Sitting of 10 February 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    BOURNEMOUTH-SWANAGE MOTOR ROAD AND FERRY BILL
      SHEFFIELD ASSAY OFFICE BILL
      FEDERATION OF STREET TRADERS UNION (LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES ACT 1990) (AMENDMENT) BILL

      UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL
      Orders for Second Reading read.
      To be read a Second time on Thursday 17 February.

      CROYDON TRAMLINK BILL [Lords]
      Ordered,
      That the Committee on the Croydon Tramlink Bill [Lords] have leave to visit and inspect the site of the proposed works and areas affected by the proposed works, provided that no evidence shall be taken in the course of such visit and that any party who has made an appearance before the Committee be permitted to attend by his Counsel, Agent or other representative.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Right to Silence
    Mr. Bates: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy towards the right to silence.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): In appropriate circumstances, a court should be able to draw proper inferences from an accused person's failure to answer questions before and at his trial. At present, courts are precluded from drawing any inferences of guilt from the failure of an accused person answer such questions. I do not think that that artificial restriction can be justified and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill contains provisions to modify it.
    Mr. Bates: In welcoming my right hon. and learned Friend's answer, may I ask whether he agrees with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) that no one has anything to fear from being asked reasonable questions? Does he accept that many of our right hon. and hon. Friends are puzzled at the Labour party's failure to support such a modest measure in Committee?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and, on that matter, with the hon. Member for Brightside. It is a matter of considerable regret that the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues have not seen fit to follow his opinion on that question.
    Mr. Gunnell: The Secretary of State will know that many of those who have made representations to us on that issue have pointed out that there will be a significant increase in the number of miscarriages of justice as a result of the proposed legislation, especially when it applies to those who have disabilities. Does the Secretary of Stale agree that, before he makes any changes, it would be better to wait until we have procedures in force to deal with miscarriages of justice, as recommended by the Royal Commission on criminal justice?
    Mr. Howard: We should like to put those procedures in place as soon as posssible. The truth of the matter is that those who make disproportionate use of the so-called right to silence are professional criminals and terrorists. They make a mockery of our system of criminal justice and the sooner that we put an end to that abuse the better.
    Mr. Heald: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Lord Chief Justice said clearly in his Tom Sergant lecture that there is no reason why proper inferences should not be drawn under such circumstances? Does he agree with that statement?
    Mr. Howard: I certainly agree. That was also the view of the majority of judges who gave evidence to the Royal Commission on criminal justice.
    Mr. Allen: While unemployment and poor housing can never be an excuse for crime, does the Secretary of State accept that 14 years of Government policies on

    431
    unemployment, housing and education could have contributed in any way to the appalling rise in the levels of crime over that same 14-year period?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The question is a specific one dealing with the right to silence. I must ask the hon. Member to relate his question directly to the question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Allen: Does the Secretary of State feel that the current Bill will in any way affect those factors?
    Madam Speaker: Order. Those factors have nothing to do with the question.
    Dame Jill Knight: On the question of miscarriages of justice, will the changes that my right hon. and learned Friend envisages take into account the appalling case, which aroused such public concern, of the parents who undoubtedly killed their small baby and yet walked free from the court because of that right to silence?
    Mr. Howard: I very much hope that the changes that we are making will go some considerable way towards remedying the manifest injustice of the case to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. The whole House will have seen just a moment ago the extraordinary extent to which Labour Front-Bench Members will go to talk about anything other than the real issues affecting law and order.

    Wheel Clamping
    Mr. Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take to regulate private wheel clamping.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): We are currently considering what action it may be appropriate to take. In doing so, our aim will be to ensure that any measure introduced to prevent or to deter irresponsible and heavy-handed wheel clamping on private land does not prevent sensible measures being taken to control genuine parking problems.
    Mr. Spellar: Does the Minister accept that that answer is quite unsatisfactory, given that his departmental consultations ended on 31 May last year? Is not it about time that he looked at the issue? The cowboy clampers are still making motorists' lives a misery. An amendment has been tabled to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. Why does not the Minister do something about it and take some action?
    Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that the consultation did not reveal any clear consensus on the way forward. I am very conscious of the fact that there is a balance to be struck here. We must protect the interests of the genuine landowner and the interests of the genuine motorist. Wheel clamping has proved to be an effective means of deterring some motorists who are parking illegally and causing considerable inconvenience at road access ways, hospitals, retail centres and on other private land.
    Mr. Alexander: Does my hon. Friend agree that the activities of some companies are excessive? Does he agree that women in particular are put in fear and great anxiety when they have to redeem their cars? Although I accept all that he says, may I stress as a matter of urgency that those excesses should be removed?
    Mr. Maclean: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We have consulted on the issue and we are currently considering what we need to do. It would be wrong of the Opposition—I know that my hon. Friend did not seek to make this point—to conclude that there is a simple, easy explanation and way forward or to conclude that all the fault lies clearly on one side. It does not. Before the House rushes in and creates new criminal laws to deal with the problem, we must ensure that we protect the legitimate interests of both sides of the argument.

    Police Authorities
    Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has had about his proposals for change in the method of appointment of police authorities.
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further discussions he has had with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) regarding the Criminal Justice Bill and the Police and Magistrates Court Bill [Lords].
    Mr. Howard: I have received many representations from organisations, members of the public and hon. Members. Last week, I announced measures that we propose to include in the Police and Magistrates Courts Bill to reinforce the independence of local police authorities. We have had a number of discussions with representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers about that Bill and about the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.
    Mr. Pickthall: I am amazed at the effect that my tabling the question had on the Home Secretary. Does he realise that his generous and ungrudging U-turn on the appointment of chairmen and chairwomen, and on the numbers in police authorities, has delighted most Members of the House, most members of the other place, members of police authorities and the police forces themselves? Will the Home Secretary now take one more U-turn towards democracy and remove his most distasteful proposal: to add five or more placemen or women to police authorities?
    Mr. Howard: No. Independent local people who do not have the time or the inclination to become magistrates or councillors can make a valuable contribution to the working of the local police authorities. I do not believe that local police authorities should be denied the benefit of their service.
    Mr. Streeter: Did those representatives reflect the growing public concern that some police authorities had been tardy in introducing modern management techniques and information technology? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree, therefore, that it is extremely sensible to have on police authorities people who bring management, financial and IT skills, which can only assist the police in doing their duty?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Police and Magistrates Courts Bill will provide strong local police authorities to reflect the interests of local people, greater freedom for chief constables to manage

    433
    their forces and a clear framework for setting priorities and measuring performance. The measures will contribute to more effective policing.
    Mr. Blair: Now that the Secretary of State has accepted that it is wrong to appoint the head of the police authority, what possible justification is there for proceeding with appointing one third of the members, thus ensuring that his national objectives for policing should override local priorities and forcing smaller police services to amalgamate, even where local people do not want that? As the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers said last week, after the Secretary of State's U-turn, that the proposals were still ill-conceived and publicly unacceptable, what possible support does he have for proceeding with them?
    Mr. Howard: I have just explained to the House the purpose of my measures. It is for this House and the other House of Parliament to decide what measures we should take; it is not even for the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers. We must set in place the proper framework for policing in this country. We must have slimmed down and effective police authorities to which there will be proper local accountability. That is what my measures will achieve.

    Legislation (Police Consultation)
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has received from police representatives since the publication of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.
    Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has received from the police to his announcements of new measures to tackle crime; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Howard: Representatives of the police service have expressed strong support for the Government's new measures to tackle crime, particularly the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill now before the House. We have had a number of discussions with representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers about the Bill.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. In the fight against crime and on law and order issues, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill is one of the most important Bills ever to come before the House. Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall the statement of the Opposition spokeseman on law and order, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), that we should not hesitate to applaud the Government when they introduce measures that are correct? Will he now take the opportunity to invite Her Majesty's Opposition to support the Bill in all its remaining stages? If they do not, what conclusion can people draw from the Opposition's stance on law and order?
    Mr. Howard: The only logical conclusion that people can draw from the Opposition's reaction to these measures is that they cannot make up their mind about them. When the measures came before the House for Second Reading, the Opposition could not make up their mind whether to vote for or against, or whether to say yes or no—they simply abstained. Since then, in the Standing Committee,
    434
    we have seen a series of attempts to weaken the measures in the Bill—to neuter them and make them have as little effect as possible.
    Mr. Trimble: May I direct the Home Secretary's attention to the provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill dealing with computer-generated pornographic images of children which were introduced as a result of a successful campaign by the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton)? Has he received any representations about the fact that those provisions do not extend to Northern Ireland, bearing in mind the ease with which computer material can be transmitted from one part of the kingdom to another? Is not it essential that the loophole be plugged as soon as possible, preferably this afternoon?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point which I shall certainly draw to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
    Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the great concern expressed by the police not only in my constituency but in other areas about the violent crimes being committed by many young people? Will he assure the House that his tougher measures will be implemented as soon as the Bill becomes law?
    Mr. Howard: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we will implement the measures at the earliest possible moment because we understand how urgently necessary they are to protect the public.
    Mr. Michael: Will the Home Secretary read the report of the Committee considering the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill and admit that the Opposition have been trying to make effective a Bill that he has admitted will do nothing to cut crime? With crime up more than 124 per cent. under the Tories, and with only one crime in 50 ending with a punishment in the courts, when will the Home Secretary accept Labour's advice to be tough on crime and the causes of crime by providing a legal framework for a local partnership between the police, local authorities and the community to cut crime and protect the victims of crime?
    Mr. Howard: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would be the last person to want me to read the reports of the proceedings of the Standing Committee. He has been comprehensively routed by my hon. Friend the Minister of State and by other hon. Friends on the Committee whenever he has dared to raise his head above the parapet.
    Mr. Stephen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in condemning the appalling murder of Police Sergeant Robertson in Croydon? Will he give careful consideration to the amendment that I have tabled to the Criminal Justice Bill which would ensure that, when the persons responsible for that murder are caught, life imprisonment would mean exactly what it says?
    Mr. Howard: I heard with great regret of the tragic death yesterday of Sergeant Robertson. The House will share my sense of outrage that it should happen to a police officer who was bravely doing his duty. The House will want to join me in extending the deepest sympathy to his

    435
    widow and children. His death reminds us again of the enormous debt which we as a society owe to our police officers.
    As to the specific point raised by my hon. Friend, I will, of course, consider his amendment. He will know that one of my predecessors, Sir Leon Brittan, announced that the minimum sentence served for the murder of a police officer—I emphasise the word minimum—would be 20 years. I have indicated my desire to follow that practice.
    Madam Speaker: Order. As the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) was not told that his question was to be linked, we shall now take Question 5.

