkshire and Humberside(a) its name, (b) its area in hectares, (c) its Ordnance Survey grid reference and (d) whether there is public access to the land; and if she will place a map in the Library which names and identifies each of these pieces of land.

  Mr. Jack
  The Forestry Commission manages the following areas of woodland in Yorkshire and Humberside:

  County

  Area (hectares)

  Yorkshire

  24,096

  Humberside

  360

  I have made arrangements for a map showing the location of the individual woodlands to be placed in the Library as soon as possible.
  252
  The more detailed information requested on the individual woodlands is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list for each separate piece of land acquired by the Forestry Commission in Yorkshire and Humberside since 27 July(a) its name, (b) its area in hectares, (c) its Ordnance Survey grid reference, (d) the purchase price and (e) the name and address of the previous owner.

  Mr. Jack
  The Forestry Commission has acquired only one piece of land in Yorkshire and Humberside since 27 July 1981. This was part of the Troutsdale estate in north Yorkshire which was purchased in 1987 for £24,000. It covers 37 hectares and its Ordnance Survey grid reference is SE930890. The names and addresses of previous owners of land acquired by the commission are treated as confidential.

  Badger Culling
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Government intends to make an announcement on their current review of badger culling.

  Mr. Soames
  We are reviewing the current badger control arrangements in the light of the development of a test for TB in live badgers. We will be discussing this with the consultative panel on badgers and bovine tuberculosis which will be meeting on 18 November. We will need to consider carefully the views of the panel before making an announcement.

  Hens
  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to improve the welfare of laying hens.
  253
  Mr. Soames
  We are awaiting Commission proposals to set revised welfare standards for laying hens kept in battery systems and new standards for hens kept in alternative systems. The Government wish to see the highest welfare standards set on a Community basis for laying hens in all systems of production.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 25 October,Official Report, column 510, if she will place in the Library the final report of the London convention's intergovernmental panel of experts on radioactive waste disposal at sea.

  Mr. Jack
  A copy of the final report of the London convention's intergovernmental panel of experts on radioactive waste disposal at sea has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Office Costs
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated amount to be spent in 1993–94 in rent and other costs associated with the offices of her Department in Whitehall place, London.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 28 October 1993]: The properties in Whitehall place occupied by the Ministry are Crown freeholds. However, under internal Government recharging arrangements, the Ministry pays rent for them to the Exchequer. The Ministry is also required to pay contributions in lieu of rates to the Valuation Office agency of the Inland Revenue. Additionally, responsibility for all maintenance and refurbishment of these buildings has been devolved to the Ministry. Estimated expenditure in 1993–94 is as follows.

  £

  Running Costs

  Rent

  4,322,199

  Contributions in Lieu of Rates

  1,166,020

  Facilities Management including maintence and cleaning

  612,000

  Furnishings

  230,000

  Utilities

  104,000

  Capital Costs

  Refurbishment

  1,072,000

  TOTAL

  7,506,219

  Public Investment
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is she will list those public investment projects within her Department's responsibility which have attracted private captial and have been commenced since the 1992 autumn statement.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 2 November 1993]: There are no ongoing public investment projects within my
  254
  Department which have attracted private capital since the 1992 autumn statement. However, my Ministry requires authorities responsible for flood defence and coast protection to obtain private sector contributions towards the cost of capital works needed to facilitate current or future developments, and encourages authorities to do so where defences provide a particular direct benefit to a business.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) of 21 June,Official Report, column 13, to include estimates for 1994–95 based on the assumption of statutory indexation and measures already announced in the 1993 Budget; and if he will include estimates for the effect on revenues if child benefit was taxed at the higher rate only.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Estimated revenue yields are given in the table. For 1994–95 the rates of child benefit have been assumed to be £10·20 per week for the first child and £8·25 per week for subsequent children in line with the 1·8 per cent. increase in the September retail prices index.

  £ million

  Yield in a full year

  At 1993–94 income levels

  At 1994–95 income levels

  Child benefit taxed as

  Father (or lone mother's) income

  1,150

  1,200

  Mother (or lone father's) income

  625

  650

  At higher rate only on father or lone mother's income

  200

  250

  At higher rate only on mother or lone father's income

  30

  30

  Income Tax
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the tax liabilities of taxpayers in 1994–95 in the income ranges(a) including and (b) excluding the effects of changes in national insurance contributions (i) under £5,000, (ii) £5,000 to £10,000, (iii) £10,000 to £15,000, (iv) £15,000 to £20,000, (v) £20,000 to £25,000, (vi) £25,000 to £30,000, (vii) £30,000 to £40,000, (viii) £40,000 to £50,000, (ix) £50,000 to £70,000, (x) over £70,000 and (xi) over £100,000, compared with what their liability would be under the indexed 1993–94 tax regime, assuming statutory indexation in 1994–95 and including measures already announced in the 1993 Budget.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Latest estimates of the average changes in income tax and national insurance contribution liabilities in 1994–95, assuming statutory indexation and inclusion of measures already announced, compared with liabilities under a statutory indexed 1993–94 regime are shown:
  255

  Income Tax and National insurance contributions

  Range of individual's income in 1994–95 £

  Numbers gaining 000s

  Amount £

  Numbers losing 000s

  Amount

  Under 5,000

  —

  —

  1,600

  10

  5,000–10,000

  1,200

  18

  5,700

  50

  10,000–15,000

  480

  20

  5,600

  130

  15,000–20,000

  170

  20

  3,800

  210

  20,000–25,000

  80

  20

  2,000

  260

  25,000–30,000

  40

  20

  1,200

  310

  30,000–40,000

  40

  20

  1,100

  480

  40,000–50,000

  10

  20

  400

  500

  50,000–70,000

  10

  20

  260

  510

  70,000–80,000

  —

  —

  60

  510

  over 80,000

  10

  20

  180

  500

  Total

  2,100

  20

  21,800

  170

  I regret that a reliable analysis of taxpayers with incomes over £100,000 is not available.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue which would have accrued to the Treasury in each year since 1988 had all the income tax rates over 40 per cent. been maintained.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on 29 October,Official Report, columns 849–50.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue which would accrue to the Treasury next year if the higher rates of income tax, over 40 per cent. abolished in 1988, had been maintained.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The latest estimate of the full year revenue cost at 1994–95 income levels, assuming statutory indexation of allowances and thresholds and inclusion of measures already announced, compared with reintroduced tax rates of 45, 50, 55 and 60 per cent., is £5·2 billion. The band widths for the tax rate schedule have been calculated by uprating the corresponding parts of the 1987–88 regime by movements in the retail prices index as in the statutory indexation formula.

  The estimate does not allow for any behavioural effect that might have resulted had the tax rates above 40 per cent. been retained, and does not include capital gains tax.

  VAT
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the impact on the retail prices index of(a) a 1 per cent. increase in the rate of VAT and (b) the extension of VAT at (i) 8 per cent. and (ii) 17·5 per cent. to items currently subject to a zero rate, giving figures separately for each item.

  Sir John Cope
  The RPI impact—excluding mortgage interest payments—of an increase of I per cent. in the standard rate of VAT is estimated to be 0·50 per cent. The table shows the impact on the RPI—excluding mortgage interest payments—of extending VAT to currently zero-rated items.

  8 per cent VAT

  17·5 per cent VAT

  Food

  1·01

  2·20

  Construction of new dwellings

  —

  —

  Domestic fuel and power

  0·37

  0·82

  Domestic passenger transport

  0·18

  0·39

  International passenger transport

  0·08

  0·18

  256

  8 per cent VAT

  17·5 per cent VAT

  Books, newspapers and magazines

  0·13

  0·27

  Children's clothing

  0·09

  0·20

  Water and sewerage services

  0·09

  0·20

  Drugs and medicines on prescription

  —

  —

  Supplies to charities

  —

  —

  Ships and aircraft above a certain size

  —

  —

  Vehicles and other supplies to disabled people

  —

  —

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the relief and exemptions on VAT; and what will be the cost of each to the Exchequer(a) in 1993–94 and (b) in 1994–95 if unchanged.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 2 November 1993]: Figures for 1993–94 are published in table 9 of the publication "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs" which is in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the effect on Treasury revenue in 1994–95 and in a full year of extending VAT at(a) 8 per cent, and (b) 17·5 per cent, to all items currently zero rated, giving figures separately for each item.

  Sir John Cope
  Table 9 of the publication "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs"—which is in the House of Commons Library—shows the estimated costs, of not standard-rating currently zero-rated items in 1993–94. These estimates can be scaled up or down to provide a rough indication of the potential revenue from applying any particular rate of VAT to these items except that the figures make no allowance for changes in behaviour.

  Tobacco
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revenue is obtained from excise duty and value added tax on tobacco.

  Sir John Cope
  The information available is as follows:

  Tobacco Duty Receipts £m

  VAT on tobacco expenditure £m

  1992–93

  6,041

  1,520

  257
  Value added tax has been estimated from Central Statistical Office figures on consumers' expenditure on tobacco products.

  Family Incomes
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the answer of 25 February,Official Report, column 677 on the number of families with children with taxable incomes below the income tax threshold.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In 1993–94 it is estimated that approximately 1·9 million single parents and married couples with children have no income tax liability. These represent about a quarter of all families with children.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to tax invalidity benefit.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It remains the Government's intention to bring invalidity benefit into taxation at a suitable opportunity.

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy of the rules and other guidance covering access to tax reliefs on developments in enterprise zones whose time has expired.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A person incurring capital expenditure on the construction of a building in an enterprise zone under a contract entered into during the life of the zone is entitled to claim the 100 per cent. capital allowances available, provided that the expenditure is incurred within 10 years of the expiry of the zone.

  Year

  Total

  Capital gains

  Schedule D tax

  Corporation tax

  PAYE

  1978–79

  11,041

  135

  5,873

  560

  4,473

  1979–80

  10,648

  148

  5,701

  584

  4,215

  1980–81

  10,222

  143

  5,529

  597

  3,953

  1981–82

  10,124

  126

  5,747

  409

  3,842

  1982–83

  10,221

  116

  5,673

  390

  4,042

  1983–84

  10,171

  113

  5,570

  394

  4,094

  1984–85

  9,339

  92

  4,674

  557

  4,016

  1985–86

  8,443

  92

  4,596

  559

  3,196

  1986–87

  7,989

  85

  4,472

  530

  2,902

  1987–88

  7,795

  105

  4,250

  538

  2,902

  1988–89

  7,866

  121

  4,243

  571

  2,931

  1989–90

  7,879

  92

  4,243

  570

  2,974

  1990–91

  7,846

  79

  4,410

  549

  2,808

  1991–92

  8,187

  70

  4,376

  532

  3,209

  1992–93

  8,410

  69

  4,730

  492

  3,119

  Tax Recovery
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the amounts of unpaid capital gains tax, schedule D tax, corporation tax, PAYE, and national insurance currently being actively pursued by the Inland Revenue by way of court actions and other methods of recovery and corresponding figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information required is not available in the form requested.
  258
  One hundred per cent. allowances are also available for expenditure on an enterprise zone building purchased unused, or within two years of first use, provided that the construction expenditure was incurred during the 10-year life of the zone—or was incurred within 10 years of the expiry of the zone under a contract entered into during its life.

  I have placed in the Library a copy of the Inland Revenue press release of 16 December 1991 which gives details of these rules.

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

  Mr. Dorrell
  Excluding staff employed on central administration, the table sets out the total numbers of Inland Revenue staff engaged on the collection of tax within the Department's accounts offices, local office network, and enforcement offices for each year since 1978–79 and how many were working in the areas of(a) capital gains tax, (b) schedule D tax, (c) corporation tax, and (d) PAYE in each year. Under (d) the figures include staff used in collecting PAYE from employers and a relatively small number of schedule E tax assessments. As resource usage on national insurance contribution work is incidental to mainstream tax collection it is not separately recorded.

  Beverages Order
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what consultations he has had with manufacturers or retailers regarding the extension of value added tax to freshly squeezed orange juice by the VAT Beverages Order 1993;

  (2) what consultations he has had with consumers' associations regarding the extension of the range of value added tax to freshly squeezed orange juice by the VAT Beverages Order 1993; what assessment he has made of the effect of the change on consumers' choice; and if he will make it his policy to zero rate freshly squeezed orange juice and other additive free products.
  259
  Sir John Cope
  Representatives of the freshly squeezed orange juice industry put their case to me on 28 October. It was not appropriate to consult consumers' associations about a tax change of this kind, nor is it possible to make an accurate assessment of the effect on consumers' choice. The order ensures that all fruit juices, however they are produced, are treated equally and taxed at the standard rate of VAT.

  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he has had with health experts regarding the effect of the VAT Beverages Order 1993 on the proposals made in the "The Health of the Nation" document for the promotion of healthy eating and drinking.

  Sir John Cope
  I am advised that there are no significant differences between the nutritional value of freshly pressed fruit juices and fruit juices produced from concentrates.

  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the products which were formerly zero rated for VAT which will become subject to the full rate of VAT under the VAT Beverages Order 1993.

  Sir John Cope
  The order extends the standard rate of VAT to freshly squeezed fruit juices and to certain pasteurised fruit juices which a VAT tribunal recently decided were zero rated.

  EC Contributions
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement setting out the basis on which EC contributions are calculated and the payments made on each resource base, in the most recent annual period for which figures are available.

  Sir John Cope
  Contributions to the European Community budget are determined by the own resources decision—council decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom and the regulations governing the implementation of that decision—council regulations (EEC, Euratom) Nos. 1552/89 and 1553/89. The European Community's own resources comprise agricultural and sugar levies; customs duties; a VAT-based resource; and a GNP-based resource. Estimates of agricultural and sugar levies and of customs duties are entered into the annual EC budget; but payments by member states are made on the basis of amounts actually collected. VAT and GNP resource contributions are based on estimates of VAT and GNP bases and are normally adjusted, to reflect outturn, in the following budgetary year.

  The payments made by the United Kingdom for each resource base in 1992–93 were:

  £ million

  Agricultural and Sugar Levies

  203

  Customs Duties

  1,603

  VAT-based resource

  4,522

  GNP-based resource

  960

  The United Kingdom also received refunds of £312 million in December 1992 in respect of 1991 VAT and GNP contributions. The United Kingdom's abatement totalled £1,993 million.

  PAYE and National Insurance
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the amounts of PAYE and national insurance written off for each year since 1975.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The amounts of PAYE and NIC remitted or written off since 1975 are as follows:

  Year

  PAYE amount in £ thousands

  Class 1 and 1A NIC amount in £ thousands

  1975

  n/a

  n/a

  1976

  n/a

  n/a

  1977

  n/a

  n/a

  1978

  n/a

  n/a

  1979

  n/a

  n/a

  1980

  9,914

  1,056

  1981

  11,432

  1,158

  1982

  15,281

  1,261

  1983

  22,622

  1,555

  1984

  33,312

  1,971

  1985

  46,695

  2,213

  1986

  60,915

  4,377

  1987

  92,560

  8,514

  1988

  130,724

  15,894

  1989

  122,890

  15,127

  1990

  107,091

  17,239

  1991

  135,258

  21,644

  1992

  381,172

  32,570

  Separate figures for PAYE and NIC for the years 1975–1979 are no longer available in the form requested.

  Business Cycle
  Dr. Berry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide for each of the last four cyclical downturns the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates of the output gap at the trough of the cycle, as a percentage of trend gross domestic product, for the United States of America, Japan, Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nelson
  OECD estimates of the output gap for the major seven economies in the current cycle and at the troughs of the previous three economic cycles were published in the OECD "Economic Outlook 52" (December 1992).

  Housing Investment
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the National Federation of Housing Associations, the Institute of Housing and the House Builders Federation on levels of housing investment; what reply he is sending; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations on housing investment in recent weeks, all of which are considered carefully. It would not be appropriate to comment further in advance of the Budget.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the take-up of the increased capital allowances against corporation tax announced in the 1992 "Autumn Statement" for the most recent periods for which
  261
  statistics are available; what was (a) the estimated cost and (b) the actual cost for the period; what is his latest estimate of the full year cost of the scheme and what was the cost budgeted; and what is his estimate of the difference between the cost of the enhanced allowances regime and that of the allowances it replaced, on the assumption that those had applied in the current year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 1 November 1993]: Available estimates of the direct revenue effects of enhanced capital allowances announced in the 1992 "Autumn Statement" are as follows. The figures cover both companies and unincorporated businesses.

  £ million (yield +ve/cost-ve)

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Latest estimates

  -200

  -700

  +50

  Original estimates

  -200

  -500

  +50

  The original estimates were published in the "Autumn Statement" 1992 and in table 4B.1 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" 1993–94. The latest estimates are provisional and mainly reflect increased estimates of the levels of profitability. Information is not yet available from tax assessments for the relevant period.

  The accrual costs of all capital allowances are given in table 1.6 and appendix B1 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1993".

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the various reliefs and exemptions on corporation tax; and what will be the cost of each to the Exchequer(a) in 1993–94 and (b) in 1994–95 if unchanged.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 2 November 1993]: Costs to the Exchequer in 1993–94 and 1994–95 of tax expenditures and structural reliefs will largely depend on costs accruing for 1992–93 and 1993–94 respectively, because corporation tax is payable nine months after the end of a company's accounting period.

  Estimated costs accruing for 1992–93 and 1993–94 are published in table 1.6 and appendices B1 and B2 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1993".

  Where the costs of the main reliefs include both income tax and corporation tax, the amounts for corporation tax are as follows:

  £ million

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Capital Allowances

  11,750

  13,150

  Double Taxation Relief

  2,300

  2,300

  London Taxation
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the annual total of(a) tax revenues contributed by London to the national exchequer and (b) receipts by London in Government grants and other public expenditure.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 2 November 1993]: Estimates of total tax receipts and public spending are not available on a regional basis.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  A8 (Traffic Flow)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish details of the most recent traffic flow survey on the A8, Lame-Belfast road, County Antrim.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested is as follows:

  Date of survey and location

  Annual average daily traffic flow

  December 1992

  At Drumnahoe north-east of the junction with the A36

  13,750

  June 1993

  At Moss road junction

  12,282

  December 1992

  North of Bruslee

  8,350

  December 1992

  Between Corr's corner and B56 junction

  13,330

  Civil Servants (Foreign Office)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many civil servants with Foreign Office experience have worked in the Northern Ireland Office in each of the last 10 years.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The number of civil servants who have been on loan to the Northern Ireland Office from the Foreign Office in each of the last 10 years is:

  Year

  Number

  1984

  3

  1985

  3

  1986

  1

  1987

  1

  1988

  3

  1989

  2

  1990

  2

  1991

  1

  1992

  1

  1993

  1

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many civil servants transferred from the Northern Ireland Office to the Foreign Office in each of the last 10 years.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Records were only computerised three years ago, but it is believed that one transferred in 1989 and one in 1990.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many civil servants have transferred from the Foreign Office to the Northern Ireland Office in each of the last 10 years.

  Sir John Wheeler
  During the last 10 years only one civil servant currently employed by the Northern Ireland Office has transferred from the Foreign Office.

  Information from the records of past Northern Ireland Office employees could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to reduce unemployment in the Province; and if he will make a statement.
  263
  Mr. Atkins
  Over the year to September 1993 there has been a welcome fall of 2,400–2·2 per cent.—in seasonally adjusted unemployment in Northern Ireland.

  Further reductions in unemployment in Northern Ireland will depend on the achievement of higher levels of economic growth leading to increased employment opportunities, and on Northern Ireland industry becoming more internationally competitive.

  The Government's strategy to achieve this includes helping companies to identify and remove obstacles to growth; encouraging inward investment; increasing exports; building up management and work force skills; developing and enterprise culture; and supporting innovation and research and development. Help is available in each of these areas for activities which will improve business performance.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest unemployment figures in the Province.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) on 2 November.

  Executive NDPB

  Attend board/committee meetings

  Inspect the minutes of meetings

  Statutory right to Inspect the annual reports

  Inspect the annual accounts

  Inspect a register of Members' interests

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Mental Health Commission for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Local Enterprise Development Unit (LEDU)

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB)

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC)

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Fair Employment Commission (FEC)

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  General Consumer Council (GCC)

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Northern Ireland Consumer Committee for Electricity

  1Yes

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Health and Safety Agency (HSA)

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Labour Relations Agency (LRA)

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Enterprise Ulster (EU)

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Construction Industry Training Board (CITB)

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Ulster Sheltered Employment Ltd. (USEL)

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Laganside

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Fire Authority

  2Yes

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  3No

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Agricultural Research Institute for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Agricultural Wages Board for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Foyle Fisheries Commission

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Livestock Marketing Commission for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Pig Production Development Committee

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Probation Board for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Vaughan's Charity

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Public Service Training School

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Education and Library Boards (5)

  4Yes

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  No

  Council for Catholic Maintained Schools

  No

  No

  No

  No

  No

  Northern Ireland Schools Examinations and Assessment Council

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Arts Council for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Youth Council for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Ulster Museum

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Ulster Folk and Transport Museum

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Police Authority for Northern Ireland

  No

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Independent Commission for Police Complaints

  No

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  264
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the level of unemployment in the construction industry in the Province; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  At 9 September there were 18,122 unemployed construction workers in Northern Ireland, representing a decrease of 227 on the previous month and a fall of 920 from September 1992.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table showing whether the public have a statutory right to(a) attend all board or committee meetings, (b) inspect the minutes of meetings, (c) inspect the annual reports, (d) inspect the annual accounts and (e) inspect a register of members' interests of each executive non-departmental public body for which his Department is responsible.

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 2 November 1993]: The information is set out in the table.
  265

  1 Public excluded when business is of a confidential nature.

  2 Board meetings.

  3 Committee meetings.

  4 Except for the meetings of the teaching appointments committee.

EMPLOYMENT

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total amount budgeted for consultants in the Health and Safety Executive in 1993–94; and if he will list all those consultants employed this year so far.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I understand that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has no separate budget for consultants. Consultants employed this year so far are listed:

  Total Quality Management International

  The P. A. Consulting Group

  Dr. E. G. Masdin

  Patrick Thomas Consultants

  Shreeveport Ltd.

  KPMG

  Denham Nash

  The Capita Group plc

  W. S. Atkins

  Keisley Harris Ltd.

  Touche Ross

  So far this year, HSE has spent some £99,000 with these companies.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what effect the market-testing programme at the Health and Safety Executive headquarters at Bootle is expected to have on the numbers of staff employed by the executive.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Given the competitive nature of market testing, it is not possible to predict the outcome of particular tests. Tests completed or approaching completion which affect staffing at the Health and Safety Executive's Bootle headquarters show a saving of four posts. A further 99 posts are covered by market tests now in hand.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what restrictions have been placed on the recruitment of Health and Safety Executive staff since August.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is for the Health and Safety Commission and Executive to decide how to deploy their staff and other resources in managing their grant in aid.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his Department's policy in respect of benefit eligibility towards unemployed people who make themselves completely unemployable by their appearance.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. David Atkinson, dated 3 November 1993:
  266
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to him about the policy in respect of benefit eligibility towards unemployed people who make themselves completely unemployable by their appearance. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  A client can be held to have neglected to avail themself of an employment opportunity if, because of their unreasonable conduct, an offer of employment is withdrawn or a prospective employer considers them unsuitable. In such cases they can be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit for up to 26 weeks.
  We cannot enforce a set standard of dress to clients using our services. However, we expect clients to dress appropriately for job interviews.
  In addition when someone refuses an offer of employment brought to their notice by us, unless they can show good cause for their refusal, they can be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit for up to 26 weeks. When offering a vacancy we are expected to consider whether the individual, given their background and experience, could reasonably be expected to undertake the work.
  Whether these rules apply in individual cases is for the independent adjudicating authorities to decide. These authorities are in the first place an adjudication officer; on appeal a Social Security Appeal Tribunal; and on further appeal, on a point of law only, a Social Security Commissioner. The independence of these authorities prevents me or any Minister from intervening in or commenting on their decisions.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  THORP
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 21 October,Official Report, column 333, what meetings he has held with the trade unions at Sellafield on the thermal oxide reprocessing plant.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None.

  Books (VAT)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the effect on the level of employment in publishing and bookselling sectors of the imposition of value added tax on books.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have not received any such representations other than my hon. Friend's recent parliamentary question on this matter.

  Construction Industry (Deaths)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many deaths have taken place in England and Wales this year in the construction industry at the latest date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Figures on fatal and major injuries for all industry sectors are published annually. Reliable information for the current year is not yet available. Provisional figures for the fiscal year ending 31 March 1993 will be included in the Health and Safety
  267
  Commission's annual report which is due to be published before the end of the year. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Public Investment
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those public investment projects within his Department's responsibility which have attracted private capital and have been commenced since the 1992 autumn statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 2 November 1993]: The private finance initiative, which was announced in the 1992 autumn statement, is an important tool which will lever private finance into the public sector. Although the Department has, as yet, no projects which have attracted private capital, we do keep these matters under review to ensure that the Department provides the best possible value for money. As significant projects arise, or equipment comes up for replacement, we will consider in particular the opportunities for private

  Private Office Overseas travel record

  Travelling Minister(s)

  Dates

  Places visited

  Purpose of visit

  Size of delegation

  Visit expenditure £

  Secretary of State

  29 April 1992

  30 April 1992

  Luxembourg

  Social Affairs Council

  6

  2,231

  Minister of State

  11 June 1992

  12 June 1992

  Geneva, Switzerland

  ILO Conference

  2

  1,504

  Secretary of State

  11 June 1992

  11 June 1992

  Madrid, Spain

  Social Affairs bilateral

  3

  3,615

  Secretary of State

  12 June 1992

  12 June 1992

  Rome, Italy

  Social Affairs bilateral

  3

  Secretary of State

  16 June 1992

  16 June 1992

  Rotterdam, Netherlands

  Social Affairs bilateral

  3

  1,668

  Secretary of State

  23 June 1992

  24 June 1992

  Luxembourg

  Social Affairs Council

  7

  2,393

  Minister of State

  6 September 1992

  10 September 1992

  Poland and Bulgaria

  Signing of joint statement of agreement

  2

  2,200

  Secretary of State

  8 September 1992

  9 September 1992

  Paris, France

  Social Affairs bilateral, Training issues

  3

  1,874

  Secretary of State

  14 September 1992

  17 September 1992

  Russia

  UK Know How Fund

  4

  13,281

  Parliamentary Under-secretary of State (Lords)

  21 September 1992

  23 September 1992

  France/Belgium

  Fact finding visit/ Policy development

  2

  1,585

  Secretary of State

  22 September 1992

  22 September 1992

  Brussels, Belgium

  Informal Social Affairs meeting

  5

  1,841

  Parliamentary Under-secretary of State

  26 September 1992

  3 October 1992

  Japan

  Fact finding visit/Policy development

  2

  15,823

  Minister of State

  27 September 1992

  2 October 1992

  USA

  Fact finding visit/Policy development

  2

  13,143

  Parliamentary Under-secretary of State (Lords)

  18 November 1992

  20 November 1992

  Poland

  Opening of Polish Minisl of Labour Training Centre

  2

  1,501

  Secretary of State Minister of State

  3 December 1992

  3 December 1992

  Brussels, Belgium

  Social Affairs Council

  8

  2,240

  Parliamentary Under-secretary of State (Lords)

  1 April 1993

  8 April 1993

  USA/Canada

  Fact finding visit/ Policy development

  2

  15,495

  Secretary of State

  5 April 1993

  6 April 1993

  Luxembourg

  Social Affairs Council

  7

  1,163

  Secretary of State

  30 April 1993

  30 April 1993

  Paris, France

  Social Affairs bilateral

  4

  1,141

  268
  finance initiative further in the context of its market test; and we shall be looking at the possibility of using the initiative for contract energy management projects in the future.

  Ministers' Overseas Journeys
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what journeys abroad, involving public expenditure, he and other Ministers in the Department have made since 9 April 1992; what were the dates of the journeys and the places visited; what was the purpose of the journey in each case; by whom the Minister was accompanied, and what additional public expenditure was involved; and what was the total cost of each journey made abroad by each Minister.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 26 October 1993]: Information is not available in the form requested. However, the information now available in departmental records from 9 April 1992 to June 1993 is given in the table, and as soon as costs are available for each of the remaining visits to date, I will write to the hon. Member.
  269

  Travelling Minister(s)

  Dates

  Places visited

  Purpose of visit

  Size of delegation

  Visit expenditure £

  Minister of State

  3 May 1993

  4 May 1993

  Nyborg, Denmark

  Informal Social Affairs Council

  7

  3,881

  Secretary of State

  5 May 1993

  5 May 1993

  Cologne, Germany

  Social Affairs bilateral

  7

  Secretary of State Minister of State

  31 May 1993

  1 June 1993

  Luxembourg

  Social Affairs Council

  9

  4,049

  Minister of State

  3 June 1993

  4 June 1993

  Budapest, Hungary

  UK Know How Fund (opening of Flexible Learning Centre)

  2

  2,387

  Parliamentary Under-secretary of State

  9 June 1993

  10 June 1993

  Geneva, Switzerland

  ILO Conference

  1

  699

SOCIAL SECURITY

  National Insurance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his current estimate of the level of the Treasury supplement necessary in 1994–95, expressed as a percentage of benefit outgoings, based on the assumption of indexation for all contribution limits and thresholds and the effects of changes in national insurance contribution rates announced in the 1993 Budget; and what would be the combined rate of employer/employee contributions necessary in order to achieve a balanced national insurance fund without the Exchequer contribution.

  Mr. Hague
  It is estimated that a Treasury grant equivalent to 12·5 per cent. of expected benefit expenditure would be needed to balance the national insurance fund in 1994–95. If the grant were not available, a combined employer/employee contribution rate of between (the contribution percentages vary according to whether there is an increase in the main primary or secondary rate, or a combination of both) 22·7 and 23·4 per cent. would be needed to raise the same level of income. Estimates are based on the March 1993 "Financial Statement and Budget Report" assumptions.

  Benefits
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the size of the(a) earnings and (b) maintenance disregards in each means-tested benefit scheme; and how these disregards vary for different categories of claimant.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.

  Client Group

  Earnings Disregard (Note 3) £

  Maintenance Disregard (Note 1)£

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit

  Lone Parents

  25

  15

  Disabled

  15

  15

  Carers

  15

  15

  Specialist occupations (Note 2)

  15

  15

  Other couples

  10

  15

  Other single people

  5

  nil

  Income Support

  Lone parents

  15

  nil

  Disabled

  15

  nil

  270

  Client Group

  Earnings Disregard (Note 3) £

  Maintenance Disregard (Note 1) £

  Carers

  15

  nil

  Specialist occupations (Note 2)

  15

  nil

  Unemployed couples (over 2 years)

  15

  nil

  Unemployed couples (under 2 years)

  5

  nil

  Other

  5

  nil

  Family Credit

  Lone parents

  69

  15

  Couples with children

  69

  15

  Disability working allowance

  Lone parents

  69

  15

  Couples with children

  69

  15

  Single (no children)

  41·40

  nil

  Notes:

  1. The £15 maintenance disregard in housing benefit, council tax benefit and disability working allowance applies only where there is a child or young person in the household.

  2. Specialist occupations are reservists, part-time firemen, part-time lifeboatmen and auxiliary coastguards.

  3. The income disregard in family credit and disability working allowance applies to all income, including earnings, not otherwise disregarded.

  4. The disregards apply to the family unit as a whole, i.e., to the total earnings received and the total maintenance received.

  5. People receiving income support are entitled to receive maximum housing benefit and council tax benefit without their resources being assessed by the local authority.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people previously receiving invalidity benefit have been taken off that benefit on the grounds of being capable of work in each month over the last two years.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available in the form requested. Quarterly estimates of sickness and invalidity benefit claims disallowed because the claimant is not incapable of work are being collected from April 1993. The latest available estimate, for the quarter ending 30 June 1993, shows 15,400 such disallowances, based on a 5 per cent, sample of examinations, rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's policy on counting voluntary work as proof of capacity for work; and if he will make a statement about the effect of his policy on recipients of invalidity benefit.
  271
  Mr. Scott
  People receiving invalidity benefit may undertake voluntary work, so long as they continue to satisfy the entitlement conditions for receiving the benefit. Recipients who are thinking of doing some voluntary work are advised to discuss the matter first with their doctor, before checking with their local social security office to find out if it will affect their benefit.

  Average weekly amount

  Year

  Number receiving IS help with mortgage interest

  Total amount paid

  Cases with full interest

  Cases with 50 per cent, interest

  000s

  £ million

  £

  £

  1988

  300

  286

  18·56

  16·71

  1989

  281

  353

  24·46

  21·86

  1990

  310

  553

  34·42

  33·69

  1991

  411

  949

  46·34

  35·61

  1992

  499

  1,143

  46·01

  30·59

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for the amount of mortgage interest that is included in the IS assessment.

  2. Figures are from the annual statistical enquiry (ASE), a 1 per cent. sample survey of claimants receiving regular weekly payments of IS in May each year.

  3. Information on the number of new claims with mortgage interest is not available.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the tariff income schedule of cuts in savings within the income support means tests; what is the equivalent system of savings assessment in the housing benefit system; on what dates the schemes were last revised; and what plans he has to review the assessment of savings in means-tested benefits.

  Mr. Burt
  In all the income-related benefits, capital up to £3,000 is ignored. In income support (IS), deductions from benefit of £1 a week are made for each £250, or part of £250, of capital between £3,000 and the upper capital limit of £8,000. Similar rules apply in housing benefit (HB), but the 65 per cent. taper reduces the effect of the deductions, and the upper capital limit is set at £16,000. These rules were last revised in April 1990 when the upper capital limits were raised to their present levels, from £6,000 in IS and from £8,000 in HB. The rules are kept under review but we have no current plans for change.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures indicating the income support and social fund budgets allocated to the social security offices in the Ynys Mön constituency during each of the last two years; and what was the monthly amount spent on income support and the social fund by each office in that period.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the social fund 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 M. Bichard to Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, dated 2 November 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions raised about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security, asking if he will publish figures indicating the income support and Social Fund budgets allocated to the social security

  Income Support
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing in respect of payment of income support for mortgage interest, for each financial year since 1988, the total amount paid, the number of new claims, the number of claims in payment and the average weekly payment.

  Mr. Burt
  The available information is in the table.

  offices in the Ynys Mon constituency during each of the last two years; and what was the monthly amount spent on income support and Social Fund by each office in that period.
  I should explain that Social Fund (SF) discretionary budgets are allocated to each Benefits Agency District rather than individual offices. In the case of Gwyneddigion District, which includes the constituency of Ynys Mon, it is therefore only possible to show the information for the whole District.
  I enclose details of the SF budgets allocated to the District, together with details of monthly expenditure for each of the financial years 1991/92 and 1992/93. The provisional data for the current financial year to the end of September 1993 is also included.
  Turning to Income Support (IS), I should explain that IS is a demand led benefit and therefore not subject to a cash limit, as is the Social Fund. The information requested, regarding the monthly amount of IS spent, is therefore not available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. This is because the details of benefit paid could only be obtained by examining all of the cases held at the Gwyneddigion District.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will be placed in the Library.
  Gwyneddigion District.
  Loans allocation—£826,353
  Grants allocation—£313,934

  Table of monthly expenditure

  Period—1991–92

  Loans

  Grants

  April

  46,387

  23,080

  May

  46,816

  19,504

  June

  44,856

  24,238

  July

  47,266

  26,876

  August

  48,098

  18,642

  September

  50,401

  28,532

  October

  75,693

  30,460

  November

  87,945

  31,814

  December

  75,435

  27,100

  January

  60,463

  28,110

  February

  85,910

  23,007

  March

  105,279

  32,533

  Total

  774,549

  313,896

  All figures are rounded to the nearest pound.

  Gwyneddigion District.

  Loans allocation—£890,128

  Grants allocation—£408,054
  273

  Table of monthly expenditure

  Period—1992–93

  Loans

  Grants

  April

  88,943

  33,301

  May

  74,882

  34,968

  June

  76,766

  39,139

  July

  75,735

  36,361

  August

  71,602

  21,859

  September

  79,507

  32,860

  October

  61,853

  34,231

  November

  72,290

  38,884

  December

  72,156

  36,643

  January

  50,924

  31,571

  February

  69,478

  38,202

  March

  95,945

  30,011

  Total

  890,081

  408,030

  All figures are rounded to the nearest pound.

  Gwyneddigion District.

  Loans allocation—£998,150

  Grants allocation—£428,457

  Table of monthly expenditure

  Period—1993–94

  Loans

  Grants

  April

  81,519

  31,470

  May

  73,494

  32,195

  June

  79,468

  40,082

  Date of Journey

  Places visited

  Purpose of visit

  Number accompanying Minister

  Total departmental expenditure £

  Secretary of State

  15 April 1992

  France

  Recalled from France to attend Cabinet and departmental meetings.

  —

  1,045·00

  1 September 1992

  France

  Recalled from France for departmental meetings.

  —

  2,980·00

  29 January to 1 February 1993

  Zurich

  To attend the World Economic Forum.

  —

  439·41

  7 April 1993

  France

  Recalled from France for the launch of the Child Support Agency.

  —

  324·10

  Minister of State

  20 to 21 May 1992

  Limerick

  Council of Europe Conference of Social Security Ministers.

  —

  143·35

  23 to 24 May 1992

  Luxembourg

  Meeting of Social Affairs Council.

  2

  1,006·86

  2 to 5 September 1992

  Barcelona

  Parolympic games and bilateral meeting with Spanish Minister of State.

  2

  1,303·68

  7 to 11 October 1992

  Montreal

  International Ministers meeting.

  2

  4,473·90

  11 to 13 October 1992

  New York

  UN General Assembly.

  2

  3,012·90

  8 to 9 December 1992

  Paris

  OECD meeting.

  1

  456·78

  27 May to 6 June 1993

  China Hong Kong

  Visit counterpart Minister of State for Disabled. Meeting with C. Patten. Visit to Rehabilitation Services for Disabled. Meeting with Secretary of State for Health and Welfare of Hong Kong.

  6

  13,926·30

  Parliamentary Undersecretaries

  28 January 1993

  Copenhagen, Denmark

  Social Affairs Council Meeting.

  4

  4,500·00

  1 February 1993

  Strasbourg

  Open Beveridge exhibition.

  2

  1,125·30

  26 to 27 February 1993

  Germany

  Bilateral talks with German counterparts.

  2

  332·50

  28 April 1993

  Republic of Ireland

  Meeting board of management trust: war pensions. Visit Leopardspark hospital. Meeting WP advisory committee and voluntary organisations.

  1

  460·00

  15 May 1993

  Brussels

  To see Belgian Social Security Minister to discuss draft EC Council on resolution on flexible retirement pension.

  2

  590·52

  28 to 30 September 1993

  Republic of Ireland

  Informal talks with Minister of State for Social Welfare and visit to community development programme— Dublin.

  1

  426·00

  274

  Period—1993–94

  Loans

  Grants

  July

  75,000

  33,418

  August

  54,375

  23,672

  September

  87,180

  40,535

  Total to date

  376,111

  201,372

  All figures are rounded to the nearest pound.

  Ministers' Overseas Journeys
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what journeys abroad, involving public expenditure, he and other Ministers in the Department have made since 9 April 1992; what were the dates of the journeys and the places visited; what was the purpose of the journey in each case; by whom the Minister was accompanied, and what additional public expenditure was Table of monthly expenditure involved; and what was the total cost of each journey made abroad by each Minister.

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 26 October 1993]: The available information is in the table.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Turkey
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received recently regarding violation of human rights in Turkey; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We regularly receive representations about alleged human rights abuses against Kurds in Turkey.

  We are concerned by all allegations of human rights abuses in Turkey, including those perpetrated by the PKK. The Turkish authorities are aware of the importance we attach to the rule of law and respect for human rights.

  Russia
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent of political stability in Russia; and what evidence there is of military and security commanders acting without political authorisation.

  Mr. Hurd
  The prospects for political stability in Russia are now better than for some time. The Russian people will be able next month to vote in elections to a new Parliament and to express their views on a new Constitution. The Russian military and security services have, for the most part, remained politically neutral. In bringing an end to the confrontation with Parliament, President Yeltsin had the backing of the Ministers of Defence and Security.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to ensure the development of an open and full democracy in Russia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have made clear to President Yeltsin and members of the Russian Government on many occasions our full support for the process of economic and democratic reform in Russia. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised this most recently with the Russian Foreign Minister during his visit to the United Kingdom on 26 October. The Russian people will go to the polls on 12 December to elect deputies to a new two-chamber Parliament and to vote on the adoption of a new constitution. This is a very real step forward in terms of building a democratic society based on the rule of law, to which President Yeltsin is committed. International observers have been invited to ensure the elections are free and fair. The United Kingdom will take part in this.

  GATT Negotiations
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effect of the outcome of the GATT negotiations on the conduct of European Community business.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The European Council last week underlined the real economic benefits a positive outcome would bring to the Community in our efforts to 276
  restore growth, raise competitivity and reduce unemployment. Heads of Government underlined their commitment to reach a global, durable and balanced agreement this year. The Commission is working strenuously to this end.

  Malta
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many official visits have been made to Malta over the past three years and by whom; and what future visits are planned.

  Mr. Hurd
  During this period, in addition to the highly successful state visit last year, four Ministers have been to Malta and there have been a number of visits by officials. I plan to visit Malta early in 1994.

  Child Migrants
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff at the high commissions in Australia, Canada and New Zealand are currently involved in discussions in relation to the British child migrant scheme.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No staff at the high commissions in Australia, Canada and New Zealand are currently involved in discussions about the child migrant scheme. In July 1993, the high commission in Ottawa dealt with an inquiry from a Canadian television station following the showing on British television of the ABC/BBC mini-series "The Leaving of Liverpool". In Canberra, a member of the high commission was involved—most recently, in September —in obtaining information from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs about the Child Migrants Trust in Australia. The information was passed to the Department of Health in London.

  Exporters
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to improve the quality of help given to British exporters by Her Majesty's diplomatic service.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Since the establishment of a joint FCO/DTI directorate to co-ordinate overseas trade services, there have been significant improvements in the quality and range of services offered to exporters. There is a much greater emphasis on quality and speed of service, new services are being introduced, staff training has been overhauled and contacts with industry, trade associations and chambers of commerce enhanced. Feedback is very positive. Ninety per cent of our customers surveyed would use our services again.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to discuss the situation in Bosnia with his NATO colleagues.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend the North Atlantic Council ministerial meeting on 2 December. Although the agenda has not been finalised, we expect that the situation in Bosnia will be discussed at this meeting.
  277
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with other Foreign Secretaries regarding former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The situation in the former Yugoslavia was discussed by EC Foreign Ministers at the Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 26 October.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the effectiveness of the UN safe havens in Bosnia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  United Nations Security Council resolution (SCR) 824 of 6 May 1993 established Sarajevo, the Bosnian capital, and the towns of Bihac, Srebrenica, Gorazde, Tuzla and Zepa as safe areas. SCR836 of 4 June expanded the mandate of the United Nations protection force in Bosnia to include deterring attacks against the safe areas and it is clear that the presence of-even small numbers of—UNPROFOR personnel has reduced the willingness of parties to attack safe areas.

  Taiwan
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with the Government of the Republic of China—Taiwan.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have no diplomatic relations with Taiwan. There are however growing commercial and cultural links reflecting Taiwan's increasing economic importance.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the political situation in Nigeria.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  While welcoming the withdrawal of military government on 27 August, we remain concerned about the prospects for democracy in Nigeria. A peaceful transfer of power to a democratically accountable government is the only way to maintain a strong and united Nigeria.

  Far East (Exports)
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department is doing to assist promotion of exports in the far east.

  Mr. Goodlad
  All FCO posts in the far east have export promotion as a top priority. Among other tasks, they seek out export opportunities, advise British companies on the business to be won in their markets, lobby on their behalf for major contracts and against discrimination and organise visits by ministers and trade missions with the specific object of winning business. I am happy to say that our exports to China are 90 per cent. up this year, to the Philippines 69 per cent., to Thailand 46 percent., to South Korea and Malaysia 32 per cent., to Hong Kong 31 per cent., to Singapore 23 per cent. and to Taiwan 20 per cent.

  Middle East
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest stage of discussions in the middle east peace process.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the middle east peace talks.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace negotiations.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace process.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have warmly welcomed the agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and welcome the work of the joint committees on implementation of this agreement. We continue to impress on all parties the importance of rapid progress towards a comprehensive settlement.

  Syria
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to persuade Syria to participate in the current round of peace talks.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs visited Syria on 22 to 24 October. He met President Assad and Foreign Minister Shara'a. He emphasised the importance we attach to early progress on the Syria track, and momentum more generally in the peace process.

  South Africa
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government are taking to contribute to progress towards full democracy in South Africa.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns).

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards democracy in South Africa.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We welcome the passage of legislation by the South African parliament on 23 September to establish the transitional executive council. This is a tremendously important step and puts South Africa firmly on the road to non-racial democracy. We now await agreement on the interim consititution and the Bill of Rights, following which the TEC will come into operation and prepare the way for democratic elections.

  Abu Dhabi
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with Abu Dhabi.
  279
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Bilateral relations between the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates remain excellent.

  Asylum
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to assist potential asylum seekers in their country of origin; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have obligations towards refugees who are within the United Kingdom or at our ports, but we have no obligation to encourage or assist would-be asylum seekers around the world to come here. Our diplomatic and aid efforts to encourage good government and promote respect for human rights can mitigate the circumstances which give rise to refugee outflows.

  Iraq (Arms Sales)
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the sale of arms to Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We strictly implement the relevant resolutions of the United Nations Security Council under which the sale of arms to Iraq has been prohibited since 6 August 1990.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had concerning the situation in Cyprus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Cyprus.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs hosted a lunch for the leaders of the two Cypriot communities in Nicosia on 20 October. It provided an opportunity for the leaders to clarify their positions on the set of ideas and confidence-building measures proposed by the UN Secretary-General and for them to discuss ways of moving the process forward. He followed this up when he met the UN Secretary-General in London on 25 October.

  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to secure the withdrawal of the occupying Turkish army from Cyprus.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The United Kingdom supports the call in United Nations Security Council resolution 789 for a reduction in the number of foreign forces stationed in Cyprus. We stand ready, together with other Security Council members, to consider alternative ways to promote the effective implementation of UN resolutions on Cyprus should there be no further progress by the time of the next report to the Security Council by the UN Secretary-General.

  Eastern Europe
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made with east European countries to join the European Community.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Last June's Copenhagen European Council agreed that the central European associate countries should join the European Community as soon as they are ready to assume the economic and political obligations of membership.

  I very much welcome that decision, for which we had lobbied hard. Our task is now to help the associate countries prepare for membership.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he intends to take to ensure that the Government of Morocco comply with United Nations resolutions on a referendum in Western Sahara.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Both Morocco and Polisario have accepted the United Nations settlement plan but are still engaged in talks with the Secretary-General on its implementation. It is essential that both sides continue to co-operate if there is to be a successful resolution of this dispute.

  Haiti
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to visit Haiti to discuss bilateral relations.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans at present to visit Haiti.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of diplomatic relations between Her Majesty's Government and Haiti.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Diplomatic relations with Haiti are conducted through our ambassador at Kingston, Jamaica, who frequently visits Haiti, and our vice-consul based in Port au Prince. We support United Nations efforts to restore democratic government to Haiti.

  Secret Services (Offices)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the contracts awarded to(a) equip, (b) furnish and (c) decorate the new Vauxhall Cross offices of the Secret Intelligence Service were awarded in each case to the company submitting the lowest tender.

  Mr. Hurd
  Contracts for this project were awarded to companies whose tenders met the requirements of the project and represented the best value for money.

  Mr Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what companies have been awarded the contracts to(a) equip, (b) furnish and (c) decorate the new Vauxhall Cross offices of the Secret Intelligence Service; and what were the prices of each contract.
  281
  Mr. Hurd
  I do not propose, for reasons of security and commercial confidentiality, to comment on individual companies awarded contracts for projects on behalf of the security and intelligence agencies.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total cost of equipping, cabling, decorating and furnishing the new Vauxhall Cross offices of the Secret Intelligence Service.

  Mr. Hurd
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 18 October,Official Report, column 82.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the contracts for(a) equipping, (b) furnishing and (c) decorating the new Vauxhall Cross offices of the Secret Intelligence Service have been put out to tender.

  Mr. Hurd
  These contracts have either been put out to tender or let on a negotiated basis by the project management contractor with firms which were retained from the development stage of the project.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether each of the contracts to(a) equip, (b) furnish and (c) decorate the new Vauxhall Cross, Secret Intelligence Service offices were awarded to British companies.

  Mr. Hurd
  A number of the contracts for this project were awarded to British companies.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many companies tendered for the contracts to(a) equip, (b) furnish and (c) decorate the new Vauxhall Cross offices of the Secret Intelligence Service; and what were the bids of each unsuccessful tender.

  Mr. Hurd
  A number of companies tendered for the various contracts, but it would be wrong to comment on individual bids on grounds of security and commercial confidentiality.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received regarding the problems of proliferation arising from the reprocessing and export of plutonium from Sellafield.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We understand that representations were made on a variety of issues including non-proliferation, during the further round of public consultation on the revised discharge authorisations for Sellafield. These are currently being considered by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current relations between Pakistan and Her Majesty's Government.
  282
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We enjoy excellent relations with Pakistan and look forward to working with Ms Bhutto's new Government.

PRIME MINISTER

  Joint Intelligence Committee
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will outline the functional and departmental composition and internal procedures of the Joint Intelligence Committee.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the booklet on the central intelligence machinery published by HMSO on 1 October.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister to which Ministers the Joint Intelligence Committee reports; and which Minister bears the ultimate responsibility for guiding its decisions.

  The Prime Minister
  I am ultimately responsible for the Joint Intelligence Committee. The committee is not a decision-making body. Its assessments are seen by other Ministers according to the subject matter.

  Libel Actions
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister what legal costs have been met from the public purse relating to libel actions involving Government Ministers in the last three years; and how many cases are still in progress.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 November 1993]: No legal costs payable by the public purse have been incurred on libel proceedings involving Government Ministers during the last three years.

EDUCATION

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to call in consultants or accountants to assist in, or provide advice on, the organisation of conferences, seminars or workshops on grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  None.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 28 October, at columns 744–45, how many of the grant-maintained schools operating at the end of the last financial year showed (a) a financial surplus and (b) a financial deficit.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  None of the 336 grant-maintained schools operating as at 31 March 1993 had a cash deficit.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 28 October,Official Report, columns 744–45, whether he will list the firms of consultants used by his Department to provide basic support for conferences, seminars or workshops on grant-maintained status stating, in each case, the services received and the fees paid.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No. The details of contracts between the Department and individual contractors must
  283
  be treated as commercial-in-confidence. Payments by the Department for the support services listed in my reply of 28 October—Official Report, columns 744–45—total approximately £180,000 to date.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 28 October,Official Report, columns 744–45, how many of the five representations on the possibility of a role for the Audit Commission in the auditing of accounts of grant-maintained schools were supportive of such a possibility.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Four.

DEFENCE

  Low Flying
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what level of command authorisations for low-level jet flights between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am are required to be taken; and what records are maintained of(a) requests for low-level flights in this time period and (b) authorisations granted.

  Mr. Hanley
  Requests for fast jet low flying sorties between the hours of 2300 and 0700 must be made at least 30 days in advance and require the authorisation of Ministry of Defence Air Staff at the appropriate level depending on the nature of the request. The requests and the responses to them are held on departmental files, but separate records are not maintained.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the RAF Support Command list of approved low flying turning points.

  Mr. Hanley
  There is no such list.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was title and purpose of the exercise involving night low level parachute dropping from a US Air Force C-5 aircraft from RAF Brize Norton and RAF St. Mawgan between 2 and 14 November 1992; how many low-level sorties(a) during the day and (b) at night were carried out by the aircraft; what was the (i) earliest and (ii) latest time of the day at which low level sorties by the aircraft were booked; and what were the locations of the parachute drop zones used.

  Mr. Hanley
  The exercise held between 2 and 14 November 1992 was called Bitter Bust and was a joint US/UK forces exercise. During the exercise five low level sorties were flown by C-5 aircraft; three during the day, and two at night. The earliest low level sortie began at 1426, and the latest was completed by 1910. These aircraft carried out two parachute drops during the exercise, both over military training areas; one over Salisbury plain and the other over Weston on the Green.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the measures introduced as part of the citizens charter to improve the responses of his Department to complaints about low flying aircraft.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department's contribution to the citizens charter has included the introducation of a target time of four weeks for response to complaints received from members of the public about low flying, in other than exceptional cases.
  284
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Jaguar and Tornado aircrew assigned to operational duties over(a) Bosina and (b) Northern Iraq are required to qualify or re-qualify to fly at 100 ft above ground level prior to deploying from their bases in the United Kingdom or Germany.

  Mr. Hanley
  All combat ready RAF fast jet aircrew, except Tornado F3 aircrew, are required to be current in operational low flying down to 100 ft. These aircrew may fly a small number of continuation training sorties before deploying to operational theatres overseas.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the individual low-flying areas which have been surveyed by the RAF police to assess requirements for changes to avoidance areas for low flying within the last three years; and if he will list the dates of the survey of each area.

  Mr. Hanley
  The individual low flying areas which have been surveyed by the RAF Police within the last three years, and the dates each survey was completed, are as follows:

  LFA 7 14 December 1990

  LFA 9 30 April 1991

  LFA 17 16 May 1991

  LFA 14 28 February 1992

  LFA 12 3 July 1992

  LFA 13 19 August 1992

  LFA 1 27 May 1993

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what consideration has been given to opening the airspace of the highlands restricted area to all air operators during the summer months;

  (2) what consideration has been given to permitting civil aircraft to enter the highlands restricted area when no military aircraft have booked to use it.

  Mr. Hanley
  Arrangements already exist for civil aircraft to enter the highlands restricted area, provided that details of the proposed flight are passed to the tactical booking cell at RAF West Drayton in sufficient time to permit military users to be informed of the activity. The arrangements obtain at all times when the area is open to military aircraft.

  Mr. Llywd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those aircraft types in United Kingdom military service which are not fitted with a radar altimetre.

  Mr. Hanley
  Of those aircraft in United Kingdom military service, Bulldog T1, Chipmunk, Dominie T1, Gazelle, Hawk T1, Islander, Jetstream, Tucano T1 and VC10 K2 aircraft are not fitted with a radar altimeter.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors are taken into account in the process of decision-making about the introduction of new or revised flow control measures in the United Kingdom low-flying system.

  Mr. Hanley
  Unidirectional flow controls are established in the United Kingdom low flying system where aircraft may be constrained by narrow valleys or corridors formed by avoidance areas. Consideration may be given to introducing new or revised flow control measures where the introduction of additional avoidance areas further constrains the available airspace, with possible implications for flight safety.
  285
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the rules are governing the use as simulated targets of features located in flow control areas of the United Kingdom low-flying system.

  Mr. Hanley
  Where features used as simulated targets are located in flow control areas of the United Kingdom low-flying system, the aircraft must be flown in compliance with the direction of the flow control.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what records are held of the numbers of flights over Germany by Royal Air Force aircraft at low-level since September 1990.

  Mr. Hanley
  Records for low-level flights over Germany by Royal Air Force aircraft between September 1990 and April 1992 are incomplete. Records held since April 1992, however, show that some 4,200 sorties have been flown by fast jet aircraft.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current policy on the maintenance of operational low flying qualifications by individual air crew following successful completion of their initial operational low flying qualification training.

  Mr. Hanley
  Air crews qualified to conduct operational low flying (OLF) maintain currency by flying a minimum of four overland OLF sorties, with a maximum of six in any six-month period and a maximum of 10 in any 12-month period. OLF currency is valid for six months. Lapsed currency may be regained by Tornado IDS crews flying five OLF sorties, and by Jaguar and Harrier pilots flying four OLF sorties. OLF sorties conducted over the sea do not contribute to the maintenance of OLF currency.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of complaints about low flying received from addresses in each of the numbered low flying areas of the United Kingdom during 1992.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Low flying areas

  Numbers of complaints or inquiries

  1

  160

  2

  916

  3

  11

  4

  436

  5

  467

  6

  432

  7

  904

  8

  255

  9

  81

  11

  475

  12

  272

  13

  23

  14

  504

  16

  486

  17

  594

  18

  228

  Support Aircraft
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what offensive support roles are performed by(a) the Harrier aircraft, (b) the Jaguar aircraft and (c) the Tornado aircraft; and if he will make a statement on each aircraft type's specific contribution to these roles.
  286
  Mr. Hanley
  All three aircraft are capable of performing the offensive support roles of close air support, battlefield air interdiction and tactical reconnaissance. Offensive Support is the primary role for Harrier and Jaguar, and it is in this role that they are currently assigned to NATO. The Tornado GR1 aircraft is not currently assigned to the offensive support role; it is concerned primarily with long-range interdiction and reconnaissance.

  Airships
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the results of his Department's trials into the suitability for military use of the Skyship 600 airship; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Further to the reply that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement gave to the hon. Member on 15 July 1993 at column 637, the trials are continuing and it will be some time before we are in a position to make any decisions on future operational roles for airships.