    Legislation (Police Consultation)
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further discussions he has had with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) regarding the Criminal Justice Bill and the Police and Magistrates Courts Bill [Lords].
    Mr. Howard: May I immediately apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the fact that he was not informed, as he certainly should have been.
    I have received many representations from and have had discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) regarding the Criminal Justice Bill and the Police and Magistrates Courts Bill.
    Mr. McFall: I thank the Home Secretary. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is responsible for clause 45 of the Police and Magistrates Courts Bill, which covers Scotland. This morning, I talked to two Scottish chief constables, who expressed their concerns to me about the interest that the Secretary of State for Scotland can now take in operational matters as a result of that clause. That will interfere with the independence of the police, and they are so concerned about it that they would like to pass their concerns, through me, to the Home Secretary. Will a meeting take place with the relevant Minister to assure the police that their optional independence will be maintained following the passage of Bill?
    Mr. Howard: I can certainly give the assurance for which the hon. Gentleman asks in relation to the operational independence of chief constables. That is essential and it is written into the Bill in exactly the same language as is on the statute book at present in the Police Act 1964.
    Sir George Gardiner rose—
    Hon. Members: Two minutes!
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Sir George Gardiner: Since an obvious concern of the police authorities is the safety of their officers, may I say how much Mrs. Christine Robertson—a constituent of mine—will be comforted by the sympathy which my right hon. and learned Friend has extended this afternoon on behalf of the House? Does he agree that it is only the courage and dedication to duty of officers such as Sergeant Robertson which provides the shield to protect us all?
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the first part of his remarks and I entirely agree with the rest of what he had to say.

    Crime Reduction
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations his Department has had with the local authority associations regarding reducing crime; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): The Home Office has from time to time sought the views of the local authority associations on crime-related matters, including their contribution to local crime prevention schemes.
    Mr. O'Brien: Does the Minister accept that the local authority associations are worried about some of the proposals in the Police and Magistrates Courts Bill? They are worried that the reduction in the number of local authority members on police committees will reduce the impact that it is necessary for local authorities to have if we are to reduce crime. We must have corporate organisation between the community, the local authority and the police committees. Will the Minister prevail on his colleague to rethink the Bill to allow greater representation of local authorities on police committees?
    Mr. Wardle: As the hon. Gentleman will have noticed, local authority representatives will account for half the membership of police authorities. As he knows, the police Bill will place a requirement on police authorities to consult locally and to draw up locally focused policing strategies and report on them. The local authorities are part of the partnership against crime. In several schemes up and down the country, the co-ordinator has been appointed by the local authorities. Equally, in many other successful schemes the co-ordinator has been appointed by other sources.
    Mr. John Townend: Has my hon. Friend had any demand for the restoration of some form of physical punishment? Does the enormous increase in crime among young people of school age suggest that we are paying the price, after a decade of abolition of the cane, of lack of discipline in schools and in the home?
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend's powerful plea will have been heard by the House. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will always consider any representations put to him. My hon. Friend will also be aware that the House will shortly have the opportunity to debate the issue of capital punishment.
    Mr. Redmond: The Minister must be aware of the Prime Minister's "back to basics" campaign. Will he ensure that there are sufficient policemen on duty in villages? We do not want any crap about there being more policemen. There is no doubt that communities are demanding more policemen. Will the Minister also ensure that they have sufficient technology to combat the current crime wave?
    Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman will know that there are more police officers now—128,000—than at any time in the history of the police. He will know that spending on the police is almost £6,000 million. I am sure that he will have welcomed my right hon. and learned Friend's

    437
    announcement that the number of special constables should increase to 30,000 in the next three years. He will also have welcomed the parish constable initiative.
    Madam Speaker: Order. As the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) was not informed that his question was linked, I am prepared to call it separately.

    Crime Reduction
    Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has received from the police to his announcement of new measures to tackles crime; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Howard: My announcement of the measures that I am taking to fight crime have been warmly welcomed by the police.
    Mr. Martin: I strongly support my right hon. and learned Friend's reforms. Has he received any representations about arming the police in this capital punishment-free era when any Tom, Dick or Harry can go out on to the streets armed with a knife or a gun, use it to kill police officers or members of the public in furtherance of crime and, if caught, not receive an appropriate penalty? They do not face much risk in carrying out the crime.
    Mr. Howard: I do not accept the latter words of my hon. Friend, especially in view of the answer that I gave earlier on the sentences that are available. The question of arming the police is a difficult one. At present, it is for chief officers to decide in what circumstances their officers should be armed and how many should be armed. I do not believe that there is any middle course between that and arming every police officer in Britain—a course which I believe most people in Britain and most police officers would not want us to adopt.
    Mrs. Ewing: Given the increased concern among the public and police authorities about crimes related to specifically to drugs, is the Home Secretary prepared to introduce specific measures to deal with drug-related crimes and to provide our police authorities with additional resources to tackle that problem?
    Mr. Howard: We have a comprehensive strategy in place to tackle the very serious problem of drug misuse and we are pursuing that strategy vigorously. I hope that the country will take note of the vote on the decriminalisation of drugs that is being held in the European Parliament today, which is expected to be supported by the majority of socialist Members of the European Parliament both from this country and from the rest of Europe.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Further to the last supplementary question, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that during the years of Conservative Government we have had a strong attitude towards drug-related crime, but that the police are nevertheless very concerned that the proportion of such crimes has risen to something approaching 70 per cent. So the measures that we have taken hitherto have simply not been sufficient to deal with the problem. As he can see, the view is shared across all party lines in this House, so will he redouble his efforts to ensure that in the years ahead the proportion of drug-related crimes falls instead of rises?
    Mr. Howard: I share my hon. and learned Friend's concern and I can assure him that we lose no opportunity of examining our policies to find out in which ways they can be made more effective. I entirely understand and share his concern.

    Racial Violence
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received over legislation affecting racial violence.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): We continue to receive representations from a wide range of organisations and from hon. Members. The Commission for Racial Equality made a number of recommendations for changes in the law in its second review of the Race Relations Act 1976, which we are considering. The Select Committee on Home Affairs is also examining the issue, as part of its inquiry into racial attacks and harassment and we await its recommendations with interest.
    Mr. Winnick: I deplore all forms of violence, including the horrifying murder of a police sergeant in New Addington, Croydon.
    Has not the Minister given evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs in which he estimated that racial attacks could be as high as 130,000 a year? In view of continuing racially motivated attacks—in the main carried out by fascist gangs—on totally innocent people because of their origins or the colour of their skin, has not the time come to amend the law and to ensure that such attacks become an offence, in addition to offences under existing criminal legislation?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am at one with the hon. Gentleman in deploring all assaults and attacks. I am glad that he has given me the opportunity to correct his misunderstanding of the figure that I gave to the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I referred to 130,000 racial incidents. Only a very small proportion were physical assaults.
    The hon. Gentleman is barking up the wrong tree if he thinks that the law needs to be changed to make physical attacks an extra criminal offence; they clearly are a criminal offence at the moment. Whether the victim or the perpetrator is white or black, the sentence for grievous bodily harm can be life imprisonment. The important thing is to get evidence and a conviction.
    The hon. Gentleman should be concerned about smaller incidents and harassment. Although each incident is not very significant, with repetition they become corrosive, deeply hurtful and destructive. That is where we should study the law to find out whether changes are needed.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is one certain way to cut out racial violence, or violence of any description? If someone is put in prison for five years they should serve five years. Let us stop all this nonsense about remission, rehabilitation and parole—let offenders serve five years. If the Prison Officers Association says that prison officers have no control over prisoners, let us make prisoners serve extra years if they misbehave.
    Mr. Lloyd: Many people will have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's remarks. However, fie forgets—but the judiciary does not—that the law enables a

    439
    prisoner to be released half way through his sentence and so the judiciary imposes sentences with that in mind. Release at half time, which is allowed under the Criminal Justice Act 1991, makes it possible for offenders to be supervised and at risk of being returned to prison. That is a better guarantee of their reintegration into the community and a better sanction for their good behaviour.
    Ms Ruddock: The Minister will be well aware of the fact that the Labour party has tabled an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill that will effectively deal with racial harassment. The amendment is in a form that the hon. Gentleman has suggested may be acceptable to the Government, and we hope that they will accept it. Does the Minister realise how black people in this country feel? Does not he understand that when they are subjected to racial attack they become victims twice over—first, because of the violence itself and, secondly, because they know that they have been picked on as a result of their race. Surely it is time for the Government to take these matters much more seriously and to accept the amendment that we have tabled.
    Mr. Lloyd: I am not sure that the hon. Lady is quite clear about her own party's amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill. My understanding is that it deals with racial violence rather than harassment. On the question of harassment, I have nothing to add to the points that I have just made. We are looking at the public order legislation, and we want to see the report of the Select Committee before finally making up our minds about what changes should be made. I believe that the pressure from the hon. Lady's party relates to a separate crime of racial violence, which would do nothing to secure the conviction of those who perpetrate racial violence and would, in the long term, be bad for community relations.
    Mr. John Greenway: I promise my hon. Friend that the Select Committee will ensure that Ministers receive its report as quickly as possible. In the meantime, may I ask whether he agrees that what we require is not necessarily more legislation but better police practice? Does he share my admiration for the racial violence unit at Plumstead police station, which, over many years, has painstakingly built up a very good relationship with local ethnic communities? Does my hon. Friend know that much of that good work was undone by the Anti-Nazi League's march through south-east London a few months ago?
    Mr. Lloyd: I believe that these marches do nothing but heighten tension. I agree with my hon. Friend that the police have made enormous efforts to establish good relationships with the ethnic minority communities and, thereby, encourage the members of those communities to report any crimes against them. My hon. Friend will know that we have recalled the racial attacks group to consider improvements in the practices in this area and to decide whether these could be improved further.