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those military airfields in the United Kingdom at which mandatory noise abatement procedures are in force for aircraft during(a) approach/landing and (b) take-off.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no mandatory noise abatement procedures in force at military airfields in the United Kingdom. The Department does, however, have in place extensive measures to minimise the disturbance from aircraft around military airfields, subject to the limitations imposed by the need to maintain operational capability. These measures include extensive sound insulation and compensation schemes and controls on the ground running of engines. These voluntary measures are also followed at United States Air Force (USAF) bases in the United Kingdom. The MoD and USAF keep their operating procedures under constant review and remain committed to minimising the impact of their activity on the general public and to maintaining good relations with their neighbours and local amenities.

  Jaguar Aircraft
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes have been made to the planned date of withdrawal from RAF service of the Jaguar aircraft since the end of 1990.

  Mr. Hanley
  At the end of 1990, we planned to start withdrawing Jaguar from 2001. Current plans assume that Jaguar will start to withdraw from 2004.

  Open Skies Agreement
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the outcome of the open skies agreement trial flight over the United Kingdom by a Russian aircraft in June.

  Mr. Hanley
  A joint Russian/Belarussian inspection team arrived at RAF Brize Norton on 14 June this year to practise the provisions of the open skies treaty. The observation flight took place on 17 June from RAF
  287
  Leuchars and, although adverse weather conditions prevented the inspection team from photographing as many of the agreed United Kingdom sites as they had hoped, the exercise was considered a success. The inspection team returned to Russia on 19 June.

  Aircraft Accidents
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the definition of a major accident to a British military aircraft includes accidents in which one or more fatalities occur but damage to the military aircraft involved is assessed as less severe than category 4.

  Mr. Hanley
  Yes.

  16 (Reserve) Squadron
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to move No. 16 (Reserve) Squadron from its current location.

  Mr. Hanley
  None. Current plans assume that No. 16 (Reserve) Squadron will remain at RAF Lossiemouth.

  Dominie Aircrew
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Dominie aircrew are currently assigned to maritime patrol duties in wartime; when this role for the Dominie was first introduced; and what is the annual training requirement for aircrew assigned to this role.

  Mr. Hanley
  Six crews, each of four personnel, are assigned to short range maritime patrol duties in wartime. This role was introduced for the Dominie in the late 1960s. There is no formal additional training requirement.

  RAF Lakenheath
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what additional demands for range facilities will result from the deployment of a squadron of US Air Force F-15C fighter aircraft to RAF Lakenheath.

  Mr. Hanley
  This deployment is not expected to result in any additional demand as the F-15C is an air defence fighter and will not be making use of the RAF's air-to-ground weapons ranges.

  Tornado
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many hours have been flown by Tornado GR1 serial number ZA611 since its accident on December 1986; and what was the cost of repairs to the aircraft following that accident.

  Mr. Hanley
  Since its repair, the aircraft has been placed in temporary storage as a medium-term reserve to cover future attrition within the operational fleet. The aircraft has only flown three hours since its accident. Costs of repair to RAF aircraft are commercial in confidence.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current requirement for operational low flying training by Royal Air Force Tornado F3 crews.

  Mr. Hanley
  There is no requirement.

  Air Misses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the effect of the decision in March 1988 to publish reports of air misses involving commercial air transport aircraft on the propensity of military air crew to report air misses with commercial air transport aircraft.

  Mr. Hanley
  Military air crew continue to report such air misses with the same frequency as before.

  RAF Institute of Aviation Medicine
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 26 July,Official Report, column 749, what was the title of the research contract carried out for the RAF Institute of Aviation Medicine by a British university between 1985 and 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The title of the contract was "Circadian rhythms during irregularities of work and rest". The object of the research was to determine the nature and the extent of changes in the amplitude and phase of the circadian rhythm that occur in response to the organisation of the sleep-wake cycle.

  Harrier
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates of all major accidents to Harrier aircraft since its entry into British military service providing, in each case, an indication of whether the cause was(a) aircrew error, (b) servicing error, (c) natural, operating and medical causes, (d) technical failure or (e) not positively determined; and which of the accidents occurred during low-level flying.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Date

  Type

  1Cause

  2Low flying

  6 June 1979

  Harrier GR3

  AE

  No

  12 June 1979

  Harrier GR3

  TF

  No

  18 July 1979

  Harrier GR3

  AE

  Yes

  21 September 1979

  Harrier GR3 x2

  AE

  3No

  4 October 1979

  Harrier GR3

  NOM

  Yes

  8 November 1979

  Harrier GR3

  NOM

  No

  12 March 1980

  Harrier GR3

  NOM

  Yes

  14 October 1980

  Harrier GR3

  TF

  No

  28 October 1980

  Harrier GR3

  NOM

  Yes

  1 December 1980

  Sea Harrier FRS1

  AE

  No

  26 May 1981

  Harrier GR3

  AE

  No

  14 July 1981

  Harrier GR3

  NPD

  Yes

  25 August 1981

  Harrier GR3

  SE

  Yes

  12 February 1982

  Harrier GR3

  NPD

  Yes

  6 May 1982

  Sea Harrier FRS1

  NOM

  No

  6 May 1982

  Sea Harrier FRS1

  NOM

  No

  23 May 1982

  Sea Harrier FRS1

  NPD

  No

  29 May 1982

  Sea Harrier FRS1

  NOM

  No

  8 June 1982

  Harrier GR3

  NPD

  No

  29 June 1982

  Harrier T4

  AE

  No

  6 November 1982

  Harrier GR3

  TF

  No

  21 January 1983

  Sea Harrier FRS1

  AE

  No

  23 February 1983

  Harrier T4 and GR3

  AE

  4No

  22 March 1983

  Harrier GR3

  NPD

  No

  3 May 1983

  Harrier GR3

  SE

  No

  14 June 1983

  Sea Harrier FRS1

  NPD

  No

  20 October 1983

  Sea Harrier FRS1

  TF

  No

  289

  Date

  Type

  1Cause

  2Low flying

  28 October 1983

  Harrier GR3

  NPD

  No

  19 November 1983

  Harrier GR3

  NPD

  No

  16 March 1984

  Sea Harrier FRS1

  TF

  No

  3 June 1984

  Harrier GR3

  TF

  No

  29 November 1984

  Harrier GR3

  NOM

  Yes

  1 December 1984

  Sea Harrier FRS1

  NOM

  Yes

  7 February 1985

  Sea Harrier T4

  AE

  No

  18 February 1985

  Harrier T4

  NOM

  5Yes

  19 November 1985

  Harrier GR3

  NOM

  No

  16 April 1986

  Sea Harrier FRS1

  AE

  No

  17 June 1986

  Harrier GR3

  TF

  No

  28 June 1986

  Harrier GR3

  AE

  No

  15 October 1987

  Sea Harrier FRS1

  NOM

  Yes

  2 November 1987

  Harrier GR3 x2

  AE

  6No

  20 May 1988

  Harrier GR3

  AE

  No

  18 August 1988

  Harrier GR3

  NPD

  No

  20 June 1989

  Harrier T4

  AE

  No

  4 October 1989

  Sea Harrier FRS1

  AE

  No

  29 October 1989

  Sea Harrier FRS1

  SE

  No

  1 December 1989

  Sea Harrier FRS1

  TF

  No

  8 May 1990

  Sea Harrier FRS1

  AE

  No

  17 October 1990

  Harrier GR5

  SE

  No

  10 May 1991

  Sea Harrier FRS 1

  NPD

  Yes

  29 May 1991

  Harrier GR7

  TF

  No

  25 September 1991

  Harrier T4

  NOM

  Yes

  30 September 1991

  Harrier GR5

  AE

  No

  14 May 1992

  Harrier GR3

  NOM

  No

  28 May 1992

  Sea Harrier FRS1

  NPD

  No

  7 August 1992

  Harrier GR5

  TF

  No

  28 June 1993

  Harrier GR7

  NYD

  Yes

  1 AE — Air crew error. SE — Servicing error. NOM — Natural, operating and medical hazards. TF — Technical failure. NPD — Not positively determined. NYD — Not yet determined (board of inquiry not yet complete).

  2 Low flying column: Indicates whether the aircraft was engaged in low-flying (raining or not, it does not include accidents during take-off or landing or during low-level aerobatics displays.

  3 Mid-air collision involving two Harrier GR3s.

  4 Mid-air collision involving Hairier T4 and Harrier GR3.

  5 Mid-air collision involving Harrier GR3 and German Federal Marine F104 aircraft.

  6 Mid-air collision involving two Harrier GR3s.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the accident to a Harrier GR7 aircraft on 28 June.

  Mr. Hanley
  The report of the RAF board of inquiry into this accident is not yet complete. A summary of the board's findings will be published in due course.

  Flag and Cope Thunder Exercises
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates and number and type of aircraft involved of all RAF participation in Flag and Cope Thunder Exercises in North America since 1989.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:
  290

  Dates

  Aircraft Types

  Red/Green Flag

  April 1989

  9 Tornado GR1s

  April 1990

  9 Tornado GR1s

  April 1991

  10 Harriers

  January-February 1992

  8 Tornado GR1s

  October-November 1992

  8 Tornado GR1s, 6 Tornado F3s, 2 Victors, 1 C-130

  Cope Thunder/Distant Frontier

  April-May 1990

  4 Tornado GR1s

  April-May 1992

  8 Tornado GR1s, 6 Tornado F3s, 1E-3D, 1 VC10 Tanker, 1 C-130

  April-May 1993

  9 Tornado GR1s, 8 Tornado F3, 1 C-120

  Maple Flag

  Records of RAF participation in Maple Flag exercises in Canada are not held centrally. The exercise takes place in May-June each year, and RAF participation usually comprises either eight Jaguars or Harriers, which usually attend in alternate years.

  MiG Aircraft Collision
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what powers he has to conduct an investigation into the accident involving two MiG-29 aircraft at RAF Fairford on 25 July.

  Mr. Hanley
  The accident involving two MiG-29 aircraft at RAF Fairford occurred on 24 July 1993 during the international air tattoo (IAT). An RAF board of inquiry was convened because the accident occurred on MoD property, at a flying display which was being conducted under military flying regulations. The investigation was held with the agreement of both the IAT management and the Russian authorities.

  Departmental Land
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many acres of land are owned by his Department in the United Kingdom; and what is their estimated capital value.

  Mr. Hanley
  The size of the defence estate in the United Kingdom is approximately 600,000 acres of freehold and leasehold land. It has never been subject to formal valuation.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many houses are owned by his Department; what is their capital value; and how many are vacant.

  Mr. Hanley
  As at 30 September 1993 the Ministry of Defence owned 72,178 service married quarters, of which 10,124 were vacant, and 677 civilian houses, of which 134 were vacant. The majority of the vacant properties were either undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work and modernisation, held for future deployments, awaiting units returning from overseas, already allotted to service families or under consideration for disposal. In addition 1,843 married quarters—1,150 of them vacant—and 512 civilian houses—61 of them vacant—were in the process of being sold. The overall capital value of the MOD's housing stock has not been assessed.

  Civil Servants—Service Personnel Ratio
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the ratio of civil servants in his Department to service men and women(a) five years ago and (b) at the latest date for which the information is available.

  Mr. Hanley
  As at 1 April 1988 there were 317,000 United Kingdom regular forces and 143,000 full-time equivalent United Kingdom-based MOD civil servants of which 33,600 were in the administration group, the remainder being specialist non-industrial staff and industrial staff. At 1 September 1993 the total were 267,200 United Kingdom regular forces and 128,000 full-time equivalent United Kingdom-based MOD civil servants of whom 33,000 were in the administration group.

  These give ratios of administration group MOD United Kingdom-based civil servants to United Kingdom regular forces of 1:9·43 at 1 April 1988 and 1:8·1 at 1 September 1993.

  Digitised Charts
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statment on the preparation, investment and achievement in the hydrographics department's production of digitised charts; and what assessment has been made of the extent to which this work will enable the United Kingdom to compete succesfully in the world market for such charts.

  Mr. Hanley
  Responsibility for the subject in question is a matter for the Hydrographic Office Defence Support Agency under its chief executive, Rear Admiral J. A. L. Myres. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. A. L. Myres to Mr. David Nicholson, dated 29 October 1993:

  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION—0820G
  You recently asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he would make a statement on the preparation, investment and achievement in the Hydrographic Department's production of digitised charts, and what assessment has been made of the extent to which this work will enable the United Kingdom to compete successfully in the world markets for such charts.
  The Minister has asked me, as Chief Executive of the Hydrographic Office, to reply directly to you.
  Vessels are required under international law to carry charts when at sea. It has been recognised for some time that the use of digital versions of the current paper charts in conjunction with ECDIS (Electronic Chart Display and Information Systems) has the potential to increase significantly the safety of navigation and the protection of the marine and littoral environment, and also to reduce vessels' running costs. However, to translate this concept into reality, it was recognised that it was first necessary to reach international agreement on a wide range of associated technical, organisational, financial and legal aspects. I am pleased to say the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office (HO) has played, and continues to play, a major role in these international discussions and in the formulation of the resulting standards for the exchange of digital data which were formally endorsed and promulgated by the International Hydrographic Organisation (IHO) at its 1992 Conference.
  At the same time, the HO's fully-costed and formally-endorsed 10 year information System Strategy aims both to maximise the use of digital data and digital techniques in order to increase the efficiency of its operation, and to meet existing and future requirements to supply digital as well as paper charts to our customers. I am glad to say that the implementation of this strategy is proceeding to timetable.
  Conscious of the requirements and needs of the emerging market for digital data and products, I can also detail two
  292
  initiatives which the HO is actively pursuing. The first of these is the Admiralty Raster Chart Service (ARCS) in which we are collaborating with two British private sector companies. The enclosed press release provides details of the service which will be demonstrated for the first time in public next month at the Europort Exhibition. The second is the United Kingdom Coastal Zone Mapping Project (CZMP) which we are developing in collaboration with our sister Agency, Ordnance Survey. I am sure you will recall my invitation to you to attend a technical symposium in Westminster on 9 March 1993 at which we introduced the project to potential customers and sought their comments; sadly you were unable to attend. The CZMP seeks to provide the digital geographic template to allow the more effective management of the many aspects of the coastal zone, in line with the recommendations of the House of Commons Select Committee Report on the Environment (Coastal Zone Protection and Planning) under the chairmanship of Sir Hugh Rossi.
  The intention is, and I firmly believe the reality will be, that the HO's pre-eminent position in supplying paper charts to the international maritime community will be successfully carried forward into the digital era.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for how long access to his Department's archives in the Public Record Office in Hayes has been blocked because of contamination of records by asbestos dust; what action is being taken to remedy the situation; and when applications for disability pensions and other matters will be able to be progressed.

  Mr. Hanley
  Following discovery of asbestos contamination the archive at Hayes has been closed to normal working since 24 June 1993, although restricted access for urgent matters has been maintained through the use of contractors or archive staff wearing protective clothing.

  Responsibility for decontamination lies with Property Holdings of the Department of the Environment. Work has commenced on the removal of asbestos lagging and sealing the asbestos-sheet roofs, while tenders have been sought for cleaning the archive and all the records.

  Priority will be given to that part of the archive containing service records and we are hopeful that unrestricted access will be possible from about mid-December.

  United States Bases
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United States military bases have been closed in the United Kingdom in each of that past five years; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Hanley
  The bases and facilities made available to the United States visiting forces and which have been returned to Ministry of Defence control in each of the past five years are as follows:

  Base

  Facilities

  Date

  1988:

  Bramley

  Storage/Support

  January 1988

  1989:

  RAF Ridgewell

  Storage/Support

  August 1989

  1990:

  RAF Wethersfield

  Standby Deployment Base

  October 1990

  1991:

  RAF Chessington

  Contingency Hospital

  September 1991

  293

  Base

  Facilities

  Date

  RAF Hullavington

  Storage/Support

  September 1991

  RAF Kirknewton

  Contingency Hospital

  September 1991

  RAF Lanark

  Contingency Hospital

  September 1991

  1992:

  Aberdeen

  Communications Site

  November 1992

  NAD Broughton Moor

  NATO Armaments Depot

  June 1992

  RAF Caimmore Hilloch

  Communications Site

  October 1992

  Great Bromley

  Communications Site

  May 1992

  Greatworth

  Communication Site

  February 1992

  RAF Greenham Common

  Standby Deployment Base

  September 1992

  Holy Loch

  Storage/Support

  June 1992

  RAF Inverbervie

  Communications Site

  October 1992

  RAF Kemble

  Storage/Support

  June 1992

  RAF Locking

  Contingency Hospital

  October 1992

  Martlesham Heath

  Communications Site

  July 1992

  RAF Sculthorpe

  Standby Deployment Base

  October 1992

  West Murkle

  Communications Site

  October 1992

  1993:

  RAF Bentwaters

  Main Operating Base

  September 1993

  RAF Burtonwood

  Storage/Support

  August 1993

  Forss

  Communications Site

  September 1993

  Framlingham

  Storage/Support

  September 1993

  NAD Glen Douglas

  NATO Armaments Depot

  October 1993

  RAF Kinnaber

  Communications Site

  January 1993

  RAF Macrihanish

  Storage/Support

  April 1993

  Mormond Hill

  Communications Site

  January 1993

  RAF Woodbridge

  Main Operating Base

  August 1993

  Redundancies
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been paid in redundancy payments to members of the British armed forces in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Hanley
  The current redundancy programme began in financial year 1992–93. In that year a total of some £97,000,000 was spent on special capital payments. In the current year it is estimated that some £281,000,000 will be spent. In addition personnel who have served for 12 years or more are eligible for an immediate pension and terminal grant-for those with less than 12 years service these are preserved until age of 60. These payments would be made whether the individual left on redundancy or at the end of their agreed service. Expenditure on pension, terminal grants and commutation of pension was some £135,000,000 in 1992–93 and is estimated to be £247,000,000 for 1993–94.

  Civil Servants (Retirements)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what conditions will be placed on early retirees to prevent their subsequent re-employment as civil servants or consultants by their previous departments.

  Mr. Aitken
  Early retirees may be re-engaged to carry out essential work which cannot otherwise be continued or completed. They may also be taken on as consultants to undertake work for which no expertise exists, or can be made available, from within the Department. There are no proposals to impose conditions to prevent such employment.

  Business Development Advisers
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the business development advisers appointed by his Department since 1979 giving details of the periods of their appointment.

  Mr. Hanley
  Since 1979 many different areas of the Ministry of Defence have appointed, or otherwise sought the views of, external consultants to advise on aspects of their business; and such appointments have been for widely varying periods of time. Full information on such appointments is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Officers' Housing
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the justification for his Department's proposal to build a house for a brigadier on green belt land off School lane, Pirbright, and 11 officers' married quarters, also on green belt land, west of Caterham close, Pirbright.

  Mr. Hanley
  The possible reroling of Queen Elizabeth barracks Pirbright is at present being considered. A review of married quarter holdings identified a possible shortfall of 11 officer quarters and one type 2 quarter. As a preliminary measure the local planning officer's views were sought and an application was submitted regarding the suitability of using MOD land for the construction of quarters should the need arise. The planning application has now been withdrawn. Possible further uses for the barracks continue to be examined but at this stage no conclusions have been reached.

  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the officers' married quarters in Caterham close and Dawneys road, Pirbright are currently occupied by personnel who are not employed at Pirbright camp.

  Mr. Hanley
  Six of the quarters are occupied by personnel not employed at Pirbright camp. They are entitled to occupy these quarters because Pirbright is used as a dormitory area for headquarters London district.

  IMS Ltd.
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the size of the staff and the net cash assets or liabilities of IMS Ltd. when it was wound up; and to where those staff and assets or liabilities were transferred.

  Mr. Aitken
  International Military Services (IMS) is a private limited company. It ceased trading in July 1991 and is in the process of being run down with the aim of going into liquidation once its obligations have been met. Information relating to the trading operations of the company is commercially confidential. The company publishes its accounts for public scrutiny in accordance with company law.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library tables showing the size and geographical location of(a) IMS Ltd. and (b) the defence export sales organisation.

  Mr. Aitken
  Yes.

  Export Sales Agreements
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether advice or assistance has been offered to the Malaysian Government on the construction of air and naval base facilities in that country since 1984.

  Mr. Aitken
  Yes.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the products exported to, and projects commenced in, Brunei under the United Kingdom-Brunei defence export sales agreement since 1984; and which were the lead British enterprises involved in each case.

  Mr. Aitken
  In 1989 a defence protocol agreement was signed between the Governments of the United Kingdom and Brunei. To date, there have been no purchases by Brunei as a result of this agreement.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the products exported to, and projects commenced in, Malaysia under the United Kingdom-Malaysia defence export sales agreement since 1984; and which were the lead British enterprises involved in each case.

  Mr. Aitken
  A memorandum of understanding was not signed until September 1988. Under the terms of this MOU the Malaysian Government agreed to purchase various military equipments from the United Kingdom. The terms of the MOU cannot be released for reasons of commercial confidentiality, but since its signature contracts have been signed with a total value in excess of £1 billion.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the products exported to, and projects commenced in, Saudi Arabia under the Al Yamamah agreements; and which were the lead British enterprises involved in each case.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Al-Yamamah programme has included the provision to Saudi Arabia of Tornado aircraft, Hawk and PC-9 training aircraft, minehunters and major defence construction projects, together with associated equipment, infrastructure and extensive manpower and logistic support. An agreement for the supply of further Tornado aircraft was concluded this year. This is a Government-to-Government programme under which British Aerospace acts as prime contractor to the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the products exported to, and projects commenced in, Jordan under the United Kingdom-Jordan defence export sales agreement with, in each case, the lead British enterprise involved, since 1984.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is not our practice to comment on detailed matters concerning individual defence exports. However, in this case the information concerned has been released to the Scott inquiry. Exceptionally, therefore, I can provide the information the hon. Gentleman requests, which is as follows:

  Project

  Lead British enterprise

  1. 120mm and 105 ammunition

  Royal Ordnance

  2. Mod Kit for APFSDS

  IMS

  3. MBT spares

  VDS

  296

  Project

  Lead British enterprise

  4. MBT spares

  Royal Ordnance

  5. MBT spares

  David Brown vehicle transmissions

  6. Training Simulator

  Invertron Sim Systems

  7. Mine Plough. Dozer Blade

  Pearson Engineering

  8. Giant Viper and Trailers

  Royal Ordnance

  9. Trackway 30 and 60

  Laird (Anglesey)

  10. Trackway 60

  Laird (Anglesey)

  11. Trackway Vehicles

  Leyland

  12. Medium Girder Bridge

  Fairey Engineering

  13. C/Mine Flail vehicle

  Aardvark

  14. Water Purification Eqpt

  Stelia-Meta Filters

  15. Medical Equipment

  IMS

  16. Land Rover Vehicles

  Land Rover

  17. Land Rover/Fighting Veh

  Land Rover

  18. Land Rover Vehicle

  Glover Webb

  19. Armoured Land Rover

  Shorts

  20. MRA 7 Tellurometer

  Tellumat

  21. Laser Range Finder LP6

  USI

  22. Motorcycle

  Armstrong Motorcycles

  23. Director Artillery

  Hall and Watts

  24. Rapid Runway Repair Eqpt

  IMS

  25. Generators

  Mirrless Blackstone

  26. VHF Advanced Radios

  Marconi Secure Radio

  27. EOD Equipment

  IMS

  28. Fire Protection Eqpt

  Graviner

  29. LAW 80

  Hunting Engineering

  30. Radar

  Marconi Radar

  31. Radars

  Marconi Radar

  32. Cranes

  Grove Coles

  33. Workshop Eqpt

  Air-tec

  34. Workshop Eqpt

  Kennedy Int.

  35. FS Avionics update

  Smiths Industries

  36. EW Eqpt (Gnd/Air)

  Racal

  37. Cables

  BICC

  38. Cables/Transmission Eqpt

  STC

  39. Hawkeye Spares

  Hawkeye Systems

  40. Hawkeye Support Eqpt

  Hawkeye Systems

  41. Camouflage Nets

  Bridport Aviation

  42. Camouflage Nets

  Bridport Aviation

  43. Thermal Imager units

  Thorn EMI

  44. Communications Eqpt

  IMS

  45. HF/Misc Comms Eqpt

  Marconi Comms

  46. Laser Training Eqpt

  Centronic

  47. Engineering Eqpt

  IMS

  48. Air Cargo Loader

  Avialift Products

  49. Additional L/Rovers

  Land Rover

  50. Tank Transporters

  Foden Trucks

  51. Retreading Facility

  Avon Tyres

  52. Additional L/Rovers

  Land Rover

  53. A/C Combat Simulator

  British Aerospace

  54. Fast Patrol Boats (30m)

  Vosper Thornycroft

  55. Fast Patrol Boats (13m)

  RTK Marine

  56. 20 and 30mm Ammunition

  BMARC

  57. Oversight Services

  MOD UK

  58. Engineering Consultancy

  Rendel, Palmer + Tritton

  59. 17A2 GPMG

  IMS

  60. Target Drones

  TTL

  A small proportion of the equipment contracted for under these arrangements has not been delivered.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the date of the settlement of the defence exports sales agreements with Jordan, Malaysia, Brunei and the Al Yamamah agreement with Saudi Arabia since 1984; which was the British agency responsible for administering these agreements; and what was the value of the total order placed for each agreement in both current and standard prices.

  Mr. Aitken
  Two memoranda of understanding covering the sale of defence equipment with Jordan have been agreed, the first on 19 September 1985 and the second
  297
  on 9 June 1987. Administration of the contracts placed under these arrangements was provided by International Military Services.

  The former Prime Minister and the Malaysian Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir, signed a memorandum of understanding in September 1988, and a defence protocol was signed between the Governments of the United Kingdom and Brunei in 1989. The original formal understanding and the memorandum of understanding between Her Majesty's Government and the Saudi Arabian Government concerning Project Al Yamamah were concluded, respectively, in 1985 and 1986. A further formal understanding was concluded in 1988. All these agreements are administered by the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence.

  The exact value of orders placed under such agreements is confidential to the Government concerned.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what problems are being experienced with the installation of flight control systems in the Eurofighter by Deutsche Aerospace; what delays to the project have resulted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) on 1 November at column 67.

  Pathfinder Initiative
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the successful and unsuccessful bids submitted to him under the Pathfinder initiative; and what was the cash value of each successful bid.

  Mr. Aitken
  This is a matter delegated to the Defence Research Agency under its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mr. J. Chisholm to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 3 November 1993:
  In today's written answer the Minister of State for Defence Procurement informed you that I would be replying to your question about Pathfinder.
  The DRA received over 640 bids in response to its Pathfinder initiative. So far 43 proposals with a total value of over £15·4 million have been accepted. A further 133 proposals with a total value of £42·7 million have been accepted in principle and negotiations are continuing to determine how these can best be incorporated into the existing research programme.
  For reasons of commercial confidentiality I am not able to provide a list of all the bids received or their values. I would, however, hope to be in a position to give further details of the successful bids—;though not the values—once formal contracts have been negotiated and the permission of the individual companies obtained. Some of this information should be available by the time of the second Pathfinder Conference which will be held at Farnborough on 24 and 25 November and I will write to you then with an update.

  British Aerospace
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with British Aerospace on the national security implications of any proposals to out-source information technology being put forward by that company.
  298
  Mr. Aitken
  My officials have had discussions with representatives of British Aerospace and have agreed that out-sourcing of their information technology work may be possible provided that certain well-defined security conditions are complied with.

  Ferranti
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what competitive considerations for defence procurement there are in the proposed takeover of Ferranti by GEC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department is examining the competition implications of the proposed acquisition by GEC of Ferranti International and will, if necessary, advise the regulatory authorities in the usual manner. Advice of this nature is confidential.

  GEC Marconi
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts he has placed with GEC Marconi since 15 July; and what is their value.

  Mr. Aitken
  Our latest centrally held records show that GEC Marconi Ltd. was awarded 72 MOD contracts with a total value of approximately £6·57 million in the period 15 July 1993 to 30 September 1993.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the efforts being made and planned by his Department to develop computer simulation programmes and other methods of testing nuclear weapons not involving underground detonations of a nuclear device.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer on 2 November 1992 at column 53.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the military role of British sub-strategic nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence during the debate on the Statement on the Defence Estimates on 18 October 1993,Official Report, col. 34.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the contribution made to the military doctrine of NATO by British sub-strategic nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Hanley
  The contribution of British nuclear weapons to the overall deterrence and security of the allies is recognised in the alliance's strategic concept, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. A significant proportion of the sub-strategic weapons assigned to the alliance are British.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department designates a nuclear weapon as sub-strategic on the basis of(a) range, (b) yield or (c) the military role allocated to the weapon.

  Mr. Hanley
  The designation "sub-strategic" relates to the type of action to which the weapon would contribute.