    Police Injuries
    Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were injured in the performance of their duties in 1993.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Information on the number of injuries is not held centrally. In 1992, in England and Wales, 14,946 police officers were assaulted while on duty. Figures for 1993 are not yet available.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister agree that it is not all that long since policemen could expect, or at least hope, to complete their service without sustaining serious criminal injury? The dreadful incident yesterday and the figure that the Minister has just given the House suggest that policemen can no longer hold such a hope. Will the Home Secretary, the courts and the Crown Prosecution Service accept that they have an obligation to consider this matter urgently with a view to securing the improvement that is so desperately needed?
    Mr. Wardle: My right hon. and learned Friend has made it clear that he will ensure that the police have the necessary equipment to protect themselves from attacks and assaults. The House has already made known its deep regret at the tragic murder of Sergeant Robertson yesterday. In fact, the number of assaults on police officers dropped in the last two years for which information is available, as did the number of serious assaults and fatal assaults. The police scientific and development branch keeps the question of body armour under review all the time, and chief officers are able to issue ballistic vests when that is considered appropriate.
    Mr. Shersby: What resources is the police scientific and development branch providing for the testing of knife-proof and bullet-proof vests? Can the Minister give the House an assurance that there will not be any delay in the testing programme on account of lack of resources and that, where necessary, private sector firms that produce this equipment will be allowed to provide the necessary resources to enable testing to be carried out as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Wardle: As my hon. Friend will know, the scientific and development branch is able to keep all new developments in body armour under review. It liaises closely in its findings with all police forces.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister acknowledge that if police officers wish to acquire and wear bullet-proof vests, they must pay for them, save in the narrow circumstances that he mentioned? Will he discuss with chief police officers and police authorities throughout the country whether that is appropriate?
    Mr. Wardle: As I have already said, it is for chief police officers to decide the operational circumstances in which ballistic vests will be issued. One police force, the Northumbria constabulary, recently acquired 600 vests and, I understand, intends to make them available for wider use within the force. But it is up to chief officers to make the operational decision.

    Young Offenders
    Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what would be the effect of allowing only Crown courts to pass secure training orders on persistent juvenile offenders.
    Mr. Maclean: The principal effect of confining this sentence to the Crown court would be delay in dealing with offenders and additional costs for the criminal justice

    441
    system. The Government believe that it is important for youth courts to have the power to make a secure training order when the right criteria have been met.
    Mr. Moss: Does my hon. Friend agree that restricting the provisions of the Bill to the extent that they have no practical effect is no different from opposing them outright? In their attempts to emasculate the Bill in Standing Committee, do not the Opposition show their total inadequacy in tackling the problems of juvenile crime?
    Mr. Maclean: What we saw on Second Reading was a dithering Opposition who did not know whether to vote for or against the measures. In Committee, they tabled amendments that would have made it practically impossible for anyone taken to court to be sentenced for the persistent crimes that they were committing.
    Mr. Mandelson: Is the Minister aware of the concern of the police about the video now being sold entitled "Police Stop", which consists of 50 minutes worth of spectacular car chases and motorway smash-ups? Does he agree that that reckless video provides copycat encouragement to young "twockers" and joyriders and should be withdrawn from sale forthwith?
    Mr. Maclean: There is a tremendous responsibility on all those who make videos to ensure that they do not lead the young or innocent astray. As the hon. Gentleman knows, videos containing sexual or violent material must satisfy very strict criteria. I shall be happy to look at the video and include it in my review of the adequacy of the law relating to videos.

    Lenient Sentences
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding his proposal to extend the Attorney-General's right of appeal against lenient sentences.
    Mr. Maclean: I have received a number of representations on that issue. It is abundantly clear that the plans to extend the scope of the Attorney-General's powers command widespread and enthusiastic support.
    Mr. Dunn: Has the Minister received any representations on that proposal from the Labour party?
    Mr. Maclean: I am not aware of having received any representations from the Labour party on that subject. I am aware, however, that when the Government introduced the power in 1987, the Labour party fought against it tooth and nail and voted against the Attorney-General's right to review sentences and send to the Court of Appeal those sentences that he thought were unduly lenient.
    Mrs. Roche: Will the Minister explain whether he has taken measures to investigate the fact, as was revealed in answer to parliamentary questions, that there is a great regional variety in the length of sentences in rape cases and that some sentences for rape are excessively lenient? What does the Minister propose to do about it?
    Mr. Maclean: It is rather rich for a representative of the Labour party to complain that some sentences in rape cases may be lenient when the hon. Lady's party voted against our taking that power in the first place. Since we took that
    442
    power, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has referred 129 cases to the Court of Appeal, and in 84 of those the sentence has been increased. Those include many rape cases. My right hon. and learned Friend will certainly send cases to the Court of Appeal if he concludes that his criteria have been met and the sentence is unduly lenient.

    Car Boot Sales
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the sale of stolen property at car boot sales.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Representations have been received from nine hon. Members and from five members of the public.
    Mr. Luff: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although many chief constables may say that it is not a problem, many ordinary police constables and many of our constituents, who are sometimes advised by the police to go to car boot sales to seek the proceeds of crime for their homes, take a different view? Does my hon. Friend agree that it should be possible to maintain the enjoyment that many thousands of our constituents derive from car boot sales, while making it rather more difficult for the proceeds of crime to find such an easy market?
    Mr. Wardle: As my hon. Friend will be aware, one local authority—North Yorkshire county council—makes use of local registration to register occasional sales and secondhand dealers. It has registered 4,000 and has had 50 prosecutions, all for non-registration. The North Yorkshire police have no information about any cases of handling stolen goods. I am reviewing with the North Yorkshire authorities the effectiveness of that scheme. Meanwhile, a police officer who identifies such problems will know that powers exist under section 22 of the Theft Act 1968 to deal with the disposal of stolen goods. The maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today.
    Mr. Flynn: In a letter to me from the Imperial Tobacco Company, the corrupt practice is exposed that, in the general election, it awarded 1,000 advertising sites to the Tory party because the Tory party promised not to ban tobacco advertising. The Government have now delivered on that promise to their paymasters. The cost will be borne by the nation in several thousand avoidable and unnecessary deaths. Will the Prime Minister promise today that never again will the Tory party accept bribes, favours or money from the tobacco industry?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman clearly overlooks the excellent record that this Government have

    443
    had in reducing smoking—down from 45 to 28 per cent. He knows very well of the changes in taxation that have been necessary to achieve that. He illustrates that no company that was remotely sensible would support the policies of the Labour party.
    Mr. Waterson: Will my right hon. Friend consider making public funds available so that every business in the land can be sent a copy of the European socialist manifesto so that they may judge for themselves whether it is a constructive business plan or a fast route to failure?
    The Prime Minister: I am not entirely sure that would be a proper use of public funds. I very much doubt whether anybody would really wish to read it. It is certainly clear that what is contained in that socialist manifesto, which was signed up to by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)—without, as I recall, reading it—would be desperately damaging for British industry. It is equally true that the decision in the past of Members of the European Parliament who support the Labour party to vote for ending single nation vetoes would in effect mean that we would not be able to sustain our rebate, at a cost of many billions of pounds to the British taxpayer.
    Mr. John Smith: Given the widespread concern throughout the country at the arbitrary and unfair decisions that are being produced by the system operated by the Child Support Agency, why are the Government so opposed to allowing an independent review of its decisions?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there will be a full debate on that issue later today. As I have said on previous occasions, we have made it clear that we shall keep the nature of the system under review and if it seems necessary to make changes we will do so. We are embarking on implementing a principle that is supported uniformly across the House. We need a little more experience of how it works. We will keep it under review. If it is necessary to make changes, we shall make them then, not now.
    Mr. John Smith: Is not the Prime Minister aware that the phrase "keeping under review" has been the bromide response of bureaucrats down the decades? Why do the Government—despite all the evidence—stop the Child Support Agency from taking into account divorce or separation agreements involving the transfer of assets, which may be highly relevant to establishing justice between the parties?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman obviously did not listen to what I said a moment ago. I made it perfectly clear that we would continue to evaluate the workings of the Child Support Act 1991 and the agency. We intend to secure a well-accepted, consistent mechanism to deliver a better child maintenance system than we have had in the past. That is why I said that we would keep the matter under review.
    This system is unlike anything that has been tried before. It is generally accepted to be right in principle—not least by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who is nodding. It is right to consider it and, having considered it, decide then whether further changes are necessary.
    Mr. John Smith: The Prime Minister cannot be so complacent about the anger that is now felt throughout the
    444
    country—and his Back Benchers certainly should not be so complacent about it. Does not 80 per cent. of the money recovered by the agency go straight to the Treasury? Did the Government intend that?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman reveals instinctively that he thinks in terms of "big government", rather than thinking of the taxpayer. The money is actually returned to the taxpayer who contributed it in the first place.
    Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that Britain's only interest in Bosnia is assisting in the provision of humanitarian aid? Can he assure the House that we will not prejudice that effort by attacking any of the combatants?
    The Prime Minister: The measures agreed yesterday at the North Atlantic Council are intended primarily to reinforce the peace process. There will be renewed diplomatic effort to encourage all sides to reach an agreement and stick to it.
    No course in Bosnia is free of risks; that has been the case from the beginning. I do not myself believe, however, that doing nothing would be the right option for the House or NATO to adopt in the circumstances that have now arisen. In the discussions at the North Atlantic Council, we urged our allies to look forward. We do not favour purely punitive action; force should not be used unless it is genuinely necessary, and increases the chance of a peaceful settlement.
    Another relevant point is the fact that NATO has warned all sides to cease their bombardment. It has taken specific and carefully constructed decisions to reinforce the efforts of the commanders on the ground, but the objective is to help the civilian population without changing the character of the United Nations' role.
    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cousins: Does the Prime Minister agree that, although private matters can be cruelly exposed within hours, issues of public accountability can sometimes lie dormant for years? Can he assure the House that British aid and export packages have never been used to cover the cost of large-scale commissions and backhanders?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of no circumstances in which that has happened. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to the contrary, I hope that he will show it either to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or to me.
    Mr. Cash: Has my right hon. Friend seen the manifesto adopted by the European Peoples party on 3 February? Is he aware that it contains a commitment to a single currency, a central bank, the social chapter, a common immigration policy and a constitution for the whole of Europe? Does he agree that Conservative Members could not possibly accept those proposals, and repudiate them explicitly?
    The Prime Minister: Neither do we have to accept them; nor will we. The Conservative party at the European elections is in agreement and will contest those elections on a distinctively British Conservative manifesto on the future of Europe.
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Illsley: On the subject of the appropriate use of the taxpayers' money, does not the Prime Minister agree that it is an absolute disgrace that the Department of Employment can waste £59 million on unused computer equipment, when thousands of my constituents are facing cuts in unemployment benefit as a result of his mismanagement, or are bureaucratic waste, sleaze and corruption no longer his responsibility?
    The Prime Minister: The Government always study Public Accounts Committee reports carefully. The lessons in that have already been learnt and put into practice.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that national health service trusts, general practitioner fundholding and the patients charter are yielding valuable improvements in efficiency and quality of service? Does he further agree that not only the patients, but those who work in the national health service do not want those reforms undone and everything turned upside down, as the Labour party proposes?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The test that we should apply to the health service and efficiency is perfectly straightforward. Is the health service treating more patients? Is it providing better care and is it treating people more quickly? The answer to each of those questions is yes. The national health service treated 2·5 million more patients last year than in 1979. By contrast, the ludicrous document launched by the right hon. and learned Gentleman this morning, contains nothing that would lead to a single extra patient being treated. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would like to abolish trusts and fundholding. That is a recipe for inefficiency, upheaval and chaos.
    Mr. Jamieson: Is the Prime Minister aware that his education Minister in the other place announced last week that there would be no extra assistance to grant-maintained schools for their liability to pay value added tax on fuel? Is he aware that grant-maintained schools are now paying £2·50 in every £100 in taxation rather than on books?
    The Prime Minister: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that more and more schools are seeking to become grant maintained and doing so week after week?
    Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Gillan: In his very busy day, has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to look at the recent Confederation of British Industry survey, which shows that business confidence in Britain is at an all-time high? Orders are up and, in the words of the CBI survey, the recovery is deepening and widening. Does he agree that such good economic indicators and such good signs bode well for private investment in projects such as crossrail?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend refers to one of a number of surveys that have highlighted the improving economic circumstances. The survey to which my hon. Friend refers shows business and export optimism up in each and every region of the country. Orders are up, output is expected to rise and investment in plant and machinery is expected to rise. That is against a background of low inflation with unit costs falling in most regions. The prospects for British business are extremely good. By getting inflation under control, cutting public spending and bringing interest rates down, we have provided exactly the right economic circumstances for long-sustained growth with low inflation and the creation of employment.