  Anglo-French Nuclear Co-operation Council
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether it is intended that the Government of the United States will participate in the Anglo-French Nuclear Co-operation Council; and what discussions he has had with the United States Government on this matter;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the function and organisation of the Anglo-French Nuclear Co-operation Council; and if he will place the documents relating to the establishment of this council in the Library;

  (3) what matters will be discussed in the Anglo-French Nuclear Co-operation Council;

  (4) if the documents relating to the business of the Anglo-French Nuclear Co-operation Council will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Franco-British Joint Commission on Nuclear Policy and Doctrine was set up in autumn 1992. It brings together senior officials from the British and French Foreign and Defence Ministries, reporting as necessary to Ministers. The commission has carried out a comparison of the two countries' approaches to the role of deterrence, nuclear doctrines and concepts, anti-missile defences, arms control and non-proliferation. Further joint work on these subjects is in hand. The focus of the commission's work has been to deepen the dialogue on nuclear policy issues between the United Kingdom and France rather than to arrive at agreed Franco-British public positions on those issues. It has not so far produced papers appropriate for placing in the Library of the House. There are no plans for the United States to participate in these bilateral discussions: we have similar discussions with the United States both bilaterally and within NATO.

  NATO Nuclear Planning Group
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the remit of NATO's nuclear planning group includes discussion of nuclear arms control and nuclear non-proliferation issues.

  Mr. Hanley
  Issues relating to nuclear arms control and non-proliferation are discussed at nuclear planning group meetings to the extent that they affect the responsibilities of NATO Defence Ministers.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's view of the purpose and remit of NATO's nuclear planning group.

  Mr. Hanley
  The purpose of the nuclear planning group is to enable alliance Defence Ministers to discuss matters relating to NATO's nuclear posture, including questions of policy, doctrine, plans and procedures.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if NATO will consider extending the membership of the nuclear planning group to include non-treaty members of the North Atlantic Co-operation Council.

  Mr. Hanley
  We do not consider that it would be appropriate for co-operation partners to participate in the work of the nuclear planning group.

  WE177 Free-fall Bomb
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's programme to extend the service life of the WE177 free-fall bomb.
  300
  Mr. Hanley
  We currently assess that the WE177 carried by the Tornado aircraft will be able to provide an effective capability into the first decade of the next century.

  Ammunition
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 28 October,Official Report, column 729, what proportion of ammunition and propellants supplied to the armed services has been placed indirectly with foreign companies.

  Mr. Aitken
  This is a matter for the prime contractors concerned.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 28 October,Official Report, column 728, in what country the non-EC supplier of ammunition or propellants is incorporated.

  Mr. Aitken
  Austria.

  Submarine Accidents
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the maximum area and radius which would have to be(a) evacuated and (b) subjected to restrictions in the worst case scenario of a severely ruptured submarine reactor due to collision or other circumstances in the firth of Forth or the firth of Clyde; and what contingency plans have been made.

  Mr. Hanley
  [pursuant to his answer, 29 October 1993, c. 802–3]: The answer that I gave the hon. Member on 29 October should have read as follows:

  The overall probability of any accident resulting in even a small release is very low indeed. Nevertheless it remains prudent to develop contingency plans to respond to the possibility of an accident which might result in a radioactive hazard. The risk of an accident which would require the application of public protection measures such as shelter, evacuation or taking potassium iodate tablets beyond a distance of 10 km from any accident location is no more likely than about one in one million in any one year, even assuming a reactor is operating continuously at that particular location.

  No. 15 (Reserve) Squadron
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the impact of the move of No. 15 (Reserve) Squadron RAF to Lossiemouth on the frequency of use of the weapons ranges at(a) Tain, (b) Rosehearty and (c) Cape Wrath.

  Mr. Hanley
  The use of the ranges at RAF Tain and RAF Rosehearty has decreased during the last 12 months following the progressive withdrawal from the United Kingdom of USAF F-111 aircraft and the run-down of the Buccaneers at RAF Lossiemouth. The move of No. 15 (Reserve) Squadron to RAF Lossiemouth is expected to increase usage from current levels in such a way as to be approximately in line with that which applied at 1992. The use of the Cape Wrath range is not expected to be affected by the move of No. 15 (Reserve) Squadron.

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

Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Anthony Paul Lester, Esquire, QC, having been created Baron Lester of Herne Hill, of Herne Hill in the London Borough of Southwark, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Jenkins of Hillhead and the Lord Woolf.
The Earl of Courtown The Earl of Courtown—Took the Oath.

Football Disturbances: Holland
2.48 p.m.
Lord Howell Lord Howell asked Her Majesty's Government:
What information was provided to them from the Football Intelligence Unit prior to the Holland versus England world cup match as to the identity of persons likely to create disturbances in Holland during the relevant periods of time; how many such persons were prevented from travelling to Holland under the terms of Part II of the Football Spectators Act 1989; and how many people have been or will be subjected to prosecution as a result of disturbances created in Holland.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I understand from the director of the National Criminal Intelligence Service that the intelligence provided by him direct to the Dutch authorities included a list of 559 supporters who are subject to football exclusion orders as well as intelligence on the activities of certain hard-core groups. Decisions as to whether individuals who are subject to restriction orders should be required to report during a particular match is a matter for the enforcing authority. I understand that no one was required so to report on this occasion. To date, 14 people have been prosecuted by the Dutch authorities as a result of the disturbances.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that information, which is extremely valuable. However, does it not show that all our procedures under the Act, supported on all sides of the House, are proving to be totally ineffective? Should we not be ashamed to wreak this havoc upon citizens of friendly countries in Europe? Do we not have a duty to prevent those evil criminals—for that is what they are—from carrying out their actions? Therefore do we not need to take more action on an agreed basis to prevent those people leaving this country in the first place? We must not forget that often innocent supporters are subject to intense provocation in overseas countries. The activities experienced in Italy, Spain and Holland, and the evil carried out last night in Istanbul, must be dealt with. Is
1082
it not time that we had an all-party conference to reach agreement as to how we can best tack le this national evil?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sure that we all agree that the behaviour of those hooligans casts a major blemish on the good name of this country. We are still working on existing legislation to try to improve the way in which it works, and clearly there is much to be done in that regard. For example, we are continuing to seek bilateral agreements with other countries under Article 5 of the European convention on spectator violence and misbehaviour at sports events. Interestingly, in the light of the developments at the England-Holland match, Holland is one of the countries with which we are actively trying to pursue that course.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is not one of the major problems of the Football Spectators Act that, in order to be effective, it needs a reciprocal agreement between this country and other countries? Is it not the case that such reciprocal agreements apply only to Italy, Sweden and Scotland? Quite how one can be enforced between England and Scotland is beyond me, although it may not be beyond the noble Lord. Is this not another example of legislation arrived at in haste and being repented at leisure? Unless it has already been made clear and agreed that there will be reciprocal action, it can hardly be denied that the action proposed under the Act will not work.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not think that we need to repent for attempting to tackle this problem. The reason that Scotland is considered is that Scottish law is different; and, dare I say, in Scotland they would like to keep English football hooligans out just as much as any other country would do. As I said in my original Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, the problem is, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, that we need these bilateral agreements; and we shall continue to pursue them. But quite clearly we need the agreement of the other country, and I very much hope that other footballing countries will come along and sign up to Article 5 of the convention.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the need for bilateral agreements and we would all accept the need for those. Why is there no bilateral agreement with Holland? When did we start negotiating with the Dutch authorities? Does the noble Lord agree that there is no point in us all denouncing the behaviour of English football supporters who misbehave in such a lamentable manner if these agreements are not carried through?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, there are obviously some problems with the legal systems in some other countries in terms of whether they can fit easily into the legal framework that we have created in this country. But I can assure the noble Lord that we continue to do what we can to pursue these matters, especially, for example, over ensuring that, if a British citizen commits a criminal offence while at a football match in another country, the authorities in that country will prosecute him.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, do the Government have the power to ban such people going abroad? If they have the power, in the interests of everyone why do they not use it? If they do not have the power, will they bring forward legislation as quickly as they can? I am sure that everyone I know would be in favour of it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, a court can impose restriction orders which would prevent persons going to certain designated matches in other countries. The numbers of such restriction orders are really quite small. Indeed, as far as I understand, no one under a restriction order was in Holland and in any way responsible for the events of a week or two back.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, the noble Lord has rightly drawn attention to the fact that no similar experience has occurred so far as concerns Scottish football supporters. Is there anything to be learnt by the English authorities from that excellent experience?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall resist the temptation to go too far down this path, but as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, knows, the experience obtained in Scotland from the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1980, which prevented the consumption of alcohol in football grounds and so on, has been taken up in England. I am quite sure that there will be the same success south of the Border as there has been north of the Border. On the travelling of fans abroad, I do not think that those of us from north of the Border should be particularly self-satisfied about this issue because it could quite easily strike us as well.
Lord Howell: My Lords, will the Minister advise the House, especially those on the Liberal Benches, that these people are not football supporters? Why is not this matter designated under Part II of the Act and why were none of the 500 people whose names were apparently given to the Dutch authorities brought before the courts, made subject to an exclusion order and required to attend a police station at the appropriate time when the match was being played?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord knows, having been actively involved in the passage of the Bill in another place, that there are two different kinds of order. The restriction order deals with fans travelling abroad and the exclusion order deals with fans going to football matches in this country. We are looking at the possibility of combining the two orders in the future.

Legislation
2.57 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will undertake a fundamental review of the legislative procedures, involving a Speaker's Conference if that were generally acceptable.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, the Government have no plans to conduct a review of the kind that my noble friend suggests. We are always ready to consider particular proposals for improvement to legislative procedures. Indeed, only recently the Government supported the setting up on an experimental basis of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, what a pity. Does my noble friend not realise what a comfort it would be to many of us if he would simply agree that there is too much legislation—too many Bills, too long, too complicated and insufficiently prepared—and too much reliance; if I may add this point, on the wisdom of Secretaries of State as yet unidentified and perhaps even unborn?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I have more sympathy with the view that my noble friend expresses than perhaps I should agree to from this Dispatch Box. However, we do our humble best to live up to the standards of the past. The truth of the position is that there is now around five times as much legislation as there was in the days when others remember how we did things. That is at the heart of the problem. There is too much legislation to get it all through. But this is the process of modern government. We have to find ways of dealing with the problem.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the House an assurance that the term "legislative procedures" as contained in the Question put down by his noble friend includes those applicable to an ever-growing volume of European legislation? Will he also give an assurance that next year it will be possible for either House of Parliament, or preferably both, to examine in detail the budget of the European Communities which is costing the British taxpayer billions of pounds?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I can certainly give the noble Lord as much assurance as I am able to, but not about the detail of what will be in the programme for next year. However, I have no doubt that he will find ways of raising the issues which he believes to be important and bringing them to your Lordships' attention.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that there is no need for a general review or a Speaker's Conference, but will he bear in mind that in recent years, as my noble friend Lord Peyton has said, legislation has become much too detailed and complicated because departments will try to cover every hypothetical situation which might arise instead of expressing the intentions of Parliament in a general way?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am sure that we should continue to listen to the wisdom of my noble friend's years. However, there are difficulties in not making legislation specific enough. Often the courts then have to interpret the law. I believe that we already have enough legal proceedings resulting from our

1085
legislation to want to avoid the courts. So I have sympathy with my noble friend, but I do not believe that we can go quite as far as he suggests.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the Leader of the House take what his noble friend has said very seriously indeed? Does he not realise that Acts such as the Child Support Act and the Criminal Justice Act 1991 have caused considerable difficulties to very many ordinary people? Is he also aware that under the Child Support Act an organisation has been set up which is causing great difficulty not only among men but among second families as well? Does he agree that, if that legislation had been properly thought out and discussed, we should not be in the present difficulties? I urge the Leader of the House to take this matter very seriously indeed and to put pressure on his right honourable friend the Prime Minister to bring forward much less but better thought out and drafted legislation.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble Lord knows me a great deal better than he indicated in the last part of his question. He must know perfectly well that I have spent most of my life in politics in the management of business and have never been one to advocate more legislation. I have always advocated less. I agree also with the noble Lord in believing that the legislation we produce should be better. We are not perfect and we struggle as best we can.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, will the Leader of the House think very carefully before—
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that careful attention is being paid to the report of the Hansard Society Commission, chaired by my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham, Making the Law? It involved a very authoritative group of people. Does he agree that the report will help a great deal in dealing with some of the problems raised by my noble friend Lord Peyton?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, my noble friend raises a very important point. The Hansard Society report was very valuable. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister wrote to my noble friend Lord Rippon to thank him for the work that the society had done. I believe that a number of its recommendations may well form subjects which we shall want to discuss in the group which the House recently approved following the Procedure Committee's report. We can have a look at some of the procedures in your Lordships' House.
Lord Cocks of Hrartcliffe: My Lords, will the Leader of the House think very carefully before being hurried into an unstructured response to this Question because the results of the so-called Jopling report on procedure in another place do not inspire confidence?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I certainly take notice of the noble Lord's view that one should not rush these matters. I believe that that is right. It may be an indirect comment on the Jopling report, but I recognise too that any changes in the way in which this House and the other place operate can be undertaken only if there is wide all-party agreement.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Leader of the House aware that what concerns me more than the procedures—although I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton—is the substance of the legislation? Does he agree that if it were better thought out and less half-baked its legislative passage would be much easier?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I disagree entirely with the noble Lord. The substance of the legislation is excellent. I look forward to support from my noble friend and others on it.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does not the noble Lord believe that he has given many of us the impression that he is like the pupil who, having received his report, appears before the headmaster and is told, "But your humble best is not good enough; you must try harder next term"?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I feel as though I am appearing before 400 headmasters and headmistresses rather than just one. The fact is that the legislative process is one which we have to continue to try to improve. Also the demands on the legislature and parliamentary draftsmen are infinitely higher than they were years ago because of public demand and changes in our laws. But we shall continue to do our best.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does my noble friend agree—
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I believe that we should go on to the next Question.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does my noble friend realise how welcome his first supplementary answer was and in what shining contrast it was to his original rather wooden Answer? Perhaps the most reverend Primate is the one to tell him how welcome is a sinner's repentance.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I shall look at Hansard. In view of my noble friend's condemnation of my Answer I shall look to see whether I made a mistake.

Set-Aside and Flooded Land
3.7 p.m.
Viscount Addison Viscount Addison asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether farmers can use set-aside land for cropping where planted land has been devastated by recent floods.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, set-aside land cannot be used for any kind of agricultural cropping during the set-aside period except under the non-food arrangements. However, farmers have until next January to take firm decisions about what land to set aside in 1994. If they wish to do so, they can set aside fields sown this autumn which cannot in practice be cropped because of subsequent flooding.

1087
They should, however, inform their MAFF regional service centre so it is clear that they are not intending to crop the field.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his helpful reply. However, is he aware that there are over 8,000 square kilometres of land in England and Wales which lie five metres below the Ordnance Survey contour? Is he further aware that 52 per cent. of all agricultural land in England and Wales requires drainage for flood defence? Is he aware too that where artificially protected land is flooded through breaches in man-made banks maintained by the National Rivers Authority, the NRA classes those breaches as an act of God? Can my noble friend say which god it is that decides to offer over £100 million of subsidy to farmers in the United Kingdom growing linseed—£478 for every hectare of linseed grown—whether they harvest the linseed or not and which god it is that decides that the farmer who, through no fault of his own and despite paying drainage rates, loses his potatoes and autumn drilled crops under flood water is offered neither compensation nor arbitration?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government provide substantial funds for flood and coastal defences every year. But it is important to recognise that those defences cannot provide absolute protection against the forces of nature. There is always the possibility of an event occurring which is more severe than that for which the defence was designed. For compensation to be payable it would be necessary to show that damage had occurred through the negligence of a flood defence authority rather than as a result of a severe natural event. My noble friend mentioned linseed. Under the arable area payments scheme there is no requirement to harvest any crop in order to receive such payments. The crops must simply be sown and maintained up to a specific date with the intention of being harvested. If crops are destroyed by flooding before that date, farmers should write to their regional service centre explaining the full circumstances. It may still be possible to make a payment.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, might not the Minister consider set-aside a sensible way to reduce agricultural surpluses?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the UK has always argued that the best way to control surpluses is to cut prices. The CAP reform package agreed last year included price cuts of 30 per cent. for cereals. That is often overlooked. However, price cuts take some time to work through the system. Set-aside was chosen as a way to help get production down more quickly.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the deficit in timber products in this country is something like £6 billion per annum? Would it not be wise for the EC to give us the necessary authority to plant trees on set-aside land?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. That is something for which we are pressing hard in Brussels.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, when there is terrible pressure on the PSBR and finances, how long will the British public put up with paying people £120 an acre (or whatever it is) to grow weeds? I benefit from that and I will happily take the money when it is given to me. But is it not a seriously silly policy which must be looked into immediately and, if possible, changed?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the aim of the arable area payments scheme is to move away from volume-related incentives towards area-based support which, I believe, should have the effect of reducing the costs of the CAP over a period of years.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that every farmer I know regards the set-aside scheme as an abomination? Does he agree that it would be too much for a farmer to have to set aside land and to have, in addition, an area of enforced set-aside through flood damage? Can he confirm that there is scope in the set-aside regulations for a derogation because of bad weather? Since the recent MAFF strategy for flood and coastal defences put rural flood defence firmly at the bottom of the list of priorities, surely—if that is the ministry's thinking—it should allow flooded farms some degree of help through amendment of their set-aside acreage.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the rules for set-aside and arable area payments are much more flexible this year than last year. The cardinal piece of advice I would give to farmers who have unfortunately suffered flood damage is to contact their regional service centre. Every case will be looked at on its merits and MAFF officers will do their best to be flexible and helpful within the rules.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, considering that 1,500 million people are starving and dying in the world, would it not be better to set aside set-aside?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I have said to the noble Lord in the past, even with set-aside there would be more than enough cereals in the EC to respond to emergencies. Furthermore, I believe that it is better to provide food aid from local sources. The EC's and the UK's assistance to developing countries is much better directed towards restoring local economies and giving local farmers greater independence and security. Those very things are often undermined by the export of EC agricultural surpluses.

Charities and Aid Bodies: Grants
3.14 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their grants to charities and aid bodies will remain the same or be larger than last year.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, at this stage in the financial year it is not possible to say what the level of grant will be. Several thousand grants are paid each year by 15 different departments through a wide range of different grant schemes. The total amount

1089
paid in 1991–92 was £3.4 billion. Information for 1992–93 is being collected but is not yet fully available centrally.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I point out to him—
Noble Lords: No. Ask a question.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I take the help of my noble friends who suggest that I should ask the Minister to point out that there are tremendous differences in aid. There is direct aid, such as sending food and medicine, and long-term aid, such as the international development programmes which rely on a steady supply of aid. If that aid is cut, some of the long-term programmes will have to stop in the middle and will be destroyed. I should like the Government to think carefully before they cut that kind of aid.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Government are well aware of the balance to be struck between short-term aid and long-term development aid. Perhaps I might advise the noble Lord that the funding of the long-term development aid of which he has been speaking has been increased substantially over the past few years. We are currently funding on a 50:50 basis some 1,200 projects which are helping some of the poorest parts of the world. That is development aid; it is not food aid or special one-off aid.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that, contrary to what is suggested in this Question, it is the job of Ministers at this time of year to look at all grants to see whether some of them are becoming less significant or less important than previously, with a view to looking after the interests of the taxpayer?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter knows, that is exactly what the Government do. We review all the funding which is given out by government departments to ensure that it is meeting the objectives set by departments efficiently and effectively.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, could the noble Lord at least confirm that it remains government policy not to reduce in amount any grant payable to charities or voluntary organisations because of anything that they might receive under the much to be regretted National Lottery?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the whole question of the money which comes from the National Lottery and of how it might affect money that has already been given by government departments has been dealt with over more than a few hours in this House. I have nothing to add to what has been said by other Ministers from the Dispatch Box. The essential point remains that we look at the effectiveness with which a service is being delivered, whether in this country or abroad, as the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asked.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that since 1979 the tax incentives given
1090
to those people who contribute to charities have been a great help and incentive to charities and have relieved the taxpayer of some costs?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right about the incentives given in Budgets. Since 1979 every Budget has contained some measure of tax relief for charitable giving. I am happy to tell your Lordships' House that tax reliefs to charities are now worth around £1 billion a year.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there are some areas, particularly that of crime prevention rather than crime detection or punishment, in which the voluntary sector can be far more efficient pound for pound than government or their agencies and that it would be cost-effective to increase their subsidies to that area of the voluntary sector?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Government are well aware of the important role that the voluntary sector can perform in the sphere of work which my noble friend mentioned. I can assure him that the Government always look for the most efficient way of having a service delivered. If a service can be delivered better via the voluntary sector than via the local government or state sectors, we shall, of course, seriously consider that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is not the major problem for charities and aid bodies the fact that they are forced to take on responsibilities which have been abdicated by central government? Can the Minister tell the House what proportion of the aid to which he referred in his first Answer falls into that category, that is, expenditure which would otherwise be direct expenditure by central government?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, this subject is one which divides the political parties and probably your Lordships' House. Some of us think that the voluntary sector has an important role to play in many aspects of our national life and overseas aid. Some other people think that everything should be done by the state. I am afraid that that is not a view which I share.

Petition: Medical Treatment (Advance Directives) Bill
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I beg to present a Petition from the Movement for Christian Democracy which prays that this House will not pass the Medical Treatment (Advance Directives) Bill which is before your Lordships' House. The Petition bears 47,500 signatures.
Petition presented.

Railways Bill
3.20 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and reason be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments and reason be now considered—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
AMENDMENTS AND MOTIONS MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON AND AMENDMENTS
[Page and line references are to Bill 107 as first printed for the Lords.]
LORDS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 22, page 24, line 37, at end insert:
("(1A) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall prevent—

(a) the British Railways Board (in this Act referred to as "the Board"); or

(b) a wholly owned subsidiary of the Board, from being a franchisee.")

The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendments in lieu—
2 Page 24, line 40, at end insert:
'(3) Subject to the following provisions of this section, subsection (1) above shall not prevent—

(a) the British Railways Board (in this Act referred to as "the Board"), or

(b) a wholly owned subsidiary of the Board, from being a franchisee.

(4) Subject to the following provisions of this section, whenever the Franchising Director proposes to issue invitations to tender under section 23 below in respect of any particular services for the carriage of passengers by railway, he may, after consultation with the Board and the Regulator, determine that neither the Board nor any wholly owned subsidiary of the Board shall be eligible for inclusion among the persons to whom the invitations are to be issued or who may be selected as the franchisee.
(5) The Franchising Director shall not make a determination under subsection (4) above unless he considers that it is desirable to do so—

(a) for the purpose of promoting competition for franchises;

(b) for the purpose of promoting the award of franchise agreements to companies in which qualifying railway employees have a substantial interest;

(c) for the purpose of encouraging new entry to the passenger railway industry; or

(d) for the purpose of preventing or reducing the dominance of any person or persons in the market for the provision in Great Britain, or in a part of Great Britain, of services for the carriage of passengers by railway.

(6) The Franchising Director shall—

(a) give notice of any determination under subsection (4) above to the Board; and

(b) publish notice of the determination in such manner as he thinks fit.

(7) Nothing in subsection (5) above shall be taken to affect the matters which the Franchising Director may take into account in determining the other persons whom he invites to tender for franchise agreements or whom he selects as franchisees.
(8) No objectives, instructions or guidance shall be given under section 5 above by the Secretary of State to the Franchising Director with respect to the exercise of his functions under this section.
(9) In this section—
"competition for franchises" means competition to become franchisees under franchise agreements;
"encouraging new entry to the passenger railway industry" means encouraging private sector operators who do not currently provide services for the carriage of passengers by railway to commence doing so;
"qualifying railway employees", in the case of any franchise agreement, means persons who are or have been employed in an undertaking which provides or provided the services to which the franchise agreement relates at a time before those services begin to be provided under that franchise agreement.'.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2 in lieu thereof.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. I indicated on Third Reading that the Government had decided. to accept the principle that BR should be eligible to be a franchisee but that, because of BR's dominant position as the sole monopoly supplier of passenger railway services, additional legislative provision would be needed in respect of BR's role in the franchising process.
Amendment No. 2 fulfils that commitment. Your Lordships will note that new subsection (3) preserves the wording of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Peyton in Committee. The remainder of the amendment gives the franchising director a power to determine in certain circumstances that BR should not be invited to bid for particular franchises. The franchising director may exclude BR from bidding, but only when he considers it desirable to do so in the interests of promoting competition for franchises; of promoting management and employee bids; of encouraging new entry into the industry; or of preventing or reducing market dominance in the provision of passenger railway services.
The government amendment strikes a careful balance between meeting the concerns underlying my noble friend's original amendment that BR should not be ruled out of the franchising process and the Government's concern, which I believe is shared by many of your Lordships, that giving BR a free hand in bidding for franchises would deter other bidders and, in particular, make it very difficult for management and employee teams to bid for franchises.
The Government's proposal will in effect leave it to the franchising director's discretion to decide whether or not BR should be invited to bid. But he will be able to exclude it only if he considers it desirable for the four specific reasons set out in the new subsection (5). He will be completely independent in the exercise of his power, although he is required to consult the BR board and the regulator before making a determination. I draw your Lordships' attention to new subsection (9) which makes it clear that the Secretary of State will not be able to use his powers in Clause 5 of the Bill to give objectives, guidance and instructions to the franchising director in the exercise of his power to determine that BR should not be invited to bid. That is important because it guarantees the franchising director's independence.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that the Government's amendment is a positive response to the concern expressed by this House. We are preserving the wording of my noble friend's amendment. We are accepting the principle that BR should be eligible to be

1093
a franchisee, and we are incorporating sensible safeguards to ensure that private sector interest in operating franchises is not deterred by the prospect of bidding against a powerful public sector incumbent operator. I commend Amendment No. 2 to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2 in lieu thereof.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 2
2A Subsection (4), line 2, leave out from first ("to") to ("in") in line 3 and insert ("award a franchise under this Part").
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2A as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2.
It is an especially attractive time for the Minister to be speaking in this debate: today is his birthday. The issue has been controversial. One is entitled therefore to expect a degree of understanding and co-operation not always apparent in some of his previous speeches. He mentioned that the Government's amendment was designed to be helpful. One accepts that on its face value. The noble Earl got it wrong, but the intention was there. One could say that it is the thought that counts, except that the whole point of our arguments has been missed. What happened, of course, is that when the Bill went to the other place with the Lords amendment, the Government decided to make an amendment, as we know, today. The amendment was clear. It said that British Rail being able to bid in circumstances where no one else had bid was regarded as sensible and acceptable. It is difficult to think who else, other than BR, could be given the franchise in those circumstances. It has not moved the matter forward a great deal; but what it does is to underline the feature of the Government's present position which is to see BR, for some time to come, as the operator of last resort; to offer its tens of thousands of employees the management that the Government believe is capable of running the system after it is privatised but incapable of running it while it is still running as it has run for years. On that basis, those people have nothing to do except work in an environment where they plan, for years, for their own demise, because no one thinks that it will be short term.
The Minister and the Government missed the most significant elements of the debate in the House on the amendment which they subsequently accepted, partly out of the goodness of their heart, because they said clearly that they did not believe in it, and partly because they knew that there was no conceivable possibility of their getting it through in the other place.
While the issue of whether BR should have the right to bid for the franchise has been, and is, a major issue of dispute for the Minister and the Department of Transport, it has never, in the course of our debates, been a party political dispute in the sense of the Government versus the Opposition. That is unusual. The amendment which the Government subsequently accepted could not have succeeded without strong
1094
support from the Cross Benches, the Bishops' Benches, and the support of many distinguished and dedicated members of the Conservative Party.
To suggest that the supporters of the original amendment were a bunch of wild lefties, motivated by a Luddite desire to destroy the Bill and having some doctrinal objection to privatisation, is grotesque. Most of BR's problems stem from its total dependence upon the Treasury and the complete absence of a consistent policy from its ever-changing political masters. There are many of us—I am one, and I know that I am not the only one by a very long chalk—who see the injection into BR of a considerable element of private enterprise and private equity important, not in terms of achieving some mystical return to the good old days of the long-dead regions, but of having an organisation which could see some sort of long-term, consistent future, and which would have the ability to bid. That, it has been demonstrated beyond doubt, is not possible in the present situation where the railway is owned totally by the Government and is subject to the vagaries of government policies as they come and go.
Our concern is that the Minister's present proposals could merely change an already unsatisfactory situation into a chaotic mess, because there is no transfer of the system, as such, and no injection of the outside element which is so necessary. It will be in little pockets all over the place. The bulk will remain with the Treasury, under political control, except that some of BR's key managers will have been lost on the way. Unlike any private-sector company in that situation, the Government, faced with upheaval in this massive organisation, have decided to offer financial inducements to the best and the brightest managers to work for somebody else. That is an extraordinary thing to do in the name of management buy-outs.
Many noble Lords have had experience of commercial undertakings and know that, faced with that experience, those undertakings would not offer that inducement but would offer what are known in the trade as "golden handcuffs". They would lock those managers into the organisation at very large sums of money. They would do so because they would be fully aware that when an organisation is in difficulty—that is a time when frequently commercial companies sell off part of their organisation—the one thing you do not want after the sell-off is to find that in the process you have lost all the key managers. I shall return to the question of management buy-outs, upon which the Government are placing so much dependence.
Contrary to the Government's initial view, we now accept that there is unlikely to be a wide variety of bidders from which to choose. When we started on this long road of privatisation the air was full of the voices of hundreds of bidders from all over the place. There was Richard Branson, Ocean Containers and a whole range of other people. They seem to have fallen away a little; some of them do not see the privatisation as the investment opportunity of the year. The Government and the Treasury do not and that is why they want. to get rid of British Rail at any price. Nonetheless, they believe that innocents in the City will buy it. They will buy parts of it provided that they are paid for doing so, which will