    Yugoslavia
    Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Prime Minister what is his estimate of the number of people killed in Sarajevo since the passage of the United Nations Security Council resolution of June 1992 authorising the use of force by UNPROFOR to protect the safe areas.
    The Prime Minister: We do not have reliable estimates for casualties in Sarajevo. The death toll has been high. The killing of 68 shoppers in the market last Saturday was a step change in a deteriorating situation. There can be no guarantee of peace in Sarajevo or in any other part of Bosnia. There is no feasible and certain means of resolving the problem from outside, but the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's decision yesterday will put the parties under heavier pressure to stop the bombardment and make peace.
    Mr. Macdonald: Does the Prime Minister accept that there can be no logical or moral justification for distinguishing between Sarajevo and the other UN-designated safe areas in Bosnia, and that about 2,500 civilians have died in all those safe areas since June last year, when the UN authorised the use of force to protect those people? Will he, therefore, undertake to work to extend the ultimatum that has been issued in respect of Sarajevo to those other safe areas?
    The Prime Minister: We have to determine what is practicable. We are already working, as far as Srebrenica and Tuzla are concerned, to try and ensure that the situation improves. We are now doing that having seen the special difficulties in Sarajevo. To follow to its logical conclusion the concern that the hon. Gentleman set out would involve our becoming involved, very probably with troops on the ground, throughout the whole of the area of conflict. However strongly the hon. Gentleman may feel about the matter, or others, that is not a practicable proposition.

Air Strikes (Bosnia)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, I should like to make a statement on Sarajevo.
In the senseless atrocities last week, about 70 civilians were killed. Their deaths showed again how urgent it is to end the war. It will not end by military victory. A lasting settlement cannot be imposed. It can only be achieved by agreement between the parties. The Government repeat their full support for the efforts of Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg. I welcome recent indications that the United States wants to take a more forward part in the peace process.
Meanwhile, every sane person wants to see an end to the bombardment of Sarajevo. As hon. Members will be aware, and as the Prime Minister has just said, the Secretary-General of the United Nations wrote to his NATO counterpart on 6 February, asking the North Atlantic Council to authorise its military command to launch air strikes on request from the United Nations. Mr. Bourtros-Ghali recalled NATO's readiness, following its decisions last August that were reaffirmed at the NATO summit in January, to carry out air strikes to protect UNPROFOR and to prevent the strangulation of Sarajevo.
NATO ambassadors met yesterday, in the North Atlantic Council. They reaffirmed NATO's support for a negotiated settlement of the conflict in Bosnia, agreed by all parties. They commended the United Nations negotiating efforts to secure the demilitarisation of Sarajevo. In support of those efforts, they agreed on three main points.
First, with immediate effect, they accepted the Secretary-General of the United Nation's request to be prepared to launch air strikes, at United Nations initiative and in co-ordination with UNPROFOR, the United Nations force on the ground, against artillery or mortar positions that UNPROFOR determines are responsible for attacks against civilian targets in Sarajevo.
Secondly, the North Atlantic Council called on the parties to respect a ceasfire around Sarajevo. The Bosnian Serbs were called on to withdraw all heavy weapons from within 20 km of the city, excluding an area within 2 km of the centre of the Bosnian Serb capital of Pale, or to place their heavy weapons under UNPROFOR control. The Bosnian Government, for their part, were called on to place their heavy weapons in the same area under United Nations control and to refrain from attacks within the city.
Thirdly, the Council decided that all heavy weapons, along with their direct and essential military support, found within 20 km of Sarajevo and not under United Nations control after 10 days from 24.00 GMT—midnight—tonight, 10 February, would be subject to NATO air strikes. Those air strikes would be conducted in close co-ordination with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
As the Prime Minister has just said, the Government fully support those decisions. We helped to ensure that they were discussed and taken in NATO rather than any other forum because of the need for professional military advice. The NATO Council will be kept fully informed of all developments, day by day, and will review yesterday's decision at the latest on 2 March. We were clear that any
448
strategy for the use of force should be forward looking. There was no support in the Council for action which was simply punitive.
We have, since last August, been prepared—publicly prepared—to see air power used, if necessary and practicable, to back the United Nations in carrying out its mandate. The United Nations, with NATO support is taking an increasingly firm position and not only in Sarajevo.
It is pressing ahead with the rotation of troops in Srebrenica; pressing for Tuzla airport to reopen; confronting obstacles to road convoys; and warning off the Croatian regular army from entering the war on the side of the Bosnian Croats. The North Atlantic Council decision forms part of this pattern, specifically aimed at improving the situation in Sarajevo, helping the United Nations to fulfil its mandate and contributing to pressure on the parties to end the war.
We look to the parties, particularly the Bosnian Serbs, to respond. Their aims cannot be achieved on the battlefield, or by killing and mutilating civilians. They should end the siege of Sarajevo and hand it over to the United Nations administration. Such an agreement would mark a real step towards a peaceful settlement. If the Bosnian Serbs do not so respond, they are now in no doubt of the action which NATO and the United Nations will take.
No one would pretend that this was for us or for anyone an easy decision. The risks are clear, and so are the advantages if it succeeds. It is the job of Governments to test and re-test options of this kind and decide where the British interest lies.
There is a strong British interest in maintaining the strength and solidarity of NATO. In Bosnia, our interest lies in preventing the war from spreading, in helping forward the work for a peace settlement, and in relieving the suffering of the Bosnian people. We judge that these interests of ours are best sustained by supporting the NATO decision and working for its success.
Dr. John Cunningham: The House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making a statement so quickly after the very important decision of the NATO Council yesterday. May I first associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with his comments when he says that everyone wants an end to the killing in Bosnia, especially to the senseless slaughter of innocent civilians?
I also accept what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about there being no victory on the battlefield. It is quite clear that the combatants are gearing up for a spring offensive. We should make it clear to them all that we will have no part in supporting any side in seeking to achieve a military victory; rather, we should impress on them again and again the need for a swift negotiated settlement to this awful series of conflicts.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we believe that the decison taken by NATO yesterday was the correct one? It was the correct decision in terms of ending the slaughter of innocent people in Sarajevo. It was also the correct decision in terms of reinforcing the will of the international community as expressed through the resolutions of the Security Council of the United Nations, the decisions of the Council of Ministers of the European Union and, of course, NATO itself.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the decision, if implemented, will fall within the terms of existing

449
resolutions of the Security Council, and that it will not be necessary for further meetings of that council to take place before the use of air strikes can be authorised?
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House why the decision was not taken, as it could and should have been, many, many months ago? The tragedy is that those, including myself, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition and many others, who called for the use of NATO's vastly superior air power in April of last year, were condemned by many of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters sitting behind him.
The international community has come to accept, however, that that is the right decision. We had to make it clear, to the Bosnian Serbs in particular, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that we are not willing to countenance the continuing slaughter of people, as occurred last weekend in Sarajevo.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also explain what action will be taken to safeguard, in so far as it is possible, our troops already deployed in UNPROFOR and the troops of other countries during the period set out in the ultimatum—in the next 10 days. The ceasefire, which has been so quickly established by Lieutenant-General Rose—who deserves our congratulations—is welcome. If it is sustained, will NATO deploy extra troops in Sarajevo and elsewhere?
Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that efforts to open Tuzla airport, another decision of the Security Council, will be redoubled? Can he assure us that we shall take effective action to ensure that, in addition to Sarajevo, other towns and cities that have been designated as safe areas will be made safe for their citizens?
I emphasise that we agree with the support of the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister for the NATO decision. We simply regret that it has taken them so long to agree with the Governments of the United States of America, France and other countries, who have pressed for the decision for a long time. Most of all, I express the hope and the wish that the Bosnian Serbs will accept, comply with and implement the decisions that have been taken, without the need to resort finally to the use of air power. If they do not, we should not flinch from the decision to use it.
Mr. Hurd: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman supports the decision that was taken yesterday. I confirm that our advice and view is that it falls within the scope of existing Security Council resolutions and does not require a further Security Council resolution. But the first use of air power-if that has to be used-does require the authority of the United Nations Secretary-General.
The right hon. Gentleman should be in no doubt that if, at any time during the past 18 months or two years, we and our allies had felt that the tragedy could have been brought to an end through military action, we would have so acted. If we and our allies had thought that such action was practicable, we would not have been handicapped for moral or legal reasons.
In May last year, we began to discuss with our allies the possibility of the use of air power, and in August NATO publicly declared its readiness. One has to weigh the results of one's actions. We had to test and re-test, over and over again, the different possibilities and options. The NATO allies were right to conclude yesterday that we could proceed, and that the benefit of proceeding
450
outweighed the risk of proceeding. That is why I believe that it was right yesterday for us and our allies to take the action that we did.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to extra troops. I cannot say that extra troops may be needed in Sarajevo, or whether there will be a redeployment of existing UNPROFOR forces. UNPROFOR is short of troops, and the Secretary-General has frequently appealed for more. One reason why the safe areas resolution has not been fully implemented is shortage of troops.
We are doing our bit; I think that the right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that. There has been no request for extra British troops. I certainly hope that the Secretary-General will be able to find contingents of the quantity and quality required.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to draw attention to the problems outside Sarajevo. One of the difficulties in the civil war has been the tendency to concentrate on Sarajevo. That is why the British troops are in action mainly in central Bosnia, relieving need, and it is the reason for the plan that the UN is now perfecting for opening up Tuzla airport. It is also why the Dutch are now in the process of moving into Srebrenica, and why it is so important not to forget the needs of places such as Mostar.
Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have now reached the sombre moment when all the remaining choices open to us in this affair are fraught with the most enormous dangers? Many of us appreciate the heavy burden on the shoulders of my right hon. Friend, who has to make difficult and agonising choices. In the circumstances, the present attempt to demilitarise Sarajevo, with the backing of the ultimatum from the NATO powers, is probably the least worst choice.
Nevertheless, will my right hon. Friend continue to impress firmly upon our NATO allies three factors? The first is that this should be a very limited operation, and must not open the way to a vast operation trying to solve all the problems. The second requirement is for both the troops and the relief workers on the ground to be protected in the most thorough, systematic and sustained way possible. Thirdly, and above all, peace will come only through the combatants themselves, in a balanced situation, reaching peace and agreeing to stop the killing. They alone can end the war.
Mr. Hurd: I agree with all my right hon. Friend's points. Yesterday's decision, which I have summarised for the House, is specific to Sarajevo, and to heavy weapons in and around Sarajevo. It is addressed to all parties, not to one party alone. As I have said, the NATO countries will review its implementation in three weeks' time. That is the nature of the decision. We do not and will not pretend that by armed force we can impose a settlement. Those in arty of the warring parties who wish to draw outside Governments and armed forces into the conflict to resolve it will find themselves disappointed.
My right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Copeland asked about the safety of our forces. For my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and for the Government as a whole, that must be a paramount concern. Of course there are plans, and have been for some time, for their protection or reinforcement if necessary.
My right hon. and learned Friend has told the House of those plans in the past. He announced last year that other

451
capabilities would be available as a contingency to draw on as necessary. That specifically includes NATO close air support. I do not think that the House would expect me to give more details of those plans.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Whatever differences of opinion there may have been in the past, is it not now right that the British forces who may be called upon to implement NATO's decisions should know and understand that they have the support of the whole House?
With regard to close air support, can the Secretary of State confirm that there are immediately available to NATO adequate resources to provide proper protection of forces on the ground if they come under attack? I welcome the continued commitment to the opening of Tuzla airport. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether, at yesterday's meeting, there was any discussion of the means by which, and the time scale within which, that might be achieved?
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his comments. Yes, I can certainly undertake that the resources are clearly available to NATO to carry out air support and air strikes if need be, as decided yesterday. They are deployed and ready, and plans have been in place for some time as to how they may be used.
At Tuzla airport, there are three airstrips, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows. The outline scheme is that two of them should be closed and one of them should be open for humanitarian supplies. There should be monitors to ensure that those supplies are humanitarian and that the airport is not used for the entry of arms for any of the warring parties.
The United Nations is preparing that scheme. Mr. Akashi has drawn up a scheme, as I have outlined. He is now seeking to find ways in which to put it into effect.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Given the importance of the NATO alliance and of our European alliances to our defence, it must be right that my hon. Friend has agreed with our allies to take the steps which have been announced. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the deep concern in the House and in the country over the consequences of those actions, if they are allowed to get out of hand.
May I reiterate what has already been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) on the importance of keeping it a limited action, which clearly defined objectives and an exit path that is well known, so that we do not slip down the path to open war?
Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House of the possible reaction of the Russians? I saw a press announcement today that said that the Russians had called for a United Nations Security Council meeting. I would welcome anything that my right hon. Friend may be able to tell the House to reassure us that the Russians will not take any overt action on behalf of the Serbs and against the NATO allies.
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he phrased his questions. He rightly placed a heavy accent on the importance to this country and its defence policy of the strength and solidarity of NATO, as I said in my statement. Anyone who has followed the discussions with our allies or is in the allied countries will know how many of them believe, especially the United
452
States, that the action agreed yesterday was a crucial test for the Atlantic allies. That consideration could not by itself have led us to support a scheme which was fatally flawed. My hon. Friend is perfectly right to stress that that must be in the scale of the balance of judgment.
I agree with him about the paramount need for the security of our forces, which includes their ability, if need be, to withdraw in good order. As I said, the plans are there. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has made plans and has to some degree announced them for that purpose. As my hon. Friend knows, we are reviewing, together with the other countries which have troops on the ground, the future of that effort. We were doing that before the past weekend. That review, which needs to be completed by the end of March, is continuing, and we are in close touch with other troop contributors.
My hon. Friend is perfectly right about the Russians. As I said in answer to the right hon. Member for Copeland it is our advice, and the view of the Secretary-General, that a new Security Council resolution is not needed for that purpose. The Secretary-General keeps in close touch with the Russian Government, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is going to Moscow on Monday. That will provide a good, unique opportunity not only to listen to President Yeltsin's view on that subject, but to impress on him the limited nature and the importance for the peace process of the decision taken by NATO yesterday.
Mr. Ernie Ross: To take up that point, it is essential that the Foreign Secretary can assure the House that the new determination by the North Atlantic Council and by those involved will be pursued to its objective if necessary. Therefore, the views of the Russians are essential.
Is it not proper that we should know, and that the Foreign Secretary should know, exactly what the Russians are saying, because we have all seen those reports? We have also seen the reaction of Radovan Karadzic, the leader of the Bosnian Serbs. He has made it clear that, as far as he is concerned, NATO does not have any role. How does the Secretary of State react to that. It is important that the House knows exactly what steps the Foreign Secretary has taken to ensure that the Russians understand that we mean to move ahead.
Mr. Hurd: We have indeed taken steps, as have our allies and the Secretary-General, to ensure that the Russians understand what is proposed. They have criticised it from outside in general terms. That is all that can accurately be said at the moment. There is no legal provision that requires their consent before NATO acts on this decision.
The House and anyone who follows this matter have been accustomed to hearing from Mr. Karadzic, possibly several times a day, for a long time now. We know how to assess the validity of each pronouncement. What counts is not so much Mr. Karadzic's pronouncements as what now happens—whether the Bosnian Serb military honour the agreement reached orally by General Rose yesterday, and whether the Bosnian Serbs comply with the requirements of the NATO decision. They have more powerful incentives to do so now than have ever existed before. That is the test.
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), does my right hon. Friend agree that, just

453
as it is true that the NATO alliance has provided the cornerstone of our defence and security for the past 40 years, it is equally true that it has shown more suppleness and intelligence in adapting to the new world order than has any other alliance or international organisation to which we belong?
It would have been inconceivable to us that a difficult decision of this kind, discussed in close concert with our allies, which involves perhaps the most important out-of-area action that NATO has taken, should not be supported by the British Government. It is crucial to us and to the future security of our country that NATO should continue to play the kind of role for world peace and security in the new order that it played in the old order.
Mr. Hurd: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. We had a successful NATO summit, which the Prime Minister attended, in January. It was successful because it defined for the first time—more clearly than before—the role of NATO in the post-war world. At that summit, it was very clear that our main allies—and certainly the United States—felt passionately about the Bosnian issue.
If we had frustrated yesterday's decision, I do not doubt that we would have administered to ourselves—to our own defence policy—a severe shock. However, as I have said, that would not have been a conclusive argument if we had felt, on listening to our own military advice, that the proposal was unsustainable and untenable.
The point of deciding it in NATO, the point of going through the planning procedures, and the point of having the NATO council with the chairman of the Military Committee there present was precisely that the proposal could be adapted, as it was, and modified, as it was in discussion yesterday, to make it as workmanlike and professional as possible.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that the responsibility for global peace rests with the United Nations and not with NATO, which is not the policeman of the world? The danger of the Secretary-General organising air strikes against the opposition of Russia, a permament member of the Security Council, poses far greater threats for the future of the United Nations.
Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that any action of this kind must necessarily involve the commitment of far greater numbers of British forces? Is he aware that the question will arise, if the Royal Air Force bombs Serbia, whether we are at war with Serbia in law? Have any contingency plans been made to consider the political implications that may follow if the intervention in the Balkan war escalates, as clearly it could do, with very grave consequences for peace in Europe and in the world as a whole?
Mr. Hurd: The United Nations is governed by its charter. Its charter is very precise about the role of the Security Council and Secretary-General. Within the charter, the Security Council passes resolutions. They require unanimity.
Everyone concerned knows the balance of authority within the United Nations. I have seen no serious challenge to the view that I have expressed, on which the Secretary-General has acted, that he was acting perfectly properly under the resolutions already passed in writing his letter to the Secretary-General of NATO, and he would be acting perfectly properly if—and it is still an "if"—he were
454
asked by NATO to authorise our action for the first time. Those are the rules; that is the charter; and every member state knows about it.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about escalation and bombing Serbia. Nothing in the decision has anything to do with bombing Serbia. I told my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) that the decision is limited to Sarajevo and heavy weapons, and is addressed to both parties, so the right hon. Gentleman is flying away in fancy on that. What was the right hon. Gentleman's final point?
Mr. Benn: What contingency plans have been made in the event that the initial bombing leads to an escalation that spreads to war?
Mr. Hurd: He had a further point which I have forgotten and which he also seems to have forgotten.
Mr. Benn: War with Serbia.
Mr. Hurd: No, I have dealt with that point. There is nothing in this decision which opens that possibility.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to pay a tribute to the incredible bravery and dignity of the civilian population of Sarajevo? Does he agree that their hopes must not be dashed by another brief respite; what is on the line now is the whole credibility of NATO and the United Nations; and while accepting the heavy responsibility that my right hon. Friend bears, we need more talk of resolution and less of difficulties.
Mr. Hurd: Bosnia is full of civilians who are suffering. Some of them are Bosnian Serbs, some of them are Bosnian Croats and some of them are Bosnian Muslims. Essentially, it is a civil war that originated from Belgrade and the Bosnian Serbs, which is why they carry the heaviest responsibility, sustained to some extent b,' the old JNA—the Yugoslav national army—sustained now to some extent by Croat regular units, and sustained to a smaller extent by people who have come in from the middle east to help the Bosnian Muslims.
Through all this fighting, the civilians are the main sufferers, most visibly and most horribly in Sarajevo, but in many other cities and towns as well. That is why our initial effort on this has been designed to help to bring about peace and relieve the suffering of those civilians, to whatever community in Bosnia they belong.
As regards the spread of the war—I now remember the last question of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—we have so far succeeded in preventing the spread of war, although this was widely predicted by our critics all through this time. Of course, the situation in Croatia remains uneasy, but it is confined to a Bosnian war at present. I listed among our main British objectives limiting, preventing, the spread of the war. I believe that the decision taken yesterday, like the other decisions that have been taken, will help in that direction.
Mr. John D. Taylor: As one who firmly supported the Government's position on Bosnia over the past 18 months, I was alarmed by their change of direction yesterday—an alarming decision that can only lead the United Kingdom further into the morass of the tragedy in Bosnia. Can the Secretary of State tell me whether it is true, as has been suggested, that Russia has demanded a meeting of the Security Council, that the Bosnian Serbs have now