1095
be an even more interesting proposition. We now find that bidders do not exist in large numbers. We are in the market to sell off franchises for chunks of the railway and the job spec for applicants is anybody who is around and willing to take it, and if you want to haggle about it we will pay you to take it away.
There are four categories of bidder. First, there are the bus operators, but, not surprisingly, they continue to view their bus operations as their core business. If bus operators buy pieces of the railway they will do so for the synergy that it will provide for their bus operations. That is a sensible reason; there is nothing wrong with that at all. For that reason they will be interested in particular in the smaller franchises.
I turn now to the second category of bidder. The Government view as slightly eccentric and perverse the idea of British Rail bidding; that people who have done nothing in their lives except run railways can actually bid to take over their management. They believe that they cannot be allowed to bid but any foreign rail operator can bid. I warned the Minister that he should not rely upon them too heavily. If one harks back to the Select Committee report one sees that many of them gave evidence and not a single one had a good word to say about the Government's proposals. But quite apart from that, all those operators have problems of their own. We have said throughout the debate that the problems of railways are unique to railways and they are worldwide. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the Deutsche Bundesbahn or the SNCF will be taking over chunks of the British Rail system. So we cannot rely on them.
Perhaps non-transport companies will see possibilities. But again they will approach the franchises on the primacy of their core business. The railway will be an add-on and, sensibly and legitimately from their commercial point of view, they will be interested in the possibilities of property development, land development and many aspects related to their businesses. I am not sure that at the end of the day that is the most attractive form of ownership from the point of view of the railway passengers because in most cases the railway will come second.
Finally, there are the management-employee buy-out schemes. As a result of a lack of interest elsewhere, the focal point of the Government's proposals is management-employee buy-outs. Of course there are British Rail executives who will do a good job and they will probably become very rich in the process. Good luck to them; I hope that they succeed. But the number of management buy-outs which fail is large. Normally management buy-outs occur when a whole company is being sold and the key managers go as a group. Here bits of the organisation are being sold and only bits of the management groups will go with them. Perhaps I may say in passing that I should regard it as irresponsible in the extreme to put too much pressure on people who have never managed commercial businesses in their lives to take second mortgages on their houses and to pledge every halfpenny on this investment.
There are people in British Rail who can mount a convincing management buy-out. Incidentally, they are
1096
British Rail's best managers, and therefore that will be a bit of a problem. In that circumstance one will be faced with an increasing reliance on numerous groups of managers taking over a multiplicity of small sections of the network, and that is a recipe for financial disaster. It would be far safer and more sensible to allow one or two well-organised and well-financed management bids and at the same time allow British Rail to bid on condition that no public money other than that already committed as a result of the current operation of the system is required. That is provided for in our amendment. That would mean that there would be no cross-subsidisation; the whole bid would be completely transparent. In those circumstances, the inevitable pressure on British Rail would be to seek partners in the private sector which would have more flexibility.
In those circumstances, there can be no justification for complaints from other bidders. The strong likelihood is that after a short franchise period the service will be proven and there will be plenty of outside funds available for a full management bid and serious private-sector involvement in the longer term. That would at least involve the staff and keep the existing system, which is already being called by the railway cynics "rump rail". That is not a particularly good omen for the travelling public.
There is a trend and a degree of circumstantial evidence to show that this Government are not infallible, surprise them though that may. It is clear that sometimes they can be wrong and that their Back-Benchers and Members on the Liberal Democrat and Labour Benches in this House and in the other place can be right. All we ask is that the Government look at the matter. We believe that the amendment will ensure that the vast bulk of the British Rail management who will remain in the first instance with BR can be highly motivated to make the new policy a success. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the alternative is a management which for many years will have no purpose except to supervise its own decline and the decline of the service which will be available to the public. To do that by accident would be disgraceful; to do it deliberately, out of sheer arrogance, would be near criminal. That could be avoided easily if sufficient Members in this House passed the amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 2A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2, be agreed to.—(Lord Marsh.)
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I support the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. I merely wish to give your Lordships an apology for the number of amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, and I have tabled between us. However, our excuse is readily available out of the procedures which we discussed a few moments ago. We are at the tail end of this Bill which finished its proceedings yesterday, late at night, when the Official Report was not wholly available. Therefore, we have not had an opportunity to read, digest or study the debates which took place. We had to table amendments yesterday which came from a number of sources. Therefore, there is a plethora of amendments

1097
which your Lordships may find to be something of a plague. I apologise but I do so in the confidence that I have an awfully good excuse that has been provided to me by the Government.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I wish to ask your Lordships whether we are here as experts on the running of railways—
Lord Richard: The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, is an expert.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I grant that. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, held high office in the railways and my noble friend held office as a Minister for Transport. They are entitled to their view, which should be heeded. But as regards the rest of us, are we here as experts or as parliamentarians? I believe that at this stage of the Bill we should look at the matter as parliamentarians.
What has happened? I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, showed that he was slightly on the wrong track this afternoon when he said that the Government had riot recognised the significance of previous arguments at various stages of the Bill. I believe that the Government recognised the significance of what was said and have now decided that they do not agree with it. They say, "From our point of view those arguments which sounded significant to you are not significant to us in the light of our other knowledge and views. We must deal in our way with the problem of what the future may hold for the railways. We wish to exclude, for obvious operative reasons, the present British Rail organisation from being able to take over our railway system, which would make hardly any difference". The Government have said that they do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, and my noble friend Lord Peyton. They believe that their way is better.
I ask as a parliamentarian which side we are going to believe. We have been through all the stages of the Bill and have heard all the arguments in detail. We have reached a point at which two of our experts and perhaps several others have said that they feel that the ultimate conclusion which the Government ask us to accept is not right. The Government say that with their present knowledge and view of the situation, they believe they have chosen the right course. Therefore, noble Lords must decide which side to support and what they are supporting.
I believe that parliamentary procedures come into this matter. We have had Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading in both Houses. These issues have been examined in detail. Unless your Lordships feel that the Government—and these words were used by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh—are saying out of arrogance and big-headed stubbornness that they will not accept our point of view, although we may believe it, then we should go into the Lobbies to support the amendment.
Your Lordships may believe that there is no question of the Government being arrogant and stubbornly big-headed. But rather, having taken into account all aspects as they see them, they believe that their point of view should be given the benefit of the doubt by those who may not be expert in such matters.
1098
Why do I say that with such confidence? If the Government are arrogant and stubborn and do not face up to obvious facts which should be faced up to, why have they accepted so many of our amendments? There has been no question of them saying that they refuse to pay any attention to what the House of Lords has said. Noble Lords may remember the arguments which we had on Report and in Committee. I joined in those arguments. I urged my noble friend not to push the matter to a vote because there had been an offer to meet again and hold further discussions to see whether a conclusion could be reached which would be unanimous on both sides. On that occasion, my noble friend accepted that.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, do not wish to contradict my noble friend, but I assure him that it was not his advice which made up my mind.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, my noble friend tries to turn off my point with a very witty joke. He is good and effective in doing just that. But on this occasion, I ask seriously whether we wish to operate the parliamentary system as it exists and as it has grown up so far. There are experts on one side who genuinely believe a view—and they most certainly do—and the Government with all their expertise and influence have come to a different point of view. The Bill has gone through all its parliamentary stages and everything has been examined in detail. Therefore, at the end of the day, how does a Back-Bencher who has no claim to be expert at all know on which side he should come down?
My sympathies throughout this matter have been very much on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, and my noble friend Lord Peyton. However, at this stage I do not believe that we should send a message that we believe that the Government have been arrogant and stupid when all the evidence is that they have been the opposite.
I in no way criticise the strongly-held views of my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. Having sent this matter once to another place, I believe that on this occasion we should give the Government the benefit of the doubt and accept their advice.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I should be surprised if, on any occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, did not give the Government the benefit of the doubt. It is always interesting to hear his interventions at various stages of Bills in a fairly erratic kind of way. But I believe that he makes a mistake to suggest that this matter is simple and is merely a clash of experts, because I believe that that is the point which he makes. He says that we have been through all this before and we must now trust the Government. It is the job of Parliament to control the Executive and not the other way round. That is the function which we are trying to exercise today.
The position which we have now reached is that we sent the Bill to another place and, following discussions which we had at an earlier stage, the Government gave an undertaking that they would accept the principle behind the amendment in the name of the noble Lord,

1099
Lord Peyton. They said that they would amend it. They did not believe it to be perfect and it would be amended. But the trouble is that they have amended it out of existence in practical terms. Indeed, they have so hedged it about with qualifications that the chances of British Rail ever successfully bidding for the tender, except in a disaster scenario, are very limited. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, is right.
One of the most important points about the amendments now before the House is the need to maintain the morale of BR staff and management. Whatever happens, they will be around for a long time. But are we going to treat them as if they were incompetent fools picking up the crumbs—if any exist—from the rich man's table? That is what the Bill is saying at present.
I believe that we have a final chance to say to another place, "You have gone too far in modifying the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton; you have amended it practically out of existence". I believe that the amendments standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Marsh and Lord Peyton, will in fact redress the balance. They are modest amendments. They do not seek to put British Rail into a privileged position; in fact, BR is still in an under-privileged position. Nevertheless, this is the only chance that we have of maintaining a viable British Rail during the period when it will be needed by the country—namely, the next few years. I hope the House will support the amendments.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wonder whether I may be so bold as to remind your Lordships of our position in the constitution. Basically, we are a revising Chamber which has the power and the right to ask another place—and, indeed, to ask the Government—to think again on the principles and, if necessary, the drafting (the form) of legislation. After much consideration and discussion in your Lordships' House during the various stages of the Bill, amendments were moved by my noble friend Lord Peyton with which I have some sympathy and which the Government have accepted in principle to a very great extent, but subject to a modification which they persuaded another place to accept.
We have the right to ask another place to think again; but not again and again. We find ourselves today at what is expected to be the day but one before the prorogation of the current Session. I do not think that we should be attempting to persuade the other place to go into further and very fine detail on the issue. Some of the points concern the mere drafting of the amendments, although I agree that one of them is an amendment of greater substance. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the noble Lord says that we do not have the right to ask another place to consider the matter again and again; but we do indeed have that right. We have that right under the Parliament Act. It is rarely exercised, but I believe that this is an occasion when the country is behind the House in asking the other place to think again as often as is necessary.
Lord Renton: Yes, my Lords; technically we have the right to ask the other place to think again and again.
1100
I have been a Member of your Lordships' House for only 14 years. However, I was in the other place for 34 years. In all the years since 1945 your Lordships' House has exercised great restraint, especially in matters of controversy and in particular under the Salisbury doctrine in any matter that is a manifesto commitment, which this was.
In the manifesto upon which the Conservatives won the last election, we undertook to introduce legislation to privatise British Rail. That is what the Government are doing. They have reached what I would hope is a final conclusion in the spirit of compromise—the kind of spirit which we expect Governments to accept when we ask them to think again. I suggest to your Lordships that we would be abusing our position and overstepping the mark if we did not accept the position that another place has now presented to us.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps I may, first, join the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, in wishing the noble Earl, Lord Caithness—though not his party—many happy returns.
I should like to take on board immediately the argument just adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I find it very surprising. It seems to have no grip of the reality of what has happened.
What has happened is that, after many hours of debate, we are debating for the first time in this House the government amendment now before us. When the noble Lord says that it is a spirit of compromise that is being exemplified by the Government on this occasion, I take issue with him. I believe that what the Government have done—as, indeed, I said when the noble Earl announced what he was proposing but did not have the amendment before him at the time—is to produce an amendment which is a blatant attempt to subvert the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. It has put us back to the situation where to talk in terms of British Rail being given the opportunity to bid for franchises is fanciful.
There are so many qualifications here which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, does not seem to have recognised. He said that it was a manifesto commitment. Yes, that is perfectly true there was a manifesto commitment to privatise British Rail. However, nothing was said about BR not being permitted to enter the bidding for franchises. Indeed, not a word was said. Of course, if I am wrong in that respect I am sure that the noble Lord will put me right. However, I notice that he does not seek to do so.
The truth is that British Rail has been put into a position where it can bid only when no one else wants to do so. But that is precisely the position BR was in when we started debating such issues. Therefore, nothing has changed. Thus the argument put forward by the noble Lord is, I am afraid, in conflict with reality.
From the time that the Government put forward the new proposal—and I use the word advisedly—the main concentration has been on management-employee buy-outs and how advantageous they would be but that if BR were permitted to enter the franchising stakes it would cause great prejudice to such buy-outs. But are people actually queueing up to bid?

1101
A poll was conducted just the other day which showed that 92 per cent. of rail managers were opposed to privatisation. Further, it showed that 77 per cent. were in favour of BR retaining the ability to bid for franchises; in other words, 77 per cent. of managers are still in favour of the very amendment that we are at present discussing. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I am much obliged. In view of what the noble Lord has just said, does he stand by the opening statement of his speech today that this is the first time that we have dealt with the amendment? The points he is now making are points that have been made again and again all the way through the various stages of the Bill.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is referring to what has become known nationally as the "Peyton amendment". However, what we are now discussing is a different amendment, which has been put forward by the Government. I am surprised that the noble Lord, with all his experience, even makes such an intervention.
Not only do we have the results of the poll to which I referred, but it is also interesting to note, as was revealed in another place, that a discussion took place between senior management and Mr. Roger Freeman at which certain civil servants were present. I should point out that Mr. John Welsby, BR's chief executive, was present. He warned the Government strongly that their,
"privatisation plans were fundamentally flawed and risked backfiring".
He also told them:
"You are in a hole and still digging. I don't see how there will be anything still to sell; certainly not the cake—just the cherries".
That was the view—and, indeed, the memorandum was very much longer—of one of the most experienced men in British Rail; namely, the chief executive.
At the end of the day the franchisees, after what may well be quite a short franchise, will have no assets and no land. They will have nothing at all. That is hardly a great inducement for management/employee buy-outs. The legal position is very tenuous. I wish to stress that because it is an important point when one is asking people to part with what may be a substantial part of their personal finances. For a management/employee buy-out to qualify, the persons concerned must have a substantial interest in the matter. When the Minister in another place was asked what he meant by a substantial interest, he said, only the other day:
"I shall not attempt to define that. The courts may wish to adjudicate upon the matter if a case comes before them".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/11/93; col. 39.]
That is an astonishing proposition; namely, that our legislation is so imperfect and so imprecise that it has to be left to the courts in test case after test case to determine whether the management/employee buy-out will qualify.
The Government say that they wish to avoid a dominant or monopoly position. However, whoever wins the franchise will have a monopoly or a dominant position in the market. Then there is the whole question of competition law. I raised the matter in recent debates it deserved an answer. It was dealt with in the most
1102
derisory way by Mr. Roger Freeman who said that he was satisfied that competition law had not been offended. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, also referred to the matter. I have taken the trouble not only to research the matter myself but also to have informal contacts with Directorate General IV of the European Commission. I have also taken a view from my noble friend the shadow Lord Chancellor. We are all worried—particularly the Commission—that this matter is offensive to the competition articles.
I dealt with the issue at some length on a previous occasion, but I must add that the Government ignore the difficulty that there is a plain duty on the face of this Bill to invoke some form of distortion of competition. The Bill puts the Government into conflict with competition law. There can be no question about that. For the Government simply to assert that they are satisfied that everything will be all right and that the Commission may grant exemptions is really not good enough.
It is interesting that the Government apparently contemplate issuing 20 million leaflets to try to explain what these half-baked proposals are all about. That will be done at some astronomical cost. It will certainly cost many millions of pounds. It is hardly surprising that they have to do that when they have truncated debate so savagely in another place. That did not do Parliament a service. The Government have not done Parliament a service either in repeatedly and substantially amending the provisions of the Bill as it has progressed through Parliament. The Government have not taken sufficient trouble to establish that their Bill is technically competent. This is not an academic point. The country as a whole will pay for the Government's behaviour. If the Bill disestablishes and fragments—as it almost certainly will—the ability of British Rail to function effectively, the country will certainly pay a heavy price.
4 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, this is a serious debate and there are really two separate or separable issues. There is, first of all, the obvious issue concerning the degree of privatisation for which the Bill will provide. Secondly, there is the question of the relationship between your Lordships' House and another place. I wish to say a few words on that issue.
We have discussed the merits of this matter again and again without, I believe, convincing each other of the rightness of our argument. I do not wish to waste time by going over that again. However, before your Lordships reach a decision on the matter, I wish to put to the House the possible effect, if we adopt the amendment, on relations with another place. We had a full debate at an earlier stage. We amended the Bill quite drastically and sent it to another place. Another place could simply have rejected our amendment and sent it back. However, that did not occur. The other place produced a compromise. It made an attempt to meet what were thought to be the wishes of your Lordships' House; indeed to meet the effect of the amendment which your Lordships' House had put into the Bill.
I agree that the importance of the compromise is a matter which could be argued at great length. One could split a great many hairs. However, the fact remains that

1103
the Bill still contains the possibility of British Rail securing the franchise, with the agreement of the franchising director, if the attempt fully to privatise the railways fails. That is a considerable change because, as your Lordships will recall, the Bill as it came to us originally completely eliminated the possibility of British Rail taking over any part of the system under the new situation.
What do your Lordships think the reaction of another place will be if we simply revert to our previous attitude, reject its compromise amendment and send the Bill back in that shape? Even more important than the Bill—I do not dispute for a moment that it is important—is that the two Houses should work together and that the good system under which we make amendments and consider a Bill, send it back to another place and ask it to consider our amendments, should prevail. However, if we give the impression that, when we have done that and another place has sought to meet us by way of compromise, we still—somewhat obstinately, as another place may think—reject that compromise and insist on our earlier attitude, it is not difficult to see that that will not help the working of the system. Without going further into the merits of the immediate issue, I want your Lordships, before reaching a decision, to have in mind the potentially serious consequences on the working of our constitution and the working of the relationship between the two Houses if we were to accept the amendment and persist in rejecting the attempt of another place to compromise.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I wish only to deal, so far as I can, with the parliamentary and constitutional points that have been raised. However, I should say to begin with that the gravamen, as I understood it, of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Marsh is that what is described as a compromise is no such thing it is an emasculation of the amendment made by your Lordships' House.
The first parliamentary point is that the two Houses must agree on this Bill down to the last word; otherwise the Bill is lost for the Session. That puts your Lordships in a strong parliamentary position if you think it right to adhere to the view expressed earlier in response to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil.
It is said that the constitutional function of this House is merely to act as a revising Chamber and to ask the other place to think again, and that having done that once your Lordships should shut up. Many of us do not accept that the sole function of your Lordships' House is to act as a revising Chamber. On the contrary, your Lordships' House is a council of state, uniquely well endowed by experience to express views on matters of generality and of detail. However, it is not worth pursuing that point because what is sought through this amendment is precisely to revise an amendment proposed by the other place. Your Lordships would not be going beyond that.
To state that the function of your Lordships is limited to asking the other place to think again is a most misleading euphemism. It suggests that MPs, faced with your Lordships' amendments, sit down and excogitate
1104
from the beginning on the issues which have been raised and rationally consider the matter anew in the light of your Lordships' amendments. That only has to be said for its absurdity to be recognised. In any case, does one really think again rationally if one has been whipped into a Lobby by the Government Whips? Does one think rationally if a guillotine is about to descend? That is what happened in this case. Though one talks of the other place thinking again, it is of course the Government, with their whipped majority, who are supposed to do the thinking.
I go slightly beyond that. At present, very worryingly, parliamentary institutions are being called into question. That concerns the Government, the House of Commons and Whitehall. Your Lordships have a duty as parliamentarians to show that the parliamentary system is still a reality and can still stand up against the Government. In fact, your Lordships' House generally, and certainly with its present composition, reflects better the political colour of the country at large than any other institution. Nor do I consider for a moment that your Lordships need apologise for the hereditary element in the House, which again and again proves its value.
It seems to me that on that basis your Lordships are entitled to form a dispassionate view on the merits, apart from the constitutional aspect, of the amendment moved by my noble friend.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I rise to speak following the wise intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, following the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who asked whether we had the right in this House to question the will of the other place.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. I did not raise the question of whether we had the right to do so. Of course we have. I raised the question of whether it would be sensible and serve good relations between the Houses so to do. That is quite a different point.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I take the point. It is a question of how the noble Lord's contribution is interpreted. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, demonstrated effectively the constitutional position of this House vis-à-vis the other place as organs of state. I want to raise another point for your Lordships' consideration.
That point is the basis on which we are present in this House and Members are present in the other place. It seems strange that someone in my position should have to remind the House that we are all summoned to give advice to our sovereign on arduous affairs of state. In our Writ of Summons we are called to give advice as individuals. We tend to forget that and to get bogged down in the collective presentation of our views rather than thinking of each and every one of us individually having the duty to respond to that summons to give advice. It worries me when noble Lords say that our job is to revise. I humbly submit that our job is to give advice.

1105
On the basis of the contributions on the text of the amendments that we have in front of us I shall vote with my conscience. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, seems to me an eminently sensible way of going forward with this Railways Bill.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I want to support my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I have had the privilege of being a Member of your Lordships' House for more than 45 years. My mind goes back to the days of the post-war Labour Government and the Salisbury doctrine. We had then the right to throw out Bills, put to us here by the Labour Government, which were distasteful to us. We did not throw them out because, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and others have said, we had the right to do so, we felt that that would not be responsible. Therefore, we went along with the Bills put forward from the other place, although they were exceedingly distasteful.
Although I have great sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, and my noble friend Lord Peyton, and I have some experience of their point of view having served as a member of the British Rail Board for six years, in the present circumstances I believe that it would be quite wrong to pass the amendment and, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, jeopardise relations between this House and the other place.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have listened with great care to what has been said today. In all my time in this House I have never heard a debate such as this at this stage of a Bill. I believe that it is the first time that we have not actually discussed the amendments before us. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, did not explain the amendments, although he gave a very good Second Reading speech, and I enjoyed listening to it. My noble friend Lord Peyton made it absolutely clear that whether or not the amendments are agreed to he dislikes the Bill. That is the crux of the issue.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene. My noble friend must not mislead the House or misjudge me. My position is that the Government have nibbled seriously at my original amendment. All we are trying to do with these amendments is to undo a little of the damage which the Government have done to my amendment. It is nothing very fundamental.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if my noble friend were honest he would admit that he has told my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and me personally—and the media—that he dislikes the Bill. That is the point that I made. (Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will wait a moment before intervening.) I did not say that with these particular amendments my noble friend Lord Peyton was criticising the Government for amending the amendment which was passed at Committee stage. I was making a more general point, which the noble Lord did not address; namely, that he dislikes the Bill.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I merely rise to say that the noble Earl may have said something that he did not intend. He said, "If my noble friend were honest." It must be assumed that noble Lords on all sides of the House are honest. That is not a phrase that we should use in your Lordships' House.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I apologise. I said that if my noble friend Lord Peyton were to answer the specific point about the general proposition that he dislikes the Bill, that puts into context what has been said on the amendments. If my noble friend Lord Peyton, and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, wish to go back to the position on the Bill after Committee stage, that is what they should have done.
Let me make the matter absolutely clear to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. We have not amended the original Peyton-Marsh amendment out of existence. That is a travesty of the true position. It is not the Government's intention to prevent BR bidding in all cases. Our amendment does not do that. The franchising director's power is discretionary. I cannot say how he will exercise that discretion, but, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, there will clearly be circumstances in which the franchising director takes the view that it would be beneficial, perhaps in the interest of stimulating competition, to allow BR to bid against private sector bidders.
Let me turn, if I may, for the first time in the debate, to the detail of the amendments before us. The main thrust of Amendments Nos. 2A, 2B and 2C is to relate a determination, not to BR's eligibility to bid for a franchise, but its eligibility to be awarded a franchise. I do not believe that that would be a sensible change. It would not be in the interests of private sector bidders or of the BR Board and would simply add confusion to the franchising process.
The amendments proposed by the noble Lords would allow BR to bid in all cases, even where, because of the application of the criteria in new subsection (5), they were highly unlikely to be awarded the franchise. I do not believe that it would be fair to expect BR to incur the expense in terms of time and money to prepare bids which might have little or no chance of success.
Moreover, other bidders would be deterred by uncertainty over whether a BR bid would be eligible or not. In particular, the noble Lords' proposal does nothing to resolve the difficulties facing management and employee teams who would still face the prospect of bidding against the board. The Government's amendment agreed in the other place allows the franchising director to determine in advance which services BR may bid for. Then everyone knows where they stand and can plan accordingly. Surely that is common sense.
The noble Lords' Amendment No. 2C would also delete from the criteria which the franchising director is to take into account the promotion of competition for franchises and insert instead a requirement that the transfer of services to the private sector should not significantly increase the franchising director's costs. I would regard it as regrettable to lose the criterion of competition for franchises. But I have no difficulty with the sentiment behind the amendment and it is, of course,

1107
relevant to the franchising director's decision about whether or not to award a franchise to a particular bidder. However, it is not directly relevant to the issue of whether BR should be invited to bid.
The franchising director will, in all cases, whether or not BR has submitted a bid, want to compare bids received with the cost of allowing BR to continue operating the service. He will be able to do that because he will have access to BR's historical record of the cost of providing the service as a shadow franchise. But the point at which to make the comparison is when assessing the bids with a view to awarding the franchise, and, as I have explained, the Government's proposal would give the franchising director the power to make a determination in relation to invitations to bid, not the awarding of franchises.
The noble Lords' Amendments Nos. 2E, 2G and 2F make a number of changes to subsection (5) (d) which relates to the criterion of dominance. Some of the changes are mutually contradictory. Amendment No. 2E would limit the application of the criteria to the person in relation to whom the determination is made, presumably BR or its subsidiaries, while Amendment No. 2F would specifically exclude the application of the criteria to the BR Board or a wholly owned subsidiary. Finally, Amendment No. 2G would limit the application of the concept of dominance to market dominance in Great Britain. We believe that the wider, more general formulation in the amendment as agreed in another place is more appropriate. If one accepts that the principle of dominance in the provision of passenger railway services is a relevant criterion, then it is logical to apply it irrespective of the operator in question. Furthermore, dominance in a part of Great Britain seems particularly relevant because of the regional or local nature of many franchises. A local monopoly can have just as pernicious an effect on a local market as monopoly power across the country as a whole.
Amendment No. 2D would have the result that the franchising director would not make a determination unless he considered it necessary rather than desirable to do so for the purposes set out in subsection (5). I believe that that is too restrictive a test. Those matters are essentially judgmental and, if one accepts that the criteria in subsection (5) are important and relevant to determining whether BR should be allowed to bid, then desirability is in my view the proper test of whether a determination should be made.
Finally, Amendments Nos. 2H and 4A would require the franchising director to publish reasons for making a determination. That issue was considered yesterday in another place. As my right honourable friend the Minister of State said, the franchising director will be required to give an account of his activities in the annual report which is submitted to Parliament. We do not believe that there is a separate need to publish reasons in every case when he makes a determination. It would not be right to impose such a formal and bureaucratic procedure on the franchising director in the exercise of that function. His decisions will be subject to judicial review and a requirement to publish reasons could give rise to all sorts of possibly vexatious challenges.
1108
The effect of the noble Lords' amendments would be to make quite radical changes to the amendment agreed in another place. As I have explained, I fear that they risk introducing greater uncertainty and confusion into the franchising process with no clear beneficial effect. The advantage of the amendment as it stands is that the franchising director's power of determination will ensure that everyone will know where they stand before they start preparing bids and not after. BR will know whether it can bid. Management buy-out teams will know whether they are likely to have to bid against BR, and private sector bidders will know whether they are going to have to compete against BR.
Amendment No. 2 was accepted in another place by a clear majority of 30 after several hours of debate. It strikes a careful balance to enable private sector bidders to compete against a powerful incumbent monopoly provider. The government amendment levels the track when it comes to bidding. If the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, wishes to put the matter to a vote, I hope that your Lordships will vote on the amendment and not on the principle of the Bill.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, would my noble friend repeat that last sentence? Is he talking about voting on Amendment No. 2A only and not the amendments to follow?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is correct.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I have no problem with the noble Earl suggesting to Members of the House that they might vote on the amendment. I certainly do not wish to become involved in the constitutional argument except to say that I rest happily on my conviction that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, did an impressive demolition job.
The noble Lords, Lord Renton, and Lord Harmar-Nicholls—they are old friends—take a surprising view about the rights of this House. I am not moving a constitutional issue. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said that Government did not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and myself. I do not blame Government for that. I have been a member of governments who did not agree with me. To have someone else's government disagreeing with me is no great issue.
However, with great respect, the noble Lord states the position wrongly, and fundamentally wrongly. The Government did not agree or disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and myself. When we debated the issue, the Government did not agree with a clear majority drawn from all quarters of this House. I find it very surprising that when, after that debate, the Bill moved to another place and the Government then produced an amendment It is—as my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale said—by any standards an emasculation. If the noble Earl convinces himself that it places BR and the competition on a level playing field, he will never get a job as an Olympic umpire. On some decisions he may well, but on this decision he would not.
The Government then decided to neuter the amendment, and I believe that it is perfectly legitimate

1109
that we should have this opportunity of not deleting the Government's amendment, which is what the noble Earl suggested might have been done. That was considered and rejected precisely because it would be seen that it was unnecessarily provocative and challenged the Government's basic policy head on. That was why there was not a simple amendment to throw the whole thing out.
What in fact we have debated this afternoon—though it is difficult to believe that it is so—is a very simple amendment. It is not a wrecking amendment. It is extraordinary to seek to place it on a par with legislation coming from Labour Governments in the 1940s. It is an amendment which we believe was designed to be a positive amendment and which does not challenge the Government's basic objectives. That is the view which was expressed before with a much stronger amendment. The Government took it and watered it down.
This small amendment this afternoon is designed simply to help. It does not wreck the Bill; it simply ensures, among other things, that British Rail can be awarded a franchise, provided that it does not involve additional public moneys, which in turn means that the whole exercise will be transparent. There will be no cross-subsidisation.
I repeat that this is not an argument—the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and I do not have egos of that size. It is a view which, rightly or wrongly, is held by a large number of people in this Chamber who come from all parties and no parties in the House. There is nothing whatever wrong in giving them the opportunity to express their view on the matter, and I hope that they will. I commend the amendment to the House.
4.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether Amendment No. 2A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided Contents, 170; Not-Contents, 160.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Carter, L.