455
left the talks with the other parties involved in the conflict in Bosnia, and that those two developments have taken place within 12 hours of the NATO decision?
As NATO was originally an organisation to come to the defence of its member countries, and now that it has extended its powers to get involved in non-member countries, albeit at the invitation of the United Nations, can the Secretary of State assure us that NATO will not be hijacked by some members who might wish to create a successor to the former Austro-Hungarian empire?
Mr. Hurd: The Russians suggested a meeting of the Security Council some time ago, but that does not affect the legal position which I have defined. I cannot comment—indeed, it would be stupid to do so—on passing reports of the statements of the Bosnian Serbs, because, as I have said, their statements are always all over the place. What counts is not what they say, but what happens.
The future of NATO is a crucial point which was tackled at the previous NATO summit, following almost two years of work. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the essence and the core of NATO—this is too often forgotten—is the collective defence of its existing members. There is also now opening to the east a welcome partnership which has been offered to countries in central and eastern Europe. That also is crucial to the credibility of NATO in many member states.
There was agreement and a strong feeling that NATO should be ready and equipped out of area to handle situations which the member states thought NATO could contribute to helping to resolve. That is limited in the case of Bosnia, because no one suggests that NATO can impose a peace. Anyone on the ground or any member of the warring parties who believes that is deluded. Within the limitations which were laid down first by NATO in August last year, and which were reaffirmed in January, we believe that the decision is a proper use of the authority of NATO.
Sir Terence Higgins: I welcome and strongly support my right hon. Friend's statement. Is it not the case that positive action should have been taken 18 months ago? Is it not also the case that, by threatening repeatedly to take action and then doing nothing, the credibility of the international community has been undermined? Hopefully, my right hon. Friend's statement this afternoon will do something to restore that position.
On a more fundamental level, how can it be right to take no international action to defend a sovereign state while seeking to deny that state means of defending itself?
Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend and I differ on the history, but that will be resolved by an historian. When an historian looks at the archives, he will find over and over again that the possibilities of military action were considered, not just by us but by the allies. He will find the advice which we received.
My right hon. Friend has been in government, and he knows how these matters work. He will know how advice is proffered, and he will know the responsibility which falls on those who neglect that advice and who set off on enterprises to gain applause without a proper judgment of the consequences. That is why, in all our discussions in different places—particularly during the past few days—
456
we have put the emphasis on the need for military advice. That is why the decision was taken in NATO and not anywhere else.
Although it is common currency at the moment, I do not believe that history will find that opportunities in the past were neglected. That is a matter for the past. The balance of judgment for the interests of Britain and of the alliance as a whole now fall in favour of the decision which was taken yesterday.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that he is engaged in another Government U-turn, and that he has done it with a look on his face which suggests that his heart is not in it? The right hon. Gentleman has told us precisely what the new rules of engagement are—they are contrary to those which he has mentioned previously—and he has explained how the British troops and NATO are to get deeper into this morass.
Surely it is incumbent upon the Foreign Secretary to be able to tell us exactly what the rules of disengagement are? We want to know precisely what will happen if the plan does not work. Can he tell us? Is it not certain that the television pundits and chattering classes who have guided him towards his decision will not be there to give him advice when he needs it?
Mr. Hurd: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point, but I do not accept his role as the protector of either my conscience or my intelligence. I will not accept him in that role.
Since May, and certainly in public since August, we have accepted the possibility of the use of air power. As I said earlier, and have said often, if we had believed all through this time that, by some simple military action, the tragedy could have been brought to an end, any Government, and certainly this Government, would have taken it. But that has not been the position.
I have spoken often of the possible use of air power. What Governments have to do is test and re-test the practical possibilities: whether a particular operation would bring more benefit than risk. That is the process which has occurred again this week. It did not come as a U-turn or a surprise. The texts and decisions which the House has heard about and discussed before now have been brought into practical operation because it seemed to NATO as a whole, and certainly to the British Government, that the benefits of the decision outweighed the risks.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the NATO members consider the war in Bosnia to be a civil war, an international conflict, or both? Will the exclusion zone apply to all the belligerents, and in particular the invading Serbian army?
Mr. Hurd: We know this to be a civil war, but as I think I said earlier, it is a civil war which originated in the ambitions of Serbia and the encouragement of the Bosnian Serbs. It is sustained to some extent by Croat regular forces and, to a much smaller extent, by people—commonly called mujaheddin—who have come in to help the Muslims. But it is essentially a war between Bosnian Croats, Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Serbs. The NATO decision does not talk about the origin of the fighting. It

457
talks about the two main forces involved in the Sarajevo area—not the Croats in this case, but the Bosnian Serbs and the Bosnian Government Muslim forces.
Mr. Bruce George: As someone said, this is deja vu all over again. We have issued threats to the Bosnian Serbs on several occasions and not implemented them. Can the Secretary of State give us a guarantee that, if the United Nations resolutions are not complied with, we will not do as we have done many times before and back away? Secondly, can he offer guarantees that, if the Bosnian Serbs comply—their masters have known when to bend—the enthusiasm will not subside when the heat is off, perhaps in a couple of weeks, and the Serbs return to their usual task of bombing innocent civilians?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman mistakes the position. We have said several times, notably in August last year, that NATO would be ready to use air power to defend UNPROFOR forces if attacked. They have not been attacked. We said that we would be ready to consider using NATO air power to prevent the strangulation of Sarajevo. That was the phrase that NATO used.
Yesterday it was decided to use air power for that purpose, in the detail that I described to the House. I do not think that the Bosnian Serbs, or anyone, is in any doubt that, unless the ultimatum and the requirements are met, force will be used within the limitations—they are very clear—which the NATO decision set out yesterday.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We must now move on.

Health Service (London)
4.13 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a detailed statement to update the House on changes to strengthen the health service in London.
We set out the direction of policy last February. We have followed that policy through with the determination which we promised. I pay tribute to all those who have played a part. My announcements today take us a further significant step along the road that we charted then.
The heart of our policy is to improve primary and community care. That will relieve pressure on hospitals, thus helping to reduce waiting times and give Londoners the high-quality services common elsewhere. To this end we have committed substantial investment of £170 million over the next six years.
Within the areas of greatest need, well over 100 schemes are going ahead this year. That means improvements to general practitioners' premises, new health centres, more community nurses, and better services for the mentally ill. Those schemes will assist the dedicated doctors, nurses and support staff working in often difficult circumstances. In addition, we are exploring with the professions ways further to improve the numbers and skills of primary care staff working in the capital.
We are determined to build on that. I can therefore tell the House that the Government will double new investment in London's primary and community care next year to £85 million. We have also agreed with the medical profession two new arrangements for financing general practice premises in the London initiative zone.
I have today laid before Parliament regulations giving family health services authorities—FHSAs—a new power to acquire, develop and dispose of land and property within the London intiative zone for the provision of general practice premises. That new arrangement will enable FHSAs to play a greater part in initiating and co-ordinating developments with their local practices, to act as an engine of change and to promote joint ventures with the independent sector.
We are also increasing FHSA discretion within the initiative zone over the level of improvement grants payable to GPs to develop existing practice premises. From today, the current ceiling for improvement grant reimbursement is being raised from 66 per cent to 90 per cent. That will offer greater flexibility to support projects which could not be achieved through other means. Both new powers will be available until 31 March 1996 and will be subject to review before then. Further details are being published separately today.
Investing in primary care means that we must unlock the resources tied up in the high overhead costs of London hospitals. Subsidising those costs year in, year out is not right in London and is not fair to the rest of the country. We have to invest in modern care, in London as elsewhere, not sustain a pattern of services which no longer meets current and future patient needs. That is why there must be change to London hospitals.
I begin with those hospitals which have applied to become national health service trusts. We have agreed a new central funding mechanism with the eight research-oriented postgraduate special health authorities, to be effective from April. Those arrangements are sensible and

459
fair. They put the SHAs on a more equitable footing with other hospitals and will sustain high quality research and development.
Against that background, the Moorfields eye hospital, the Bethlem Royal and the Maudsley hospitals and the Royal Brompton national heart and lung hospital will all become NHS trusts from 1 April.
There has been much speculation about the future of the Royal Marsden. I am pleased to announce that it too will become an NHS trust from April. Together with the generous initial funding which, as a former SHA, the Marsden will receive, that decision gives it every opportunity to shape its own future, responding to patient choice.
I have not been able to approve the trust application from the national hospital for neurology and neurosurgery because it could not meet the financial requirements for a stand-alone trust. The hospital will continue as an SHA, while it explores options for safeguarding its highly valued teaching and research work.
Similarly, the Eastman dental hospital has not been approved because of concerns about financial viability. It too will continue as an SHA while options for its future are explored. The Chelsea and Westminster hospital has applied to be a trust in its own right. Consultation on that will conclude in March.
The Hammersmith and Queen Charlotte's SHA, together with the Charing Cross hospital, recently applied to become a joint trust. I shall take a decision on that, following statutory public consultation which ends in March.
Discussions are taking place between the Hammersmith and Charing Cross hospitals to bring together their considerable service, academic and teaching strengths. Both recognise the benefits from merging their facilities on to a single site. Sir David Phillips, former chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, and Sir Rex Richards, a former vice-chancellor of Oxford university, are undertaking a special study to identify measures which would be needed to maintain that research excellence in the event of services being consolidated on one site. We welcome those developments.
I have agreed to establish a new trust incorporating the Royal London, St. Bartholomew's and the London chest hospitals. Bringing together these three hospitals, which encompass major accident and emergency provision, local acute specialist services and teaching and research, offers a great opportunity to establish a first-class institution serving the City and east London. The new trust will take forward decisions about the future location of services across the three sites.
University college London hospitals originally submitted a joint trust application with the Royal National throat, nose and ear hospital trust. In response to public consultation, the region is now exploring the option of UCLH going forward as a trust in its own right, with the RNTNE trust continuing separately. I shall make a final decision in March following consultation on the revised application.
At present the UCLH group is scattered across several sites. It needs to consolidate services into fewer buildings. A number of options are currently being explored. Any
460
proposals need to safeguard and strengthen UCLH's position as an international centre of excellence in service, teaching and medical research.
The Great Ormond Street hospital for sick children will remain where it is. It too will become a trust from April. This decision provides it with an opportunity to build on its worldwide reputation. Separate management arrangements will be made for the Queen Elizabeth hospital, Hackney, within its local community.
Sir Bernard Tomlinson's analysis that current and future patient demand cannot sustain four major hospitals in south London is widely supported. Both Lewisham hospital and King's are securely established, each serving its own local population, and both are benefiting from new capital investment.
By establishing Guy's and St. Thomas's as a single trust last April, the Government signalled their determination to bring to an end the duplication of services between the two sites. This is not just a necessary response to the gradual withdrawal of patients that the trust faces. The trust's clinicians at both Guy's and St. Thomas's have argued strongly that patient care will be improved by concentrating clinical services one one site. This view is storngly endorsed by the main purchasers.
Strong arguments were put forward in favour of each site. After careful consideration, our judgment was that, overall, the St. Thomas's site offers a better location and environment for a hospital and serves a bigger local population. The need to safeguard what is the largest and one of the busiest accident and emergency departments in London was also crucial to the decision. We therefore intend to ask the trust to pursue proposals that, over time, will concentrate acute and specialist hospital services at the St. Thomas's site. As well as clinical teaching accommodation, a strong research presence, in conjunction with acute clinical services, will be retained on the St. Thomas's site.
Under these proposals, the Guy's site would offer a wide range of modern hospital and health services focused on the needs of the local community. As we have undertaken elsewhere, an accident and emergency department would remain at the site until alternative facilities were developed and were working satisfactorily, particularly at King's College hospital and Lewisham.
We also intend to build on the considerable academic and research strengths at Guy's. We strongly support moves to integrate the united medical and dental schools with King's college. Bringing these elements together builds up to an attractive vision for the future of the Guy's site. State-of-the-art local health services would exist alongside a major new centre of teaching and research. This proposal offers the oportunity for Guy's to evolve along new and imaginative lines. It would become a high-quality health and academic campus, serving local patient needs, training tomorrow's doctors, dentists and nurses and exploring the boundaries of medicine.
I have asked Sir Tim Chessells, chairman of the London Implementation Group, to take forward this work. He will bring together the key parties, including the main purchaser, the trust board, UMDS, King's College London and the special trustees of both hospitals.
It is also proposed to develop both the Guy's/St. Thomas's trust and King's college hospital as specialist cardiac centres for south-east London and Kent. For neurosciences, a strong new centre would be developed, based around King's, building on the links with the

461

institute of psychiatry at the Maudsley. In order to strengthen both these proposed new specialist centres, cardiac and neurosciences would be transferred from the Brook hospital, which is in very poor condition. Statutory consultation will now go ahead on these proposals.
In the light of this, discussions between my Department and the Ministry of Defence are well advanced about the possible sale of the Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich to the Greenwich Healthcare trust. The aim would be for this hospital to replace the Brook and, eventually, most of Greenwich district general hospital. Subject to settling some outstanding issues, I hope that the matter can be put out for consultation in the spring or early summer.
In south-west London, the regional health authority has completed some work on the distribution of services, the results of which have been made available to local health authorities and hospitals. It will now be for those locally charged with assessing and meeting health needs to take into consideration the effects, over time, of proposed changes in central London and the views of those living in the area served before deciding whether local service changes should be proposed for public consultation. Subject to that process, I do not anticipate significant change to the current pattern of hospital services in the near future.
Finally, I am pleased to announce that I have approved two further trusts in London whose applications were referred last year: Newham acute hospital, and the Tavistock and Portman clinics. Both will become trusts on 1 April.
Today's announcements represent considerable further progress toward reshaping London's health services. Of course, much remains to be done. We will maintain the pressure for change and improvement.
Most of London's hospitals are now NHS trusts. Together with local health authorities, they will take change forward at a local level. Their decisions must reflect the needs of patients, the importance of consolidating London's excellence in specialist services, teaching and research, and essential strategic issues such as maintaining comprehensive accident and emergency cover.
We shall also continue to pay attention to the needs of staff, particularly the arrangements for helping displaced staff find new jobs within the NHS, which are working well.
I have announced today further measures to enable London's hospitals to respond to the changing demands of their patients. I have announced eight new NHS trusts for the capital. I have announced a doubling in new investment in primary care and a substantial programme to improve the local health services which Londoners need. We recognise, as others recognise, that change in London is needed and long overdue. My statement today is proof of our commitment to shape London's health service to match London's needs, now and into the 21st century.
Mr. David Blunkett: If anyone needed justification for supporting the proposals in our document "Health 2000", the Secretary of State has just given it. Does she agree with Sir Bernard Tomlinson's comment that
"planning and the internal market are incompatible"?
The announcement of eight new trusts this afternoon spells not a new way forward for London but a disaster in terms of further rationalisation and closure.
462
Over the past 12 months, since the Secretary of State responded to the Tomlinson inquiry, has there not been uncertainty and demoralisation throughout the capital? Does the Secretary of State agree that neither local and national representatives nor the people of London have played a part in the proposals put before the House this afternoon? Just a few weeks ago the Secretary of Slate announced outside the House that she had saved University College hospital from the effects of the internal market. She also announced the effective demise of Bart's. This afternoon, she has made an announcement along similar lines about proposals for trusts and rationalisation that will inevitably lead to less service and less provision for people in the capital.
Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us this afternoon what happened to the promises that were made a year ago about improvements in primary and community care in London. Will she tell us why there has been a 2 per cent. drop in the number of GPs employed in the London Implementation Group zone since the reorganisation started in London; why there has been a 5 per cent. drop in the number of health visitors; why 319,500 people are on the waiting lists of the four Thames regions; and why in the past quarter alone the number of people waiting for more than a year has increased by 13,340—a 12 per cent. increase? Is there room for closure and rationalisation with such figures?
Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us about the planned changes to Guy's. Did not the Government parade Guy's hospital as the flagship trust of the Tory party? Has not that flagship trust been holed below the water line this afternoon by the Secretary of State? Was not the captain of the flagship trust thrown a lifebelt with a £130,000 golden handshake while 2,000 people working at those hospitals are threatened with redundancy and redeployment? Is not it a fact that the £140 million that was spent on the unit at Philip Harris house will now be set aside and used in a completely different way from that in the proposals? Will the Secretary of State tell us whether £44 million of the £214 million that it will cost to reconfigure the two hospitals will have to be repaid to the charities that raised money for the hospital?
Is it not a fact that the Secretary of State's announcement this afternoon of a trust for the Royal Marsden hospital is not a lifeline but a hangman's noose? Is it not a fact that that great teaching and research hospital, with its world-renowned cancer unit, will be finished not by any announcement by the Secretary of State, but by the impact of the internal market? Will she make a statement this afternoon to clarify that she will order the two major purchasing authorities to continue buying the services of the Royal Marsden hospital? If she does not, the Royal Marsden will gradually be strangled, as will other hospitals, by the operation of the system.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is not the good news announced by her but the bad news implemented by the market that really matters? It is similar to the announcement on pit closures that was made by the President of the Board of Trade: announcements are made that give the impression of saving services, while the reality gradually strangles them on the ground. Rather than a transfer of resources, a pulling forward of money to pretend that new money has been announced this afternoon for next year's primary care investment, would not planned change and rational investment in primary care be a real improvement in primary services?

463
Should it not be for a London regional health authority to plan that development and care? Would not the involvement of local people bring accountability? Would not a fresh start for London bring clarity for the years ahead, not uncertainty and demoralisation? Should not it be the Secretary of State's duty this afternoon to announce that things will not once again be put off until the end of March, and lift the threat from those who receive the services and those who deliver them, to give London the world-class services that it deserves?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The House might like to know that the Prime Minister has just received a message saying that the two Members of Parliament in Somalia are now out of the hands of the people who were holding them, are back with their Action Aid team and will be flying back tomorrow.
Mrs. Bottomley: As ever, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) is long on discussion papers, but cannot face a decision. London needs decisions.
Tomlinson set out a programme for change; we have followed that programme carefully, and have been involved in a probably unprecedented consultation and discussion, not only with the purchasing authorities which are charged with seeking the best interests of local patients—local people—but with the universities and research institutes. According to Paddy Ross, head of the Joint Consultants Committee,
"As a result of meaningful consultations they"—
that is Ministers—
"have produced a Government response the broad thrust of which is supported by the medical profession at national level."
I pay tribute to all the distinguished members of the medical and research community who have participated in the effort to draw together the evidence necessary for the taking of some extremely difficult and sensitive decisions—decisions which, however, had to be made. That is the difference between being in government and being a permanent Opposition party.
According to the further policy document produced by the hon. Member for Brightside, the policy for London should be
"a vision of a new health service built from the bottom, with primary and community care as the focus of our thinking."
Those are the hon. Gentleman's words; they are also the words that describe the commitment that we have demonstrated today.
Like other Members of Parliament, the hon. Gentleman will receive in his postbag details of the 127 primary care schemes that are already under way. There are 350 additional nurses, 81 new paramedic and counselling staff and 23 new "hospital at home" schemes in the London area; £7·5 million is being spent through the voluntary sector—quite apart from the extra money that I have announced today.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the difficult decision concerning the Guy's/St. Thomas's trust. It is agreed that those hospital services must be concentrated on a single site. The purpose of the new building on the Guy's site was to provide health services, research and teaching; those services will continue to be provided. The special trustees,
464
the dean of the medical school and representatives of King's College will be involved with Sir Tim Chessells in deciding on the details of how that balance can best be achieved to serve the needs of the future. Our vision, however, is of a campus concentrating on learning, research and health services, which will play an important part in training future generations to work with and for the health service.
My announcement sets the strategic direction for the future. I well understand the difficulties of the staff involved; but, if we spend 20 per cent. of the money on 15 per cent. of the people—if London has one doctor to 500 people, while the rest of the country has one doctor to 1,100—that is evidence that no Government can responsibly refuse to address. My announcement has set the direction for the future: it means better health services for Londoners.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I must strike a balance between this very important statement, another statement and the equally important debate that follows. I therefore seek the co-operation of all hon. Members—including Government Front Benchers—when I ask for brisk questions and brisk answers. That will enable me to call as many hon. Members as possible.
Mrs. Marion Roe: Along with millions of Londoners, I welcome the decisions that my right hon. Friend has announced to remove uncertainty from the future of London's health services—especially the decision to invest £85 million of new money in local health services in areas of need next year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the lack of proper primary and community care puts additional strain on hospital services, and increases waiting times?
Mrs. Bottomley: I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend has said. One of London's dilemmas is caused by the fact that nearly 50 per cent. of those who use accident and emergency departments in hospitals are people who, in other parts of the country, would have used the services provided by their family doctors. That is one of the difficulties involving discharging patients from hospitals. If we can improve primary care, it will be better for patients to be seen by their family doctors and the practised teams who know and have stewardship of families for a lifetime.
Ms Liz Lynne: Does the Secretary of State agree that, on the same day that UNISON announced the demoralisation of staff within the NHS, her announcement and the way in which she has handled London hospitals will increase that demoralisation? What weight does she give to the advice from the independent reviews on specialist services for London, given that she seems to have ignored that advice and the views of Londoners about Guy's hospital?
Finally, I welcome the money that she has put into primary care. It is a great service for London, but I should like to know where it will come from. Is it new money, and will it really help people who need acute beds when primary services cannot help them?
Mrs. Bottomley: There is no doubt that UNISON staff feel demoralised because they have seen the Labour party's documents. The hon. Lady referred to the specialty reviews. There were research views and specialty reviews