Addington, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Airedale, L.

Chorley, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Alport, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Attlee, E.

Croham, L.

Auckland, L.

Cross, V.

Aylestone, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Dainton, L.

Banks, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Barnett, L.

David, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Beloff, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Blake, L.

Donoughue, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Dundonald, E.

Bottomley, L.

Eatwell, L.

Bridges, L.

Ennals, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Ezra, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Falkender, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Falkland, V.

Buchan, E.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Fitt, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Foot, L.

1110

Gallacher, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Geraint, L.

Molloy, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Monkswell, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Monson, L.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Mulley, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Munster, E.

Greenway, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Grey, E.

Nicol, B.

Hampton, L.

Ogmore, L.

Hamwee, B.

Palmer, L.

Hanworth, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Parry, L.

Harrowby, E.

Perry of Walton, L.

Haskell, L.

Peston, L.

Hayter, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L. [Teller.]

Healey, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Polwarth, L.

Hollick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Raglan, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Rea, L.

Hooson, L.

Redesdale, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Richard, L.

Howell, L.

Rochester, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Russell, E.

Hughes, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hunt, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hylton, L.

Seear, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sefton of Garston, L

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Serota, B.

Jay, L.

Shannon, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Shepherd, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Judd, L.

Slim, V.

Kagan, L.

Stallard, L.

Kennet, L.

Stedman, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strabolgi, L.

Lawrence, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Listowel, E.

Tenby, V.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Thurlow, L.

Lockwood, B.

Thurso, V.

Longford, E.

Tonypandy, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Tordoff, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wallace of Campsie, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Waverley, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

McNair, L.

Wharton, B.

Mais, L.

White, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Wigoder, L.

Marsh, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mayhew, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Meston, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Abinger, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Addison, V.

Bruntisfield, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Butterworth, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Caithness, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Caldecote, V.

Arran, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Astor, V.

Carnock, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Barber, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Belstead, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Bessborough, E.

Clark of Kempston, L

Blatch, B.

Cockfield, L.

Blyth, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Bolton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cork and Orrery, E

1111

Craigavon, V.

Manchester, D.

Cranborne, V.

Marlesford, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Melville, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mersey, V.

Davidson, V.

Middleton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Denham, L.

Milverton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mottistone, L.

Downshire, M.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Dudley, E.

Norfolk, D.

Eccles, V.

Norrie, L.

Elles, B.

Northbourne, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Elton, L.

Onslow, E.

Erne, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Orkney, E.

Flather, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Forte, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Peel, E.

Gainford, L.

Pike, B.

Gisborough, L.

Prentice, L.

Goschen, V.

Radnor, E.

Gowrie, E.

Renton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Renwick, L.

Gridley, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Romney, E.

Grimthorpe, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.

Hacking, L.

St. Davids, V.

Haig, E.

Seccombe, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Selborne, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Sharples, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Henley, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Hesketh, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Holderness, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hooper, B.

Strange, B.

Howe, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Huntly, M.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

[Teller.]

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Sudeley, L.

Killearn, L.

Swinton, E.

Kimball, L.

Tebbit, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Terrington, L.

Knollys, V.

Teviot, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Layton, L.

Torrington, V.

Leigh, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Lindsay, E.

Trumpington, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Tugendhat, L.

Liverpool, E.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lucas, L.

Vivian, L.

Lyell, L.

Wakeham, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

[Lord Privy Seal.]

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Wise, L.

[Lord Chancellor.]

Wynford, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment No. 2A agreed to accordingly.
AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 2
2B Subsection (4), line 6, leave out from ("for") to end of subsection and insert ("selection as the franchisee.").
4.43 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2B as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2.
Moved, That Amendment No. 2B, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2, be agreed to.—(Lord Marsh.)
On Question, Whether Amendment No. 2B, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 165; Not-Contents, 159.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Healey, L.

Addington, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Airedale, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Hollick, L.

Alport, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hooson, L.

Attlee, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Auckland, L.

Howell, L.

Aylestone, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Hughes, L.

Banks, L.

Hunt, L.

Barnett, L.

Hylton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Birk, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Jay, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bridges, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Judd, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kagan, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kennet, L.

Buchan, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Lawrence, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Carter, L.

Listowel, E.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Chorley, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lockwood, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Cornwallis, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Croham, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cross, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

McNair, L.

Dainton, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Marsh, L.

David, B.

Mayhew, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Donoughue, L.

Meston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dundonald, E.

Molloy, L.

Eatwell, L.

Monkswell, L.

Ennals, L.

Monson, L.

Ezra, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Falkender, B.

Mountevans, L.

Falkland, V.

Mulley, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Munster, E.

Fitt, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Foot, L.

Nicol, B.

Gallacher, L.

Ogmore, L.

Geraint, L.

Palmer, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Parry, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Glenamara, L.

Peston, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Polwarth, L.

Greenway, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Grey, E.

Raglan, L.

Hampton, L.

Rea, L.

Hamwee, B.

Redesdale, L.

Hanworth, V.

Richard, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rochester, L.

Harrowby, E.

Russell, E.

Haskel, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hayter, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

1113

Seear, B.

Thurso, V.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Serota, B.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Shannon, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Shepherd, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Waverley, V.

Slim, V.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Stallard, L.

Westwood, L.

Stedman, B.

Wharton, B.

Stoddait of Swindon, L.

White, B.

Strabotgi, L.

Wigoder, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Tenby, V.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Thurlow, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Gowrie, E.

Abinger, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Addison, V.

Gridley, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Grimthorpe, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Hacking, L.

Arran, E.

Haig, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

Astor, V.

Hanson, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Barber, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Barter of Tewkesbury, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Belstead, L.

Henley, L.

Blatch, B.

Hesketh, L.

Blyth, L

Holderness, L.

Bolton, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hooper, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Howe, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Huntly, M.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Butterworth, L.

Killearn, L.

Cadman, L.

Kimball, L.

Caithness, E.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Caldecote, V.

Knollys, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Carnock, L.

Layton, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Leigh, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Lindsay, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Liverpool, E.

Clark of Kempston, L

Long, V.

Colnbrook, L.

Lucas, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Lyell, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cranborne, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Crathorne, L.

[Lord Chancellor]

Crickhowell, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Manchester, D.

Cumberlege, B.

Marlesford, L.

Davidson, V.

Melville, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Merrivale, L.

Denham, L.

Mersey, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Middleton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Downshire, M.

Milverton, L.

Eccles, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Elles, B.

Mottistone, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Elton, L.

Norfolk, D.

Erne, E.

Norrie, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Northbourne, L.

Rather, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Forte, L

Onslow, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Orkney, E.

Gainford, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gisborough, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Goschen, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

1114

Peel, E.

Strange, B.

Pike, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Prentice, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Radnor, E.

[Teller.]

Renton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Renwick, L.

Swinton, E.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Terrington, L.

Romney, E.

Teviot, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

St. Davids, V.

Torrington, V.

Seccombe, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Selborne, E.

Trumpington, B.

Sharpies, B.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Shaughnessy, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Vivian, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wakeham, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

[Lord Privy Seal]

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Wynford, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment No. 2B agreed to accordingly.
4.53 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 2C, I should point out that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 2D.
AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 2
2C Subsection (5), line 1, leave out from ("shall") to end of paragraph (a) and insert ("only make a determination under subsection (4) if a transfer of services to the private sector would not significantly increase the cost to the Franchising Director of providing the service and if he considers that it. is necessary to make such a determination to facilitate such a transfer and-").
Lord Marsh: My Lords, Amendment No. 2C was spoken to with Amendment No. 2A. I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 2C, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2, be agreed to.—(Lord Marsh.)
On Question, Whether Amendment No. 2C, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 161; Not-Contents, 159.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Addington, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Airedale, L.

Carter, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Alport, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Attlee, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Aylestone, L.

Croham, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Cross, V.

Banks, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Barnett, L.

Dainton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B

Birk, B.

David, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Donoughue, L.

Bottomley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bridges, L.

Dundonald, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Eatwell, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Ennals, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ezra, L.

Buchan, E.

Falkender, B.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Falkland, V.

Meston, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Fitt, L.

Molloy, L.

Foot, L.

Monkswell, L.

Gallacher, L.

Monson, L.

Geraint, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Mountevans, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Mulley, L.

Glenamara, L.

Munster, E.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Ogmore, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Palmer, L.

Greenway, L.

Parry, L.

Grey, E

Perry of Walton, L.

Hampton, L.

Peston, L.

Hamwee, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hanworth, V.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Polwarth, L.

Harrowby, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

Haskel, L.

Raglan, L.

Hayter, L.

Rea, L.

Healey, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Richard, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Rochester, L.

Hollick, L.

Russell, E.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Seear, B.

Hooson, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Serota, B.

Howell, L.

Shannon, E.

Howie of Troon, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hughes, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hunt, L.

Slim, V.

Hylton, L.

Stallard, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Stedman, B.

Jay, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Strabolgi, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Judd, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Kagan. L.

Tenby, V.

Kennet, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Thurlow, L.

Lawrence, L.

Thurso, V.

Lester of Home Hill, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Listowel, E.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Lockwood, B.

Waverley, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Westwood, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wharton, B.

Mcintosh of Haringey, L.

White, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wigoder, L.

McNair, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Marsh, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Mayhew, L.

Young of Darlington, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Abinger, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Addison, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Bruntisfield, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Butterworth, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Cadman, L.

Arran, E.

Caithness, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Caldecote, V.

Astor, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Barber, L.

Carnock, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Belstead, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Blatch, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

Blyth, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Bolton, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

1116

Craigavon, V.

[Lord Chancellor.]

Cranborne, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Crathorne, L.

Manchester, D.

Crickhowell, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Melville, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Merrivale, L.

Davidson, V.

Mersey, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Middleton, L.

Denham, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Milverton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Downshire, M.

Mottistone, L.

Dudley, E.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Elles, B.

Newall, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Norfolk, D.

Elton, L.

Norrie, L.

Erne, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Onslow, E.

Flather, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Orkney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gainford, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Gisborough, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Goschen, V.

Peel, E.

Gowrie, E.

Pike, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Gridley, L.

Prentice, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Radnor, E.

Grimthorpe, L.

Renton, L.

Hacking, L.

Renwick, L.

Haig, E.

Romney, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.

Hanson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Selborne, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Sharples, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Henley, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Hesketh, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Holderness, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Hooper, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Howe, E.

Strange, B.

Huntly, M.

Strathclyde, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Strathmore and Kinghome, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

[Teller.]

Killearn, L.

Sudeley, L.

Kimball, L.

Swinton, E.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Tebbit, L.

Knollys, V.

Terrington, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Teviot, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Layton, L.

Torrington, V.

Leigh, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Lindsay, E.

Trumpington, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Tugendhat, L.

Liverpool, E.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lucas, L.

Vivian, L.

Lyell, L.

Wakeham, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

[Lord Privy Seal.]

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Wise, L.

Mackay of Clashfem, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment No. 2C agreed to accordingly.
5.3 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 2D to 2H, as amendments to Commons Amendment No. 2, not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Question is that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2, as amended, in lieu thereof.
FURTHER COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF LORDS AMENDMENT No. 1
3 Clause 46, page 54, line 36, after '20' insert '21, 23'.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
FURTHER COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF LORDS AMENDMENT No. 1
4 Clause 65, page 72, line 2, at end insert:
`() every notice of a determination under section 22(4) above;'.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
[Amendment No. 4A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 4, not moved.]
[Amendment No. 6A not moved.]
LORDS AMENDMENT
5 Clause 121, page 121, line 32, at end insert:
("() Nothing in this Act shall relieve the Secretary of State of any duty imposed by section 52D(2) of the Transport Act 1980.")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
6 Because the Commons do not consider it appropriate that the Secretary of State should be precluded from making, and laying before Parliament, orders of the kind to which the said Amendment made by the Lords relates.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 6.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 6.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
LORDS AMENDMENT
7 Schedule 10, page 170, line 51, at end insert:
("(1B) After the section 52A inserted by sub-paragraph (1A) above, there shall be inserted—
"Power to substitute obligations under this section for liabilities under s.52(1).
52B.—(1) The Minister may make a substitution order in relation to any occupational pension scheme—

(a) which is a new scheme, within the meaning of Schedule 10 to the Railways Act 1993;

(b) which is designated under paragraph 9(1) of that Schedule (designation of schemes which are to be treated as B.R. pension schemes for certain purposes of this Part); and

(c) in relation to which a guarantee has been given by the Secretary of State under paragraph 9A of that Schedule;

and any reference in this section to a "guaranteed pension scheme" is a reference to such an
1118
occupational pension scheme.
(2) The Minister may also make a substitution order in relation to any section of a new scheme, within the meaning of Schedule 10 to the Railways Act 1993, if the section is one—

(a) which is designated under paragraph 9(1) of that Schedule; and

(b) in relation to which a guarantee has been given by the Secretary of State under paragraph 9A of that Schedule;

and the following provisions of this section (and sections 52C and 52D) shall apply in relation to any such section of a new scheme as if any reference to a guaranteed pension scheme included a reference to such a section.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a "substitution order" is an order under this section the effect of which is—

(a) to terminate, from the termination date, the Minister's liability to make. to the persons administering the guaranteed pension scheme in question payments under section 52(1) in relation to the scheme; and

(b) to impose on the Minister, in substitution for that liability, an obligation to make to those persons, subject to and in accordance with the following provisions of this section, one or more other payments (the "substitution payments") in relation to that scheme.

(4) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the amount of the substitution payments to be made in the case of a guaranteed pension scheme shall be equal in the aggregate to the sum of—

(a) the amount specified pursuant to subsection (5) (a) as the capital value of the unfunded obligations in the case of the scheme; and

(b) the aggregate amount of any interest which is dealt with as mentioned in subsection (8) (b) (ii) in the case of the scheme.

(5) A substitution order must specify—

(a) the capital value of the unfunded obligations in the case of the guaranteed pension scheme in question, as at the termination date; and

(b) the date which, for the purposes of this section, is to be the termination date in relation to that scheme, being a date not earlier than one month after the coming into force of the substitution order.

(6) Any determination for the purposes of this section of the capital value of the unfunded obligations in the case of a guaranteed pension scheme shall either—

(a) be made by the Minister; or

(b) if the Minister so requires in the particular case, be made by the actuary to the guaranteed pension scheme in question and approved by the Minister.

(7) A substitution order may specify—
(a) the amount or amounts, or the method of determining the amount or amounts, of the substitution payments,
(c) circumstances (which may, if the Minister so desires, be defined by reference to the opinion of any person) in which substitution payments are to be made,
and may provide for the obligation to make substitution payments to be discharged if the guaranteed pension scheme in question has, in the opinion of a person specified or described in, or nominated under, the order, been wound up.
(8) A substitution order must provide—

(a) for interest to accrue from the termination date on the outstanding balance of the capital value for the time being at such rate, and at such intervals, as may be specified in, or determined under or in accordance with, the order; and

(b) for any such interest which accrues—

(ii) to be added to the outstanding balance of the capital value,
(or to be dealt with partly in one of those ways and partly in the other);
and the provision that may be made by virtue of paragraph (a) includes provision for the rate of interest to be calculated by reference to any variable or to be such rate as the Minister may from time to time determine and specify in a notice to the persons administering the scheme in question.
(9) For the purposes of subsection (8), the "outstanding balance of the capital value", in the case of a guaranteed pension scheme, means the capital value of the unfunded obligations in the case of the scheme, as specified pursuant to subsection (5) (a),—

(a) reduced by the amount of any substitution payments made in relation to that scheme; and

(b) increased by any additions of accrued interest under or by virtue of subsection (8) (b) (ii) in relation to that scheme.

(10) Nothing in this section affects the liability of the Board in respect of any relevant pension obligations.
(11) Any sums required for the making of payments under this section by the Minister shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.
(12) In this section—
"the capital value of the unfunded obligations", in the case of any guaranteed pension scheme, means such amount as is, in the opinion of the person determining that capital value pursuant to subsection (6), the capital equivalent of the payments that would, apart from this section, have been expected to be made by the Minister under section 52(1) in relation to that scheme after the termination date in the case of that scheme;
"occupational pension scheme" means an occupational pension scheme as defined in section 1 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993;
"the terminal period", in the case of any guaranteed pension scheme, means—

(a) if a financial year of the scheme ends with the termination date, that financial year; or

(b) in any other case, so much of the financial year of the scheme in which the termination date falls as ends with that date;

"the termination date", in the case of any guaranteed pension scheme, shall be construed in accordance with subsection (5) (b);
"the termination year", in the case of any guaranteed pension scheme, means the financial year of the scheme which consists of or includes the terminal period;
"trustees", in relation to a guaranteed pension scheme, includes a reference to any persons who, under the rules of the scheme, are under a liability to provide pensions or other benefits but who are not trustees of the scheme.
Adjustments arising in connection with orders under s.52B.
52C.—(1) As soon as practicable after the termination date in the case of any guaranteed pension scheme, there shall be determined, for the terminal period, what proportion of the pensions, increases and expenses payable under, or incurred in connection with, the scheme corresponds to the relevant pension obligations.
(2) Any determination under subsection (1) shall either—

(a) be made by the Minister; or

(b) if the Minister so requires in the particular case, be made by the actuary or auditor to the guaranteed pension scheme in question and approved by the Minister.

(3) The Minister may give a direction to the persons administering a guaranteed pension scheme requiring them to determine the aggregate amount of the pensions, increases and expenses payable under or incurred in connection with the scheme for the terminal period or the termination year and to notify him in writing of their determination.
(4) As respects the termination year of a guaranteed pension scheme, the extent of the liability of the Minister to make payments under section 52(1) in relation to that scheme shall be restricted to a liability to make payments of an amount (the "termination year amount") equal in the aggregate to the product of—

(a) the proportion determined under section 54(1) for that scheme;

(b) the proportion determined pursuant to subsection (1) in the case of that scheme; and

(c) the aggregate amount of the pensions, increases and expenses payable under or incurred in connection with that scheme in the terminal period;

and payments by way of adjustment shall be made by the Minister to the persons administering the scheme, or (as the case may be) by those persons to the Minister, before the expiration of the period of six months beginning with the date of the last of the determinations made under subsection (1) or (3) with respect to the scheme.
(5) Where, in the case of a guaranteed pension scheme, the funding of the relevant pension obligations has, by virtue of subsection (3) of section 54, been left out of account in making a determination under subsection (1) of that section, the termination year amount in the case of that scheme shall be the difference between—

(a) what that amount would have been, apart from this subsection; and

(b) the amount of any income accruing for the terminal period which may be applied towards the payment of such of the pensions, increases and expenses payable under or incurred in connection with the scheme as correspond to those obligations.

(6) The Minister may give a direction to the persons administering a guaranteed pension scheme requiring them to determine the amount mentioned in subsection (5) (b) and to notify him in writing of their determination.
(7) Where payments by way of adjustment fall to be made, interest shall be payable, as from the termination date, by the person liable to make those payments, at the rates and intervals from time to time applicable for the purposes of section 52B(8) (a) in the case of the scheme in question, on so much of the aggregate amount of the payments in question as for the time being remains unpaid.
(8) So much of—

(a) any payment by way of adjustment which falls to be made, or

(b) any interest accrued under subsection (7), as has not been paid shall be treated as a debt due.

(9) Any sums required for the making of payments under this section by the Minister shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.
(10) In this section, "payments by way of adjustment", in the case of a guaranteed pension scheme, means—

(a) if the Minister has made payments under section 52(1) in relation to that scheme for the termination year which, in the aggregate, exceed the termination year amount, payment to the Minister by the persons administering the scheme of an amount equal to the excess;

(b) if the Minister has made no payments under section 52(1) in relation to that scheme for the termination year, payment by the Minister to those persons of the termination year amount; or

1121

(c) if the Minister has made payments under section 52(1) in relation to that scheme for the termination year which, in the aggregate, fall short of the termination year amount, payment by the Minister to those persons of an amount equal to the shortfall.

(11) Expressions used in this section and in section 52B have the same meaning in this section as they have in that section.
Orders and directions under sections 52A to 52C supplemental.
52D.—(1) Any power to make an order under section 52B shall be exercisable by statutory instrument made by the Minister after consultation with the trustees of the guaranteed pension scheme to which the order relates.
(2) The Minister shall not lay before Parliament a statutory instrument containing an order under section 52B unless he has first obtained the written agreement of those trustees that it is appropriate in the circumstances for the order to be made.
(3) A statutory instrument containing an order under section 52B shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(4) At the time when a statutory instrument containing an order under section 52B is laid before each House of Parliament pursuant to subsection (3), the Minister shall, if he has not already done so, also lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the guarantee mentioned in subsection (1) (c) of that section; but this subsection is without prejudice to the validity of the order in question.
(5) Any power to make an order under section 52B includes power, exercisable in the same manner, to make such incidental, supplemental, consequential or transitional provision as may appear necessary or expedient to the Minister.
(6) Any order under section 52B may make different provision for different cases or for different classes or descriptions of case.
(7) It shall be the duty of any person to whom a direction is given under section 52A or 52C to comply with and give effect to that direction; and compliance with any such direction shall be enforceable by civil proceedings by the Minister for an injunction or interdict or for any other appropriate relief.
(8) Any power to give a direction under section 52A or 52C includes power to vary or revoke the direction.
(9) Any direction under section 52A or 52C shall be given in writing
(10) In this section—
"guaranteed pension scheme" has the same meaning as in section 52B;
"trustees", in relation to a guaranteed pension scheme, has the same meaning as in section 52B."").
The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment—
8 Leave out subsection (2) of the new section 52D inserted into the Transport Act 1980.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8 to the Lords Amendment No. 7. I did not move Amendment No. 6A because it seemed to me, after the discussions we had had on constitutional issues, not to be particularly relevant and in any event it is a paving amendment for something much more substantial.
This is absolutely the last opportunity we shall have in this House before the Bill becomes law to allay the fears of prospective and present pensioners. We have already indicated to the Government on a number of occasions in your Lordships' House what we think
1122
about the need to assure people out there of the security of their pension provision. The name of Maxwell has cropped up occasionally during our discussion. Unfortunately, it seems impossible to talk about security for pensioners without it being mentioned somewhere or other. I accept that the Government have come some way towards meeting our concerns. We have a funding guarantee which, although flawed, is better than would have happened had it not been for the persistence of the, noble Lords, Lord Peyton and Lord Marsh, whose efforts I commend. Nevertheless, that guarantee as it stands gives a future Secretary of State the tight to make conditions which are unspecified since they seem to give him the right to amend the rules and other matters.
What the Government have done in the Commons is to remove from the amendment that was before the Commons a very important subsection:
"The Minister shall not lay before Parliament a statutory instrument containing an order under section 52B unless he has first obtained the written agreement of those trustees that it is appropriate in the circumstances for the order to be made".
It seems to me that that is entirely in line with what was agreed in the memorandum of understanding which we have discussed on a number of occasions because the memorandum of understanding refers to agreement by the trustees. Of course it is much stronger than consultation, to which reference is made elsewhere in the Bill, and a requirement for which has been written into the Bill in the section dealing with the funding guarantee in accordance with the promise made when this was debated at Third Reading. Nevertheless, concerns still remain and it still seems that the chairman of the trustees, judging from the debate in the other place yesterday, has concerns about the security and about the assurances that have been given. Therefore, I should like to take this last opportunity to move that we disagree with the way in which the Government have pursued this matter in the Commons.
We managed to ensure that an undertaking relative to the trustees could be written into the Bill, but that has been watered down by the removal of the subsection of the amendment in discussion in the Commons. I therefore hope that your Lordships will agree with me that for the future peace of mind and security of pensioners and prospective pensioners of BR it is important to write this into the Bill and not to accept what the Government have done in the Commons.
I remind your Lordships that we are talking here about relatively poor people. I have a letter from one of the pensioners who reminds me that 70 per cent. of BR pensioners receive pensions of less than £40 a week. It is for us to endeavour to do everything we can to protect the poor and the vulnerable. I hope that we shall do so.
Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8 to the Lords Amendment No. 7.—(Baroness Turner of Camden.)
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, this amendment raises very serious issues. Your Lordships passed an amendment which the other place has now rejected. Perhaps I may call attention to the Commons reason, given at the bottom of page 3 of the Marshalled List:

1123
"Because the Commons do not consider it appropriate that the Secretary of State should be precluded from making, and laying before Parliament, orders of the kind to which the said Amendment made by the Lords relates".
Those are not particularly stirring words. They do not suggest that there is anything very vital in your Lordships' amendment. But my real difficulty stems from two issues which arise here. The first is the memorandum of understanding, frequently quoted in your Lordships' House, which was signed by a Minister of the Crown and the chairman of the railway trustees. That memorandum was absolutely clear. It was perhaps the first draft in which the requirement of the trustees' agreement appeared. Therefore, it was a matter for serious discussion to which those on both sides of the question clearly applied their minds. What was required was the trustees' agreement to the phasing of payments under the 1980 Act. As I understand, it had always been a matter of considerable satisfaction to the trustees that those payments had been made to coincide and match the payments out of the fund. Therefore, there were no worries for the trustees in the performance of their duties.
Subsequently, the Government became uncomfortable with what they had agreed. Although they had said in your Lordships' House that they would be bound by the memorandum of understanding, they found that the terms of it, requiring the agreement of the trustees, represented an unpalatable condition. Therefore, the notion that the trustees would merely be consulted took the place of agreement.
This is a very real concern. I do not feel particularly comfortable, and I do not enjoy raising the matter at all. I believe, however, that when governments sign formal and important documents it is of the utmost and of crucial importance, if they are to continue to enjoy the trust which all governments need, that changes should never be made unilaterally and very particularly perhaps if those involved on the other side of the argument are trustees. That is my first point.
The second point relates to the cash payments themselves. I hope noble Lords will forgive me when I quote at some length from a letter written by Mr. Derek Fowler on 26th October to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. He deals particularly with the cash payments made under the 1980 Act which, as I said, have played such a vital part in enabling the trustees to perform their duties. The letter states:
"The indefinite cessation of cash payments under the 1980 Act will accelerate the realisation of marketable assets to pay pensions. It is only on those assets that the Trustees can earn real increases. As those assets are realised the non-marketable Government IOU will represent a larger proportion of total scheme assets, thus diminishing the scope for real increases and disadvantaging pensioners".
These are important words:
"I certainly did not envisage that cash payments would cease indefinitely when I signed the Memorandum, hence its reference to retiming".
Mr. Fowler continues:
"I very much regret the need to have written to you three times in less than three weeks on fundamental differences of view between the Government and the BR Trustees. I saw the Memorandum of Understanding as a milestone on the way towards securing Government objectives to secure BR Pensions.
1124
The steady erosion of what I thought had been agreed seems to justify the sceptical approach taken by many of my colleagues and others to that Memorandum".
The issue before your Lordships is of great importance. I have every sympathy with my noble friend. I add my congratulations on his birthday. What a wretched time he is having! I said to my noble friend that I hoped that he would be able to deal with the matters raised in this very serious letter from the chairman of the trustees. Because I did not wish to take any chance of misleading your Lordships, as recently as half-past two this afternoon I telephoned to ask if the concerns expressed so clearly in the letter had received an answer. They have not yet been answered although it may be that my noble friend is in a position still to quieten and relieve the anxieties of the chairman and myself.
I shall listen with great care and immense anxiety to what my noble friend has to say. I find it very difficult to accept the notion that a document signed by a Minister of the Crown can be changed, even for the weightiest of constitutional reasons, without agreement from the other side of the table. I say that particularly when it applies to trustees. I believe also that the Government have to be exceedingly careful before they upset arrangements which have worked well in the field of pensions, particularly in the light of recent experiences. On the phasing of those payments there are many people who feel that the security of their pension and their future depends.
We have had some rather strange debates. Part of the muddle and confusion has been caused by the fact that our proceedings have been so shunted together that we have had very little time to reflect upon, or to plan, anything. For any contribution that I have made to that confusion, I can only apologise. But on this issue I think that we can be exceedingly clear. It is not a party issue, but it does involve pensions, pensioners and their interests and, I believe, the long-term interests of the Government—and the regard in which they are held.
Lord Elton: My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil for, on this occasion, addressing in detail the intentions of this amendment because that was singularly lacking in the previous three debates in which your Lordships appeared to be addressing yourselves to the desirability of defeating the Government or the desirability of demonstrating that that was something which your Lordships were constitutionally able to do.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, but will he bear in mind that the debates to which we were responding have yet not appeared, as far as I am aware, in any published form? As the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said, it was not possible for noble Lords seeking to move amendments even to get together to discuss those amendments because of the shortage of time. There has been confusion, but the idea that the Government emerge crystal clear or clean from it is a bit of an exaggeration. They must take some responsibility for the unique way in which this particular part of our debate has been conducted.
Lord Elton: My Lords, during the past 20 years I have been accustomed to the telescoping of business towards the end of a parliamentary Session. It is a tactical situation from which Oppositions, including that of my own party, always seek to gain the maximum. I congratulate the Opposition today on having gained a great deal. However, in the process nothing was said about the chapter and verse and the detailed effect of any of the three amendments which were debated. They were voted through on issues quite different from their precise effect. Therefore, I am grateful to my noble friend for, on this occasion, addressing the actual nuts and bolts.
Arising from that, I should like to ask my noble friend a question which, if it had not been for this long prolegomena, I should have asked before he sat down. He prefaced everything that he said by saying, "The Government propose to reject the amendment and the reasons are set out at No. 6", but those are the reasons for rejecting Lords Amendment No. 5. As I understand it, we are now addressing Lords Amendment No. 7, and the principal question that we are asking ourselves is whether the constraints of the new Section 52D, which puts a constraint on the Secretary of State laying an order before Parliament under Section 52B, should be applied. The questions that I want to ask my noble friend, if I have got this right, are whether the memorandum of understanding addressed that point and whether it is with the provision or the restriction of this power that the memorandum dealt. If not, everything that he said had no bearing whatever on the amendment which is before your Lordships. If it is, I shall stand corrected and I shall not be surprised because I find these things very difficult to follow. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, certainly addressed that point. All that I am asking is whether my noble friend can show the way in which the provision which he seeks to obtain from the amendment would be protected if the memorandum of understanding was preserved in the way in which he says that it should be.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am so sorry if I have in any way misled my noble friend or quoted from the wrong bit of the wrong piece of paper. That is very easy to do under the present circumstances. What I should like to make absolutely clear is that the amendment which was passed in your Lordships' House had the following words in it. They are to be found on page 9 of the Marshalled List of amendments and Motions. Section 52D(2) states:
"The Minister shall not lay before Parliament a statutory instrument containing an order under section 52B unless he has first obtained the written agreement of those trustees that it is appropriate in the circumstances for the order to be made".
Those words are supposed to be taken straight from the memorandum of understanding of which again, I am so sorry, but I do not have a copy with me at the moment. I am sure that one could readily be made available to my noble friend. I am sorry that I do not have it immediately to hand.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, the section of the memorandum of agreement is as follows:
"the Government remains committed to support payments to certain BR pension funds"—
and this is the point
1126
"The timing of such payments will be agreed with the Trustees and will take account of the absolute guarantee now being provided".
That is the agreement to which this amendment refers. The subsection that I read out earlier states:
"The Minister shall not lay before Parliament a statutory instrument containing an order under section 52B unless he has first obtained the written agreement of those trustees that it is appropriate in the circumstances for the order to be made".
Those are the two issues that are before the House.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the question before the House is, in fact, whether the agreement shall be written or verbal.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, no. The question before the House is whether the agreement shall be adhered to or not. The memorandum of understanding says that there shall be agreement. The Bill as it would stand if the Commons amendment to your Lordships' amendment were carried would mean that there would be no such agreement but merely consultation. That is the difference between us.
I do not want to spend more than a minute or two on this, but it is a most important matter. It is a matter which is obviously worrying British Rail's pensioners. In the light of things that have been happening in the pensions world, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, mentioned at an earlier stage of our deliberations on the Bill, such as what has happened to the pensions of people who took management buy-outs with Astra who now find themselves without either a pension or redundancy payment, it is no wonder that people want to see things written on the face of the Bill which match the agreement that the Government made with the trustees. The letter from the chairman of the trustees is, I believe, a most powerful statement of the view that he takes.
It should be remembered that the trustees are to include a government nominee. One wonders why, since he has been put there to look after the Government's interests, that is not sufficient. I suspect that it is because the Government have suddenly found that, because he is a trustee, he has a fiduciary duty which might override the instructions given to him by the Secretary of State. I hope that we take this last chance of giving cast-iron guarantees to the people in the British Rail pension fund that the memorandum of understanding is going to be adhered to.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Peyton said that this discussion raises serious issues. Indeed, it does, but it also raises very serious constitutional issues—if I may say so, constitutional issues in spades on the points raised by my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Boyd-Carpenter earlier in the debate. The points that they made about the constitutional position of this House really do apply on this amendment. I agree that they did not apply on earlier amendments with the force with which they apply on this amendment, which is why did not make the point then, but I do make the point now to the House that these issues raise the question of the constitutional position of this House.

1127
Perhaps I may deal yet again with the letter from Mr. Fowler. I dealt with this at length on Third Reading when my noble friend Lord Peyton was not here. It has been dealt with at length in the past few days in another place. If your Lordships will permit me to do so, I should like to deal with it yet again. There were four points in Mr. Fowler's letter. The first was that there should be consultation with the trustees and actuary on the terms and conditions of the guarantees. That was corrected on Third Reading and an amendment was introduced in another place. It is now before this House for agreement. I refer to Government Amendment No. 10.
The second point was that there was to be an indefinite cessation under the 1980 Act of payments for assets and that that would lead to a diminution of the scope for achieving surpluses. The Government have never proposed an indefinite cessation. Let me make that absolutely clear. I dealt with that on Third Reading and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has dealt with it at length in the past two days, particularly yesterday. What we have done, and what is right, is that on 19th October we put to the trustees a proposal on this matter for discussion with them. We have not yet had a reply from the trustees. We look forward to receiving that reply.
The third accusation is that there has been a steady erosion of the memorandum of understanding. That, as your Lordships will know, is nonsense. We have said time and time and time again that we abide by the memorandum of understanding. My right honourable friend said it yesterday; I said it on Third Reading; I say it again today. What I can repeat, which is what I said on Third Reading, is that the chairman of BR and the chairman of the trustees have said that they abide by the memorandum of understanding.
The fourth point in the letter related to the effective control of the funds. The trustees asked for a guarantee, but they accepted that it cannot come without some government control. That is acknowledged in the memorandum of understanding. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the necessary powers, but that is all.
I hope that I have laid to rest the Fowler letter of 26th October. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be sending a full and detailed reply once this debate has been concluded, but there can be no doubt in Mr. Fowler's mind as to what that reply will be, given what I and my right honourable friends have said on a number of occasions between the receipt of that letter and today.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am sorry to worry my noble friend, but this is a serious point and one which will weigh most heavily with me. I can assure him that only a few hours ago the anxieties to which I have referred were very much present in the trustees' minds: that the point raised in Mr. Fowler's letter had not been answered. They were left with the same anxieties.
I have one question, and the answer to this will influence me greatly. Is it the Government's intention to
1128
continue the phased payments as under the 1980 Act? If it is, my anxieties would to a large extent be allayed to a point where I would not wish to vote on this matter. If my noble friend cannot give that assurance, I must say that I go away from here profoundly uneasy.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend does not worry me. If he will look at what I said on Third Reading, he will see the answer that I gave to that question. I have answered the question before. The situation has changed since the 1980 Act, because that Act did not give a guarantee. There is now a guarantee. That is what your Lordships wanted. That is what is on the face of the Bill. Therefore, under the new circumstances the phasing of the payments is the matter for discussion. We have put a proposal to the trustees. It is that proposal to which we return. My noble friend cannot say that the situation has not changed since the 1980 Act. It has changed it has changed to meet your Lordships' concerns.
I hope that my noble friend is more content about the situation. I do not deny that the trustees have anxieties still. Of course they have, because we are still in discussion with them; but on that point, the arrangements that we have now made for pensioners in BR's closed fund are exceptionally generous, and rightly so. They provide for a guarantee. They provide for a distribution of a surplus. The government payments will continue. It is the timing and phasing of those payments that is a matter for discussion.
Let me turn to the reasons for this discussion in view of what was said in another place, because last night the other place removed the amendment to Schedule 10 (pensions) requiring the written agreement of the trustees before any substitution order under Section 52B of the Transport Act 1980 is laid before Parliament. As I said before, we consider it totally wrong for the trustees to have an effective veto on this matter. That is the reason I gave previously for rejecting the proposal, and I repeat it. It raises two points of principle, far beyond railway pensioners.
First, so far as I know, it is unprecedented for a private person to be given an effective veto over the Government bringing forward secondary legislation. Secondly, the trustees are, in effect, seeking control over the timing of payments under the Transport Act 1980. I consider that they are asking too much in making that demand for a statutory veto in relation to public expenditure. I consider that those principles are clear. We debated them exhaustively on Report in this House. We debated them again on Third Reading. They were accepted when my right honourable friend the Secretary of State spoke in another place yesterday. It is not right for this House to challenge another place on this issue.
The amendment passed in this House on Report on 20th October was defeated last night by a substantial majority, at least by the standards of this Parliament. The Government did not just scrape through. Much of the three hours they spent yesterday afternoon debating the Allocation of Time Motion was devoted to these matters. The other place then spent nearly two hours debating this amendment. That is nearly five hours on this issue. It cannot be said that another place has not

1129
had the opportunity to debate and consider this matter. I leave this thought with my noble friend Lord Peyton and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner this is an amendment which raises constitutional issues relating to this House in a way that the previous amendments did not. We shall stick by the memorandum of understanding.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, to deal with the constitutional arguments first, I did not move Amendment No. 6A which probably would have raised constitutional issues. It is for that reason that I did not move it. Amendment No. 8A is merely:
"To move, That this House do disagree with the Commons in their amendment numbered 8 to the Lords amendment numbered 7"
I should not have thought that that raised constitutional issues very different from the amendments we debated on the franchise question much earlier this afternoon.
I find it disappointing that the Minister should again repeat what he has said on previous occasions that if an amendment of this kind were accepted, it would be giving the trustees (external people) powers in relation to public expenditure. If the Government felt so strongly about that, why do they write into the memorandum of understanding the phrase:
"The timing of such payments will be agreed with the Trustees and will take account of the absolute guarantees now being provided".
Unless we have something like that on the face of the Bill, people will continue to feel unsure and dissatisfied over prospects for their pension security. A great deal of legal advice has been given to everyone. It has certainly been given to pensioners and prospective pensioners. The legal advice that they have received is to the effect that they need to have the memorandum of understanding, or something like it, written into the Bill if they are to be sure for the future.
If the Government are now saying that they cannot do that at this stage, they are, in other words, saying that perhaps they do not want to abide by the agreements that they reached with the trustees, despite the fact that we have been told that it is binding. If that is so, it is a matter of government honour, a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has already referred. I cannot accept what the Minister has said this afternoon. I am certain that it will not satisfy the pensioners.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I know that the noble Baroness is corning to the end of her speech, but I wanted to interrupt her. We all make mistakes. I made a mistake. I apologise to the noble Baroness. She was dead right on the constitutional issue on Amendment No. 8A. The constitutional issue arises on Amendment No. 6A. I apologise to her, but it does not affect what I said about the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for making that statement. I am glad to hear it. I believe that the issue is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said. He spelt it out with a great deal of clarity—
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will the noble Baroness make clear the fact that independently and separately she and I received the same advice from the
1130
Public Bill Office; that in proceeding with Amendment No. 8A no vital fundamental issue of constitutional importance would be raised? I did not mention that matter.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, that is so. The noble Lord and I were advised independently that there was no constitutional issue. I am glad to confirm that to your Lordships. That having been said, I should like to take the view of the House on the amendment.
5.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8 to the Lords Amendment No. 7?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 146; Not-Contents, 159.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Healey, L.

Airedale, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hollick, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Attlee, E.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hooson, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Banks, L.

Howell, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Birk, B.

Hughes, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hylton, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B

Bottomley, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L

Bridges, L.

Jay, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Judd, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Kagan, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kennet, L.

Carter, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Lawrence, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Listowel, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Croham, L.

Lockwood, B.

Cross, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Dainton, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

David, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L,

Dean of Beswick, L.

McNair, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Marsh, L.

Eatwell, L.

Mayhew, L.

Ennals, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Ezra, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Faithfull, B.

Molloy, L.

Falkender, B.

Monkswell, L.

Falkland, V.

Monson, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Fitt, L.

Mountevans, L.

Foot, L.

Mulley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Munster, E.

Geraint, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Nicol, B.

Glenamara, L.

Ogmore, L.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Palmer, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Park of Monmouth, B.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Parry, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Greenway, L.

Peston, L.

Grey, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hamwee, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hanworth, V.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Harrowby, E.

Raglan, L.

Haskel, L.

Rea, L.

1131

Redesdale, L.

Tenby, V.

Richard, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Rochester, L.

Thurso, V.

Russell, E.

Tonypandy, V.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Serota, B.

Waverley, V.

Shaughnessy, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Wharton, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

White, B.

Slim, V.

Wilberforce, L.

Stedman, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Young of Partington, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Gisborough, L.

Abinger, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Addison, V.

Gowrie, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gridley, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Arran, E.

Hacking, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Astor, V.

Hanson, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Auckland, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Barber, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Bauer, L.

Henley, L.

Belstead, L.

Hesketh, L.

Bessborough, E.

Holderness, L.

Blatch, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Blyth, L.

Hooper, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hothfield, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Howe, E.

Brentford, V.

Huntly, M.

Bridgeman, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Butterworth, L.

Kimball, L.

Cadman, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Caithness, E.

Knollys, V.

Caldecote, V.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Leigh, L.

Carnock, L.

Lindsay, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Liverpool, V.

Chelmsford, V.

Long, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Lucas, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Lyell, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Colnbrook, L.

[Lord Chancellor.]

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Marlesford, L.

Cranborne, V.

Melville, V.

Crathorne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mersey, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Middleton, L.

Davidson, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Milverton, L.

Denham, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mottistone, L.

Downshire, M.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Dudley, E.

Norfolk, D.

Dundonald, E.

Norrie, L.

Ellenborough, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Elles, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Onslow, E.

Elton, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Erne, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Flather, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Pike, B.

Gainford, L.

Prentice, L.

1132

Radnor, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Rees, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Renton, L.

[Teller]

Renwick, L.

Sudeley, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Swinton, E.

Romney, E.

Tebbit, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.

Teviot, L.

St. Davids, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Seccombe, B.

Torrington, V.

Selborne, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Shannon, E.

Trumpington, B.

Sharpies, B.

Tugendhat, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Ullswater, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Vivian, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Wakeham, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

[Lord Privy Seal.]

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Wise, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Wynford, L.

Strange, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
5.50 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8 to the Lords Amendment No. 7.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8 to the Lords Amendment No. 7.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
9 Schedule 10, page 173, line 26, at end insert:
("Government guarantees to trustees of certain new schemes
9A.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, the Secretary of State—

(a) shall give to the trustees of any new scheme which satisfies the conditions in sub-paragraph (3) below, and

(b) may give to the trustees of any new scheme which satisfies the conditions in sub-paragraph (4) below,

a guarantee in respect of their liabilities to make payments in respect of pension rights under the scheme.
(2) This paragraph applies in relation to a section of a new scheme as it applies in relation to a new scheme; and any reference in this paragraph to a new scheme, a closed scheme, a pension scheme or a member shall be construed accordingly.
(3) A new scheme satisfies the conditions in this sub-paragraph if—

(a) all the members of the scheme are persons whose pension rights under the scheme are pension rights which have been transferred, so as to become pension rights under that scheme, pursuant to an order under paragraph 4 above; and

(b) the rules of the scheme prevent any member of the scheme from being a participant in the scheme.

(4) A new scheme satisfies the conditions in this sub-paragraph if—

(a) the scheme is a closed scheme; and

(b) at the date on which the scheme becomes a closed scheme, all the members of the scheme are—

(i) participants in the scheme to whom pension rights under the scheme are accruing by virtue of their employment with a relevant employer; or

1133

(ii) pensioners or deferred pensioners under the scheme whose pension rights under the scheme derive in whole or in part from their, or some other person's, participation in an occupational pension scheme as an employee of a relevant employer.

(5) Classes or descriptions of person may be prescribed whose membership of, or participation in, a new scheme is to be disregarded for the purpose of determining whether the new scheme satisfies the conditions in sub-paragraph (3) or (4) above.
(6) The power to give a guarantee under sub-paragraph (1) (b) above becomes exercisable in the case of any new scheme if the Secretary of State is of the opinion that it is desirable to give such a guarantee for the purpose of ensuring that the trustees of the scheme are, or will be, able to meet their liabilities to make payments in respect of pension rights under the scheme as those liabilities fall to be met.
(7) The Secretary of State shall consider any representations made by the trustees of a new scheme which satisfies the conditions in sub-paragraph (4) above concerning their ability to meet their liabilities to make payments in respect of pension rights under the scheme.
(8) Any guarantee under this paragraph shall be given in such manner, and on such terms and conditions, as the Secretary of State thinks fit; and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this sub-paragraph, the terms and conditions on which a guarantee under this paragraph may be given include terms and conditions—

(a) with respect to any matter relating to payment under the guarantee, including—

(i) the circumstances in which payment under the guarantee falls to be made;

(ii) the amounts, or the method of determining the amounts, of any payments that fall to be so made;

(iii) the persons to whom any such payments are to be made;

(b) with respect to any matter relating to the management, affairs or winding up of the scheme, including—

(i) the policy to be followed in relation to the investment of assets held for the purposes of the scheme; and

(ii) the distribution of any surplus which may arise under the scheme; or

(c) requiring or precluding, or otherwise with respect to, amendment of the rules of the scheme;

and the sub-paragraphs of paragraphs (a) and (b) above are without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provisions of the paragraph in question.
(9) Any sums required by the Secretary of State to fulfil a guarantee given under this section shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.
(10) In this paragraph—
"closed scheme" means a pension scheme—

(a) to which no new members are to be admitted; but

(b) under which pensions and other benefits continue to be provided;

"deferred pensioner", in the case of any pension scheme, means a person who has pension rights under the scheme but who (so far as relating to those pension rights) is neither a participant in the scheme nor a pensioner under the scheme;
"relevant employer" means—

(a) the Board;

(b) a wholly owned subsidiary of the Board; or

(c) a publicly owned railway company, other than a company which is wholly owned by the Franchising Director.")

The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment—
Subsection (8). line 2, leave out 'thinks' and insert 'may, after consultation with the trustees of; and the actuary to, the scheme in question, think'.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10 to the Lords Amendment No. 9. This amendment fulfils a promise which I gave the House on Third Reading last Wednesday.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10 to the Lords Amendment No. 9.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Leader of the House whether he would be good enough to tell us what the Government now see as the likely timetable for the further procedure as regards this Bill. The tapes this evening talk of the Government's timetable being in great turmoil as a result of your Lordships' decisions this afternoon. The House is entitled to know the Government's thinking and when we are likely, if we are likely, to have the Bill before us again.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for asking that question. I suggest that the House should adjourn during pleasure until 7 o'clock in order that we may have some discussions through the usual channels as to the best way forward.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 5.52 to 7 p.m.]

Business: Adjournment
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until 11 p.m. tonight to enable any Message from the Commons relating to the Railways Bill to be considered.
I should explain to the House that I have held discussions with the usual channels on how best to proceed in the light of events earlier this afternoon on the Railways Bill. It is my firm commitment that the House as a whole would best be served by considering any Commons Message later tonight, rather than waiting until tomorrow. I believe that the House as a whole would not wish for proceedings relating to the Bill to be deferred perhaps with consequent effect on the forthcoming business schedule both for tomorrow and (dare I say it?) for Friday.
I should make it plain that noble Lords opposite and I disagree about the course of action that I propose as is, of course, their prerogative. However, given the efforts that many noble Lords have made to be present at our proceedings today, I am sure that it would be in the best interests of the House to proceed as I have outlined.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 11 p.m. tonight.—(Lord Wakeham.)
Lord Richard: My Lords, I beg to move as an amendment to the Motion moved by the noble Lord the Leader of the House to leave out "11 p.m. tonight" and insert "3 o'clock tomorrow afternoon". I am bound to say that I listened to what the Leader of the House said with surprise and outrage. What has happened to the Bill really is playing games with the House and with its

1135
procedures. The Government having got themselves into such a mess with the Bill, now propose to take, as I understand it, an almost unprecedented procedural step to force the House to sit at about midnight tonight so that they can ram through the legislation.
Moreover, as I understand it—although I would not say that it was a breach of an undertaking—what is proposed is certainly a breach of an understanding as to how the matter might be dealt with. I can only say to the Leader of the House that it is quite extraordinary that, in all the discussions that have taken place through the usual channels as to what might happen if votes this afternoon went the way that they did, the one possibility that was never mentioned was that the House would be brought back late tonight. On the contrary, what seemed to be accepted on all sides was that the House would today consider the Commons amendments, that the Bill would go back to the other place tonight and that it would return here at 3 o'clock tomorrow afternoon. I am bound to say that we would have gone along with that course of action.
I believe that it is an act of spleen on the part of the Government, who are so irate at having lost three votes this afternoon in relation to the Bill. It illustrates, yet again, the Government's arrogance and obduracy in relation to this piece of legislation. They have to have their own way, irrespective of the difficulties or embarrassment that that might cause to other Members of your Lordships' House. It is an unprecedented move on the part of the Government. I invite noble Lords to vote for my amendment to the Motion.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 11 p.m., to leave out "11 p.m. tonight" and insert "3 o'clock tomorrow afternoon".—(Lord Richard.)
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I wish to support very strongly the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. It is quite unreasonable to expect your Lordships' House to come back at 11 p.m. tonight. Many people have already left the House, quite unaware that any such procedure might take place. It is impossible to get in touch with them now because we do not know where they are. This is no way to treat the Opposition when we have just won three amendments. It would look to everyone as if the Government were taking advantage of the situation to push the legislation through at this time of night so that they can reverse the decision that was properly taken in your Lordships' House this afternoon.
Not only do we have tomorrow afternoon at 3 o'clock, but the Queen's Speech is not due to be given until 18th November. That means that we still have two full weeks. It is not as if the Queen's Speech was due to take place early next week. There is plenty of time to extend the length of the current Session in order to deal with the matter in a proper and fair way. I must say that I am amazed that someone like the noble Lord the Leader of the House, in whom we normally have the greatest confidence, should be party to such a procedure.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, your Lordships have heard a very grave statement from the
1136
noble Lord the Leader of the House. It goes to the very root of the standing of your Lordships' House in the constitution. Earlier today, three amendments were carried against the Government. I intervened, not on the merits of those amendments, but to submit to the House—as was obviously accepted—that your Lordships were fully entitled constitutionally to vote for the amendments and so it was.
Those amendments now go to another place. If they are accepted, I believe that I am right in saying that there is no need for them to return to this House. Therefore, the only inference is that either it is proposed to use a guillotine and Whipped majority in the other place to overturn your Lordships' decision, or at least to move wrecking amendments to those carried by your Lordships.
Earlier today, in accordance with his admirable conduct of the Bill, the noble Earl talked about the constitutional proprieties. It is difficult to think of anything more improper constitutionally than that which is now proposed by the noble Lord the Leader of the House. In effect, it treats Parliament as a one-Chamber Parliament. What your Lordships say does not count at all, it will be overturned in the other place by, as I said, a Whipped majority and a guillotine majority. I humbly associate myself with the protests that have been made.
Lord Renton: My Lords, with great respect to the noble and learned Lord, I do not think that he has quite adequately or accurately stated the constitutional position. We have a simple issue at present: whether the Commons amendments—that is, if any are made to what we have sent to them; and they may not be made—should be considered tonight at 11 p.m., or whether they should be considered tomorrow afternoon.
Speaking for myself, I see no objection to the proposal to return at 11 o'clock tonight, for the following reason. It is a matter which we have discussed very extensively. It was discussed during the various stages of the Bill when it was before the House. Moreover, it was discussed extensively this afternoon. If we have to consider it again at 11 o'clock, it will not require a great deal of preparation on the part of any of those likely to wish to take part. It is something that we should be able to take in our stride.
As the noble and learned Lord so rightly said, we have a two-Chamber Parliament one Chamber is democratically elected, and the other has powers to ask the democratically elected Chamber and the Government to think again. We do exercise that power to a great extent. I have been told that we have amended government Bills something like 2,000 times in each of the Sessions of recent years. Moreover, they have accepted something like 95 per cent. of our amendments. There is a degree of co-operation between the two Houses and I would have thought that at this very late stage of this Session for us to try to get the matter disposed of at 11 o'clock tonight rather than putting it over until three o'clock tomorrow is perfectly reasonable and something which we should try not to object to doing.

1137
But may I just mention that if we put this over until three o'clock tomorrow it will, of course, delay the start—it might be quite a long delay in view of the attitude of some noble Lords—of the other business for tomorrow which I see from my Whip will consist of the consideration of Commons amendments to the European Economic Area Bill. That could take some time. Then there are two Northern Ireland orders to be discussed. In normal circumstances, those orders might not take long, but some noble Lords may wish to use the opportunity for making constructive suggestions as to the solving of the terrible problems in Northern Ireland. No, I think it is better that we should get this over and done with tonight. I would just add that if another place accepts the amendments which we have made today, then it will be over in about two seconds tonight.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am one of those who have on many occasions taken advantage of the procedures of this House in order to ensure that we have votes sometimes late at night. I have been accused of the most utter perfidy by my political opponents on those grounds. However, I would remind the House that when we occasionally have ambushes on Bills, we do so during votable business. We do so when the notice of the business to be conducted has already been properly notified to the House and it is well known that at any time any noble Lord could move an amendment and have noble Lords present to support an amendment. I suggest that the present situation is entirely different, and I ask your Lordships to consider whether it is proper for us to consider our personal convenience. Clearly, personal convenience in these matters must take a very low rank in our considerations.
The matter with which we must be concerned is that the House was summoned this afternoon to deal with our amendments to the Railways Bill. The House has dealt with those matters. It has never been suggested in the notice of business that this should be continued after further Commons consideration. What is being proposed to be imposed upon the House is an ambush of the worst kind—an ambush which does not appear in the business before the House. I suggest to your Lordships that that is a much more serious matter than any of the other considerations which we might have. It is obvious that noble Lords opposite on the Government Benches have been told what other Members of the House have not been told.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, why are they here? It is patently obvious that noble Lords on the Government Benches have been asked to stay behind to deal with this matter further.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, I wish to tell him in no uncertain terms and with sincerity that under no circumstances have I been told that I should stay later than a particular time. I have not been told to do that, and I do not think any of my noble friends on this side of the House have been asked to stay until nine o'clock, 10 o'clock, 11 o'clock or whatever.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I of course accept what the noble Lord says. However, it is a remarkable fact that noble Lords on the Government Benches appear to be here in very large numbers to hear the Motion being put that the House should adjourn during pleasure until 11 o'clock tonight. If ever I hear criticism of the actions of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall finish my sentence if I may. If ever I hear criticism of the actions of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition in procedural matters, I will remind those who make those criticisms of the outrageous suggestion that is now being put before the House by the noble Lord the Leader of the House.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House a simple question. Obviously, these Benches have no collective view each person speaks as an individual. However, each person has played a part in this issue. I recognise that we are not part of the usual channels but were there any discussions with our representative as regards this matter? I hope the noble Lord the Leader of the House will answer that question when he rises to speak.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I should point out that at six o'clock—an hour and a quarter ago—a statement was made that the House was to adjourn for one hour and that it would reconvene at seven o'clock. Therefore we stayed here until seven o'clock to hear the Business Statement purely and simply on that basis.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, it seems to me this matter is not simply a constitutional matter but is a matter that is of great importance for this House. We are in a situation where the noble Lord the Leader of the House has—doubtless under pressure from another place—had to come before your Lordships' House to tell us we must meet at 11 o'clock tonight. As he said, this has been done without the agreement of the usual channels. That is a serious matter. If this House is to run properly, it has to be run by agreement. I would remind the noble Lord the Leader of the House that he has two duties one is to the Government, the Government party and to the Cabinet; and the other is to your Lordships' House. In discharging that second duty, it seems to me that it should be his duty, wherever possible, to carry the usual channels with him. I have to say that tonight that has not even been attempted. We were brought into a meeting and we were asked whether we would agree to come back at 11 o'clock. We said, no. That was the end of the argument. This is no way to treat your Lordships' House. As my noble friend Lady Seear said, there is no need for this haste. It is foolish, it is madness and it is arrogant. We have plenty of time to deal with Commons. amendments if the Government so wish. The Government want to get this business through tonight regardless of what your Lordships think. This

1139
steamrollering of business through your Lordships' House is bad for Parliament as a whole but particularly for your Lordships.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I would say to the noble Lord that the reason so many of us on these Benches are present tonight is because noble Lords on this side of the House were determined to be here to see the Railways Bill through tonight. For my part, I am assembled not only on special summons but on the basis that we shall deal with the amendments and the amendments which come back from another place. The noble Lord said the business for today was limited to amendments to the Railways Bill. That is indeed what we shall return to discuss later tonight.
A further point has not yet been made—I agree wholeheartedly with what my noble friend Lord Renton said—as regards the purpose and the role of this House. To suggest, as the noble Lord opposite suggested, that this is a matter of personal convenience is unworthy of this House. If we cannot put personal convenience on one side to deal properly with a matter which has been widely debated and which we wish to see go through tonight for the reasons my noble friend on the Front Bench gave, it would be most unfortunate. I hope therefore that we shall accept the Motion of my noble friend and reject the amendment of the noble Lord on the Opposition Benches.
Lord Richard: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I hope he will address the following point. He said that he and his friends were here in such vast numbers because they wished to see the Railways Bill through tonight. Will he tell us when he first realised that there was a possibility of seeing the Railways Bill through tonight and who told him?
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I certainly would have been unwise to have predicted in advance of today's business the result of today's votes. The outcome that has arisen was clearly a possibility—that is, that the proceedings had to be returned to another place. That was part of the business of this House in dealing with the Railways Bill tonight.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, about voting on business of which we have notice has been the practice of this House for upwards of 300 years. While listening to the debate, I have been asking myself what precedents I can recall for this House voting on a major piece of business without notice. The only one that comes to mind is the Third Reading of the Bill for the attainder of the Earl of Strafford. The precedent is not a happy one. I hope that we shall not follow it.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I hope that some accommodation can be reached. It seems extraordinary that assumptions were made so generally on the Benches opposite that the business of the House had been concluded when the House had merely been adjourned in order for the future handling of business to be announced. The assumption is that the Leader of the House and the House itself are bound thereby to go
1140
rejoicing home and come back tomorrow as often as is necessary. As I understand it, the business of the House is not concluded until the House rises at the end of the day. It has not done so. Eleven o'clock is not very late by our standards. The noble Lord, who is in the position of one of the foolish virgins in this analogy, can certainly interrupt.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his great courtesy. As I understand it, this place runs on the basis not necessarily of agreement, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, put it, but at least on the basis of proper consultation between the usual channels and some consideration of the position of the Cross Benchers. That has been dismissed on this occasion. Does the noble Lord believe that it is in the best interests of the House that the Government should throw overboard that common courtesy which is the hallmark of proceedings of this House?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do not speak for the usual channels. The usual channels are made up of all the parties thereto. I speak as a Back-Bencher. I make the simple point that as a Back-Bencher I do not regard the business of the House as finished until the House rises at the end of that business. That it has not done, and to continue until the business is finished is perfectly normal.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I must add my protest against the statement made by the noble Lord the Leader of the House. With great respect to him, I believe that what he said to the House is deplorable. The Government are showing contempt for your Lordships' House and contempt for their own.
This is an important Bill, and we have given it careful attention. I hope that the public outside will gain some understanding of what is happening at this time in the procedures of the House. They will see that there are occasions when procedure, programme and timetable compel the elected assembly and the associated assembly of the House of Lords to subordinate themselves to procedural considerations to the denial of proper time for discussion.
In this matter the Lords' amendments were dealt with by the other place under a guillotine. We are about to send amendments to the other place, and they will probably be returned under a closure motion. Then we shall be asked to pass the Commons' rejection of our amendments or face a parliamentary crisis. That is grossly unfair.
What is at stake here? There are two weeks before the State Opening on 18th November. There is no reason at all why two or three days more should not be devoted to the concluding stages of this Bill. Why must it be tonight, or even tomorrow? We could devote a few days next week to the matter. Why should we subordinate the procedures of the House to the demands of the Government's programme?
This is an insolent statement to make to your Lordships' House. After all the attention we have given to the matter we are told that we have had long enough and have gone over the ground before. What is

1141
Parliament for except to go over ground? We go over ground all the time. That is how democracy functions. That is how a better understanding can be reached.
Further time should be given for the other place in particular to consider what we have to say. In many respects what we have put to the other place is what public opinion is calling for. The Government will not face the fact that this is an unpopular Bill, in both Houses and in the country. They cannot see the need for further discussion and how the proposed changes, which are fundamental to an industry of great tradition and history, will make all the difference to the future of the rail ways.
If the Opposition have any strong feelings that would lead to a rebellion I say that they should move the adjournment of the House and that we should be ready to meet at greater convenience to dispose of the business. Why should we be at the say-so of the Government and the Benches opposite in discharging our functions in this House? Why can we not insist on having a will of our own? This is our own House. We are not put here to be door mats for the other place. I protest. I have been here 20 years and have not seen the equal of this situation in that time.
The public probably do not know from the short paragraphs in the press what the manoeuvrings of parties and procedures in the House amount to, but I believe that the rights of a democratic House are being flouted. It is no good Members of the Opposition wagging their heads. They have to face the fact that they have a duty to discharge, as we have. They will be failing in their duty if they knuckle under to what the Government have said to the House.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I spoke earlier about what I see as the constitutional position of individual Members of this House in regard to today's business. I should like to touch on what I see as the constitutional situation before us and to make a few other remarks.
First, it is within our constitution for the Government to ask the House to sit later this evening and consider further business. However, it is a discourtesy to individual Members of this House to suggest that further business will be conducted very late this evening without prior notice. If there were a dire national emergency it would be perfectly justifiable for the Government to adopt that point of view. Everyone would accept it. However, I suggest that we are not in a dire national emergency. If we are, perhaps the noble Lord the Leader of the House will explain what it is. I do not believe that we are in such a position.
Having said that, possibly it is reasonable for the noble Lord the Leader of the House to say that we need to consider what the other place says in response to the Message that we sent them earlier this afternoon. However, the implication of what he suggests is that not only will we listen to what the other place has to say but also that we will make a decision about it. That is the fundamental flaw in the Government's argument. I do not see this as a party point. I see it more in terms of respect for the position of individual Members of the House of Lords. We do not yet know what Message the other place will send back to us. If, without prior notice,
1142
we are expected at 11 o'clock tonight to make a decision on that Message that would be a grave discourtesy to individual Members of this House.
I plead with the Government to take on board what I heard on the television news at 6 o'clock this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, was reported as saying that if the other place disagreed with our amendments he would not press the issue to further Divisions. From a personal point of view I disagree with that apparent decision of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. I believe that we have a responsibility to consider what the other place has to say regarding the matter and to take a deliberative point of view. I do not believe that it is up to anyone to make a pre-judgment.
However, on the basis that this House will sit at 3 p.m. tomorrow, there will be time to take a deliberative decision on whatever the other place decides on the matter. It is important that we realise that on the Minutes of Proceedings available to Members of the House, we were advised that the House would sit tomorrow at 3 o'clock; and that the House would sit on Monday. Therefore there was forewarning to Members of this House that they could expect to sit both tomorrow and on Monday.
There is ample opportunity for the noble Lord the Leader of the House to give individual Members due notice of the business that is likely to be placed in front of them so that they can take a reasoned decision.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords., I shall speak more briefly than the previous speaker. I am disappointed to see such smart alec tactics employed by Members on the Benches opposite receiving such support.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I do not apologise for making a short point because we have so many hours in which to do so. Having served another place for more than 30 years, I wish to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House this question. What will he do if the Commons has not reached a judgment by 11 o'clock?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, there is the guillotine.
Lord Howell: My Lords, it is no good referring to the guillotine. I have taken part in points of order in another place that have continued for three hours. The Commons might well repeat that procedure tonight. There will then be a guillotine. There is therefore a possibility that we shall not have received a Message by 11 o'clock. Will the noble Lord the Leader of the House tell us what he will do in that eventuality?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I suppose that the Government are perfectly entitled to do what they are doing. Indeed, it is the kind of House of Commons ploy that we are used to. But it is not in accordance with the traditions of this House to have something forced upon us, in particular when an assumed gentleman's agreement has been breached. That is the point that worries me. The usual channels apparently were given the impression that if the Lords disagreed with the Commons, the Commons would

1143
consider the amendments today, and that if the Commons disagreed with our amendments the matter would be brought before the House tomorrow.
It is perfectly in order for people to object to the House being kept until 11 o'clock. The Notices and Orders of the Day refers specifically to "a Message" from the House of Commons. Noble Lords were entitled to believe that all that would be considered today was the single Message after the House of Commons had considered any disagreement coming from your Lordships' House. We now suddenly find that the House is to sit at 11 o'clock or perhaps much later; it could sit throughout the night. Noble Lords are suddenly faced with such a situation without due notice and for no good reason so far as I can see. The noble Lord the Leader of the House omitted to give any reason why we should sit at 11 o'clock tonight, and perhaps thereafter for a long period. He did not say to the House, "For these reasons we believe it necessary." I hope that when the noble Lord responds on his Motion, he will give reasons why it is necessary for us to sit again later, and perhaps into tomorrow morning, when there is plenty of time available from 3 o'clock tomorrow.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, this is yet another case of a government who are supposed to be dedicated to democracy trampling over democracy. A Question was asked today on future legislation. The noble Lord the Leader of the House answered in the affirmative on the Government's commitment to democracy.
I took the trouble to find out what has happened to democracy under this Government. In the past 12 months between 3,000 and 4,000 statutory instruments have been used to push legislation through both Houses with no chance of reversal. So much for democracy.
However, I say to the noble Lord the Leader of the House—he is an old friend; he was Chief Whip when I attended another place—that he knows as well as I do that although the Government can have all the power in another place, in this House they can function effectively only with the good will of the House through the usual channels. The noble Lord the Leader of the House has not made out a legitimate case as to why consultation through the usual channels has been ignored. The option of a reasonable period for discussion being available tomorrow having been withdrawn, and the Government having deliberately broken the arrangement through the usual channels, I remind the Leader of the House that on 18th November we commence a new legislative Session. There will be extremely controversial legislation, some of which will cross the party divides. Does he believe that Members on this side of the House, unnecessarily given a bloody nose by him today, will wish to accommodate the Government in the new Session? I must warn the noble Lord that if the Opposition decide to suspend the arrangement through the usual channels, it will become extremely difficult for the Government to function and to pass legislation.
I hope that the noble Lord will consider that point. If I have any influence in the next Session, I shall sabotage and slow down the Government's programme on every
1144
occasion that I can. I do not believe that the Government can expect otherwise after the appalling Act that they are pushing through tonight.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, with my noble friends Lord Carmichael, Lady Turner, and Lord Ewing, it has been my privilege to represent the Opposition in the conduct of the Bill. We have had sharp differences of opinion. However, at the end of the day, the courtesies of the House have prevailed. Indeed, that was reflected in the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, when we completed the Third Reading of the Bill. As I sought to suggest in my intervention to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, this House is different from another place. Many of us have attended another place; it is more turbulent. But at the end of the day this House depends for its proper functioning upon the co-operation of noble Lords who are not necessarily on the Government Benches. Nor indeed can noble Lords on the Government Benches be taken for granted, as we have perceived over recent weeks.
Therefore, I am extraordinarily disappointed that the noble Lord the Leader of the House—he was a colleague of mine in another place; he has a high reputation—should have been prepared to risk that reputation on the instructions of his colleagues in government in another place. Clearly, that has been the situation. As has been said, the noble Lord the Leader of the House owes a duty to this House. That is the job of the Leader of this House, as it is the job of the Leader in another place. I believe that he has not fulfilled that duty.
It has been quite extraordinary. The Government have been asked, "Why the haste? Why have they had to push this Bill through when we are not meeting for the opening of the new Session until 18th November?" Why did they have to have a guillotine in another place when they could have completed the discussions there certainly by the beginning of next week? Why did we have to ensure that there was a completion of discussions here as rapidly as has been the case?
Of course, it is because the Government have been anxious throughout to truncate discussion. That has been the situation in another place and I believe that what happened there was scandalous. However, what has happened tonight is even more scandalous. We are not talking about delaying the Bill for days, weeks, or anything of that kind. We are thinking in terms of suggesting a perfectly practical proposition which is that it would have been appropriate to meet tomorrow.
What do the Government lose by that? The noble Lord the Leader of the House has not begun to explain his case. Perhaps he will in concluding. I ask him to deal specifically with those two points why the rush when we have got two weeks to go? Why not enable us to deal with this matter in a perfectly civilised way?
I am very disappointed in the noble Lord. I am disappointed that he has resorted to a shabby and discreditable tactic. He ought to be ashamed of himself. I do not blame the rest of the noble Lords on that Front Bench because they have no control over the situation. The determining factor is of course the Secretary of

1145
State in another place—the great magician, the man who has resorted to some pretty shabby tactics elsewhere. But that is another matter.
I do not think that the noble Lord can be insensitive to the views that have been reflected on this side of the House and from the Cross-Benches tonight. He risks a great deal. My noble friends Lord Stoddart and Lord Dean reflected upon the need for co-operation in the coming Session of Parliament. What right has the noble Lord to expect co-operation? What right have he and his colleagues to expect us to go along with everything they say? Yes, we go through the formalities of debate; but at the end of the day it is the arrogance of power which seems to have consumed them, and which will prevail.
One good thing about this—and I believe that ultimately it is a good thing—is that we hope that the public outside will have been able to reflect on what the Government have been doing in relation to this vastly unpopular Bill. They will have been able to see that the Government have been, if not abusing the processes of this House, at least treating Members with contempt. The public will have seen that that is how the Government characteristically behave these days. It does not redound to their advantage and I believe it will not redound to their advantage when the tests of public opinion come to be made.
The situation would be risible if it were not so serious. How is it that all these noble Lords—many quite elderly—are required to stay to all hours in order to justify a procedure which prevents them from coming back tomorrow afternoon to discuss matters? I do not mind; I shall be here later, and I shall be prepared to enjoin the discussion at considerable length, if necessary. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, knows that I can go on indefinitely.
The fact of the matter is that the Government ought not to behave in this way. I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House to think again, not simply from the point of view of this House and future progress in relation to other business in the next Session. I ask him to think again because it is his honour that is also at stake.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, no one could regret it more than I when it is not possible to reach an agreement between the usual channels as to the best way to proceed. As most noble Lords know, I have spent most of my political life, in one form or another, working in the usual channels, hoping to find ways of proposing the dispatch of Business which are in the best interests of the House in which I previously had the honour to sit and, since I have been here, in your Lordships' House.
I have proposed a course of action tonight because, as I said before, it is my firm commitment that it is the best way to proceed. I believe that the House is best served by considering any Commons Messages later on tonight rather than waiting until tomorrow.
Noble Lords: Why?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, it is more for the convenience of the House. I have proposed that and I fully recognise that noble Lords opposite have taken a
1146
different view. When the usual channels break down in this way and we are not able to reach an agreement, I have always known—and it has happened occasionally in the past, in my experience—that the recollections of what various people are supposed to have said on those occasions are not exactly the same. I am not prepared, either on this occasion or any future occasion, to discuss the details of those talks, except to say that my recollections of them are not quite the same as some indications that we have heard.
If your Lordships remember, what I said to the House shortly after 5.30 this evening, was that I proposed a Motion, having discussed it briefly with the Leader of the Opposition, that the House should adjourn during pleasure so that discussions could take place through the usual channels as to what was the best way to proceed. The implication in that discussion must have been at least that there was a possibility that the Government would come back to your Lordships' House at seven o'clock to suggest that we proceed with any Commons Message later this evening. There would be no point in adjourning during pleasure from shortly after half-past-five to seven o'clock if there were no possibility whatsoever that we should come back this same day to deal with the matter.
I fully recognise that noble Lords opposite think that I have reached the wrong decision. I have reached the decision which I believe is in the best interests of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, is correct in saying that I had no discussions with him. I am not quite sure what I would have said to him if I had said, "We were not able to reach any agreement". I am afraid that I may have misjudged him, but I assumed that he would not have found it convenient to have discussions. Certainly, in his remarks he did not indicate that he would find it convenient. I had to assume that that was what he felt.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House; but, with the greatest respect, he misunderstands the position. The Cross-Benches do not have a view, they are individuals. They have a convenor. One of the strengths of this House, I believe, is that it is not comprised of full-time politicians. Therefore, it is assumed that people have other things to do. I should have thought that it was a minimum courtesy—this is nothing whatever to do with me—it would at least have been courteous to have sought to establish whether any Members of the Cross-Benches had a view. They are not part of the usual channels, for perfectly understandable reasons, and should at least be given the opportunity, given that, as I understand it, this is not a resort for full-time professional politicians, to say whether they have a view. There was time to do that. I repeat that this has nothing to do with me, the Cross-Benches exist, they are a significant part of this House. I believe that they are one of the strengths of this House and I am, to say the least, surprised.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, of course I apologise to the noble Lord if we have omitted to have any discussions with him or with the convenor. There is perhaps a great distinction between this House and another place. In this House the Government do not

1147
merely put down the business tonight. They put a Motion before the House. There is a difference. The House decides.
As Leader of the House, I have to do my best to put before the House what I believe is in the best interests of the House. I considered the matter as best I could, and I came to the House at 7 o'clock with a proposition. If the House does not like my proposition, the House has the remedy in its own hands. I believe that I have given good reasons why I believe it right to proceed in the way that I have suggested. But I am not a dictator in these matters. The House ought to decide the matter, as is proper for it so to do.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, the Leader of the House has—
Noble Lords: Order! The Leader of the Opposition.
Lord Richard: My Lords, it is all very well for the Leader of the House to stand there saying that he thinks that the arrangement is in the best interests of the House. He does not tell us why he thinks that it is in the best interests of the House. I can clearly see why he thinks that it is in the best interests of the Government. But what on earth that has to do with the interests of this House in considering the matter at 11 o'clock or midnight tonight as opposed to tomorrow afternoon at three I have no idea.
I must also say to the Leader of the House—I say it as relatively gently as I can—that he really must spare us, pulling this trick on us as he is tonight, words of how sad he is that the usual channels did not function. The usual channels did not function because he did not try to make the usual channels function.
He says he will not reveal what happens in the usual channels. So be it. I merely remind him that he partly revealed the brief conversation that he and I had. He did not say to me at 6 o'clock (or whatever time it was) "By the way, we might want to do it tonight, you know". Not a word. Not a syllable. He springs it on us in a meeting at 6.45 p.m., and merely tells us: "That is what I am going to do". He has done it. No doubt he will be supported in the Lobbies by the mass of people behind him the payroll vote, the anonymous vote and all the other people who have turned up. They will no doubt vote for the Motion. But I tell the noble Lord that he is doing himself no good at all by proceeding in this way.
7.52 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Question is that the consideration of any Message from the Commons relating to the Railways Bill should be taken at 3 p.m. tomorrow.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 81.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Attlee, E.

Addison, L.

Auckland, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Airedale, L.

Birk, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Blackstone, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

1148

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cadman, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Marsh, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cross, V.

Monkswell, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Monson, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Norrie, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Donoughue, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Raglan, L.

Eatwell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Richard, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Russell, E.

Grey, E.

Seear, B.

Hamwee, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Shannon, E.

Howell, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hylton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Tordoff, L. [Teller]

Kinnoull, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Kissin, L.

Waverley, V.

Lawrence, L.

Wharton, B.

Lockwood, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Hothfield, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Howe, E.

Arran, E.

Huntly, M.

Astor, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Barber, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Belstead, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Bethell, L.

Kimball, L.

Blatch, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Boardman, L.

Lindsay, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bruntislield, L.

[Lord Chancellor.]

Caithness, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Marlesford, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carnock, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Norfolk, D.

Clanwilliam, E.

Oppenheim-Bames, B.

Clark of Kempston, L

Oxfuird, V.

Colwyn, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cranborne, V.

Parkinson, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Prentice, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Renton, L.

Denham, L.

St. Davids, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Seccombe, B.

Dudley, E.

Selsdon, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Elton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Skidelsky, L.

Flather, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

[Teller.]

Gisborough, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Goschen, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller]

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Vivian, L.

Henley, L.

Wakeham, L.

Hesketh, L.

[Lord Privy Seal.]

HolmPatrick, L.

Wynford, L.

Hooper, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Howell: My Lords, the Motion is obviously debatable and should be debated. It is said that we are adjourning during pleasure, but there is no pleasure

1149
available to us. We have to be provided with the nutriment with which to face the on-coming hours in the morning. Can the Leader of the House say what arrangements have been made for our comfort, or is that something else which has escaped the notice of the Government?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, on that issue, we have a three-hour gap. There are quite a number of private enterprises in the form of restaurants and hotels available. I do not see why we should not give some encouragement to those private enterprises.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, the snack bar is open. because I have just been there.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, noble Lords had better sustain themselves for rather a long night.
On Question, original Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.3 to 11 p.m.]
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, after our debate earlier this evening I now approach the Dispatch Box again with some trepidation. The House having agreed to adjourn during pleasure, which at the time I understood would be the earliest possible moment for the House to consider any Message from the Commons relating to the Railways Bill, I now have to report to the House that the Message, like Godot, has not yet arrived. I can only apologise sincerely to the House. In the circumstances I must again place myself in your Lordships' hands. I anticipate that, following the earlier decision of the House and given the attendance of so many of your Lordships, it would be the wish of the House to proceed with the consideration of the Commons Message as soon as possible.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Wakeham: My understanding is that the Message should arrive from the Commons shortly. I therefore suggest to your Lordships that the House should adjourn during pleasure until 11.30. However, if a Message does not arrive by 11.30 I would propose that the House adjourns for the night. Once again, I can only offer the House my sincere apologies.
Moved, That the House do adjourn during pleasure until 11.30 p.m.—(Lord Wakeham.)
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Leader of the House really telling us that, despite all the protestations we had this evening at 7 o'clock that it had to be done tonight and that it was in the best interests of the House and everyone else that it should be done tonight, if the Message does not come in another half an hour then all those good reasons for doing it tonight will disappear and we shall do it tomorrow? Is that really what the Leader of the House is telling us?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, what I said earlier is that I thought it would be for the convenience of the House to deal with it tonight. I thought that it was in the interests of the whole House. That is my responsibility and that is why I proposed it. I have given the House my
1150
opinion. However, if the noble Lord disagrees with my view I am very happy to have discussions through the usual channels—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Wakeham: If he would like to give me in a private discussion any good reasons why we should go on past 11.30, of course I shall listen with great interest to what he has to say. My own view is that we should adjourn during pleasure until 11.30. If the Message has not arrived at that time, I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House to adjourn for the night.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the answer to my question is yes. In other words, the good reasons that were there at 7 o'clock disappear by 11.30 if the Message has not come. I am bound to say to the Leader of the House that this is making a mockery of the procedures of the House.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I have to say that this is becoming very low comedy indeed. If it is now possible for your Lordships' House to consider the Message tomorrow if within the next 27 minutes a Message does not arrive, then even if the Message does arrive it is possible for your Lordships' House to consider the Message tomorrow. I beg the noble Lord the Leader of the House to recognise that it is in the interests of the House as a whole and not merely of the Government to put this discussion back until after 3 o'clock tomorrow.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the noble Lord has no authority whatsoever to speak of the view of the House as a whole. He used that phrase. It may be his view but mine certainly is that it is very good sense to get this matter settled as soon as possible. There is a chance that it can be done by half-past eleven. Having waited as long as this, it is good sense that we accept the invitation of the Leader of the House, do the sensible thing and get the matter cleared up. The noble Lord should not bring the manners of another place to this House.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: He should not do that. He. is on record as saying that when we returned at 11 o'clock he would make us squirm and that we would be here for a long time. The noble Lord said that. That sort of language is not in keeping with this House. That kind of manoeuvre is not in keeping with the behaviour of this House. It may be in keeping with the behaviour of another place. We have shown patience until 11 o'clock and we can extend that patience until half-past eleven and then we can all go home happy.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, if the noble Lord believes that half-past eleven is the magic hour, why not half-past twelve, half-past one or half-past two? I wish to make just one point. When the Leader of the House referred to the usual channels. I must remind him that by what he has done tonight he has undermined the authenticity and the authority of the usual channels. By

1151
so doing he has done grave damage to this House and its conventions which he, above all people, as Leader of the House, is meant to protect.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is the Leader of the House aware that on the Order Paper for Monday, 8th November, there are provisionally four Starred Questions, and that thereafter the Order Paper is completely blank? In view of that, do both Front Benches agree that we should now adjourn?
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, is there any limit to the hours of undiluted pleasure which Members of your Lordships' House can enjoy in one evening?
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 11.7 to 11.30 p.m.]
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn. - (Lord Wakeham.)
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for moving that Motion. It is a great pity that he did not do it at 7 o'clock when he should have done it, instead of which he subjected the House and, I think, a large part of the Palace of Westminster and certainly an interested public to the farce of watching the Government do a total U-turn. May I say to the Leader of the House what I think that one of his colleagues once said to another Member of Parliament? Perhaps at this stage he should go and lie down in a darkened room, keep on taking the pills and ponder on his future.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition in astonishment that the noble Lord the Leader of the House should have led us into this position. I recognise that it is not his personal fault and that he has been driven to this by persons outside, but he should, as I said earlier, recognise that he
1152
has a role not only as a member of the Government but as the Leader of this House to look after our interests as well as the interests of the Government. It is very sad that we should be forced into this position tonight.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill [H.L.]
A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following Orders: That the Promoters of the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before midnight.

  IRISH CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS
  IRISH CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS
  LIVESTOCK PREMIUM QUOTAS
  LIVESTOCK PREMIUM QUOTAS
  EXPORT PROMOTION: SERVICES TO BUSINESSES
  EXPORT PROMOTION: SERVICES TO BUSINESSES
  US PATENT LAW
  US PATENT LAW
  LIGHT DUES AND PLEASURE CRAFT
  LIGHT DUES AND PLEASURE CRAFT
  BUDGET DISCIPLINE: INTER-INSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENT
  BUDGET DISCIPLINE: INTER-INSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENT
  BT SHARE OFFER: COSTS
  BT SHARE OFFER: COSTS
  VAT RATINGS: ESTIMATED COSTS
  VAT RATINGS: ESTIMATED COSTS
  MoD CONTRACTS BULLETIN: CIRCULATION
  MoD CONTRACTS BULLETIN: CIRCULATION
  ARMY PERSONNEL CENTRE
  ARMY PERSONNEL CENTRE
  SERVICE PERSONNEL IN BOSNIA: ALLOWANCES
  SERVICE PERSONNEL IN BOSNIA: ALLOWANCES
  "NEXT STEPS": MoD RESPONSE
  "NEXT STEPS": MoD RESPONSE
  RIGHTS OF THE CHILD: UN COMMITTEE
  RIGHTS OF THE CHILD: UN COMMITTEE
  RIGHTS OF THE CHILD: UN COMMITTEE REPORT
  RIGHTS OF THE CHILD: UN COMMITTEE REPORT
  CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY: PERFORMANCE-RELATED PAY
  CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY: PERFORMANCE-RELATED PAY
  MARSH ARABS: ASSESSMENT TEAM PROPOSAL
  MARSH ARABS: ASSESSMENT TEAM PROPOSAL
  KOSOVO
  KOSOVO
  PRESIDENT YELTSIN: UK SUPPORT
  PRESIDENT YELTSIN: UK SUPPORT