465
and the interests of purchasers were taken into account. The decision on Guy's and St. Thomas's was finely balanced, but there was strong agreement among the clinicians on both sites.
When my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health visited both hospitals, it was clear that they wanted services to be concentrated on one site. It is a difficult judgment. The strong view of the purchasers was that it should be the St. Thomas's site, and the London ambulance service advocated the important part played by that accident and emergency department. I shall not conceal from the hon. Lady the judgment and balance in that decision, but a decision had to be taken.
As for the extra money, the hon. Lady will know that, unlike the Opposition, who had to edit the price tag out of their policy document—after a row with the shadow Chancellor the £6 billion price tag disappeared up the chimney—we were able to—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I have asked that hon. Members refer only to the statement and that they get brisk answers.
Mrs. Bottomley: The Opposition do not want to hear about the £1·6 billion extra for the national health service this year, or £83 per household.
Mr. David Congdon: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which strikes a good balance between central direction and letting the internal market decide the pattern of provision in London. Many Londoners recognise that there is an inequitable distribution of resources between London and the rest of the country. In implementing the changes, will she not lose sight of the fact that resources are also inequitable between inner and outer London and that outer London must get its share of resources?
Mrs. Bottomley: I am well aware of the pressure from those in outer London and the concern that decisions on inner London should be brought to a conclusion. We have to move as fast as we reasonably can, taking all views into account.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Will the Secretary of State confirm that her close friend and colleague Lord McAlpine, the president of St. Bartholomew's medical college, has persistently and savagely criticised her mad proposal to close the accident and emergency unit at Bart's? Is she aware that leading counsel has advised that the decision was improper and unlawful and such that no reasonable person could take it, and that she is about to be brought before the courts?
Mrs. Bottomley: I am well aware that each of the great hospitals in London has supporters and those who would champion its cause, but I am also aware that it is necessary to take decisions. No change is no option, and I would urge the hon. Gentleman to read the speech on the subject by the Opposition spokesman in the House of Lords before Christmas. She said then that when the changes to Bart's and the Royal London hospital were implemented, could we please make sure that they were properly funded. Those changes needed to be taken across London? I can also report—[Interruption.] I add my own words at the end. It is a point of record. The point was made about the need to move to the Royal London hospital, but the changes are necessary. I urge the hon. Gentleman to speak to some of
466
those at St. Bartholomew's whose vision for the future includes working with a stronger university hospital treating the needs of future patients.
Mr. Matthew Carrington: My right hon. Friend will know that Charing Cross hospital in my constituency has strong local support. Although the merger with Hammersmith hospital is popular, Charing Cross hospital has modern buildings, a superb location and the convenience of a heavily used accident and emergency department. It is also well supported by purchasers and local GPs. When the decision is taken about putting the hospitals on to a single site, will my right hon. Friend ensure that patients' needs are put first in deciding the location of hospital facilities in west London?
Mrs. Bottomley: Indeed. My hon. Friend is a great champion of Charing Cross hospital. It is an extremely popular hospital that was favourably reported on in the specialty reviews. He will know that work is under way to examine the configuration of services and the possibility of Charing Cross and Hammersmith hospitals coming together as a trust.
Mr. Peter Shore: The Secretary of State made a long statement, but she omitted several important facts. What is her estimate of the loss of beds in London hospitals during the implementation period? How many skilled doctors and other medical professions will no longer be employed in London hospitals? What is her estimate of the size of the London hospital waiting list during the implementation period?
Mrs. Bottomley: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that London has about 3·9 acute beds per thousand compared with about 2·5 elsewhere. The change of use of London hospitals and the increasing use of day surgery rather than in-patient admission mean that the need for beds in London is changing fast. Tomlinson estimated a loss of about 2,000 beds over a longer period, but I would not want to put a figure to the precise numbers because we have to match provision to the needs of services. Similarly, we envisage an increase in the number of people employed in the community and primary care sectors.
We anticipate having fewer health staff in London. That is why we set up the London clearing house to help people to find jobs elsewhere in the country if they are no longer necessary in the London health service.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: It is good to have a boost for primary care services. People in Eltham want to have staff at the Brook hospital working on the other side of Shooter's hill, if the Queen Elizabeth hospital can be brought into national health service use. There are still some who are unhappy that the neurosciences should go to Denmark hill rather than coming into the Guy's/St. Thomas's collection of surgery specialties.
Mrs. Bottomley: I am aware of my close and hon. Friend's constituency interest and the need for the uncertainty to be brought to an end. I also understand his point about neurosciences. Tomlinson's report and the research reviews strongly commended the establishment of a world centre of neurosciences at Denmark hill, with the neurosciences going to King's hospital, working closely with the Maudsley in the same location.
Mr. Clive Soley: Is the Secretary of State aware that, although there is strong support for the

467
combination of Hammersmith and Charing Cross hospitals, there is severe doubt that we can squeeze a quart into a pint pot by closing down one of the sites and transferring all the services to the other site? Will she give an undertaking that, if there is a decline in patient care, she will ensure that the services are available on the two sites if that is appropriate? When will she take that decision? Frankly, the effects on staff morale at Charing Cross and Hammersmith are severe.
Mrs. Bottomley: The purpose of change in London is to improve services for patients and to establish a better balance between the specialty services, the routine hospital services and primary care. Change will not take place unless and until it leads to improvements for patients in London—decreasing waiting times and overall improvements in health care.
The trust application is out to consultation. I am not able to make a decision about that until March, when the consultation finishes.
Mr. Roger Sims: My right hon. Friend will recognise that there will be disappointment in south-east London and north-west Kent at the decision to concentrate the specialist and acute hospital services on the St. Thomas's rather than the Guy's site, but it was inevitable, when the trust was unable to reach a conclusion, that she would have to make the ultimate decision. I accept that the arguments were finely balanced, and I congratulate her on having the courage to take that decision and remove the uncertainty, which has prevailed for too long.
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there is no possibility of those changes being effected overnight—that they will be gradual, and that they will take account of the understandable worries of the staff, many of whom are highly qualified people?
Mrs. Bottomley: I can confirm that those changes will take place gradually over a number of years. They are highly complex; a great number of organisations will be involved, but there is a need for a strategic direction. I refer my hon. Friend to the comments of the South East London health authority, which said today that the decision to centralise in-patient services at St. Thomas's hospital is the right one. It said that it
"reduces the amount … spent on costly overheads and allows more to be spent on direct patient care."
Similarly, the London ambulance service says:
"The department at St. Thomas's is an essential link in the network of Accident and Emergency Services in London. Both its strategic position and its accessibility argued strongly for its retention."
Mr. Nigel Spearing: In respect of Newham general hospital, which is to become a so-called trust, does the Secretary of State agree that the quality of its care in future and its very existence depend on its success in commercial competition? Therefore, the "working for patients", in the words of the White Paper, will not take place—or indeed for the people of Newham, because the staff there will be working for cash and perhaps for their very jobs. Is not such a situation incompatible with the principles of Christianity? Will the right hon. Lady come to Newham and debate that principle before an audience of representatives of the people and of people who work in the health service?
Mrs. Bottomley: Newham's becoming a trust means that it is more able to behave more flexibly to solve its problems to be committed to local patients. NHS trusts are, and remain, part of the national health service, delivering health care to all on the basis of clinical need, not ability to pay. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the nature of NHS trusts, and does so wilfully. Throughout the country, NHS trusts are delivering more care, reducing waiting times, improving the quality of care.
Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: I welcome my right hon. Friend's—
Mr. Spearing: See your vicar.
Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I welcome my right hon. Friend's resolve to bring uncertainty to an end; as we have heard, she has been travelling through a political and a medical minefield. Although I recognise that provincial hospitals are developing an ever-increasing standard of care, will she give the House an assurance that the speed of rationalisation of hospitals in London will not put at risk their excellence and their worldwide reputation?
Mrs. Bottomley: Yes, Madam Speaker. The hospitals, the universities and the research institutes need to know the direction of strategic change. It is not right to move with undue haste. The intention is to consolidate and strengthen, to improve services for Londoners and to improve the centres of research expertise.
Ms Glenda Jackson: Is the Secretary of State aware that the cost of her failure, in her own words, to provide high standards of primary care for Londoners that are "common elsewhere" is being paid by Londoners? I give as an example one of my constituents, a homeless man, who is suffering from gangrene. Can the right hon. Lady give here today a firm guarantee to all Londoners that the already limited primary health facilities for their needs will not be reduced by what seems to me a quite scandalous scythe through such existing health care as is provided for them by London's hospitals?
Mrs. Bottomley: I give an unequivocal guarantee, and the hon. Lady will find in her mail a list of the 127 new primary care schemes that exist in London already. There will be more next year, as we have announced that an extra £85 million will be spent on primary care in London. As a result, there will be more doctors, more practice nurses, more hospital-at-home schemes, and more community psychiatric nurses, and better primary and family care services will be delivered in practice.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend accept that her courageous statement today shows that she understands the changes that are coming over the national health service—for example, the enormous numbers of the population who have moved out of London into constituencies such as mine and the shift from acute care to primary care, showing that the Opposition's concentration on such matters as the number of beds is merely a further indication of the backward-looking attitude that they have adopted towards her reforms?
Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend. The Labour party counts anything other than patients, patient needs and the improvement in the quality of their care.
My hon. Friendis right about people leaving London. When the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)

469
said, "See your vicar," I thought that he wanted me to discuss the Templeman report with my vicar, because I noticed that the Templeman report, only the other day, suggested that two thirds of the churches in the City should close because the population has left.
Mr. Tony Banks: In view of the fact that Newham is almost a Tory-free zone, will the right hon. Lady give an assurance that she will not pack the new trust at Newham with Tory stooges? Will she also answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) about how much of the £44 million from charities that went to Guy's will have to be handed back?
Mrs. Bottomley: If the hon. Gentleman has the names of people who he wants to be considered for the new trust, I know that my right hon. Friend will consider them. The Labour party has given many names with great success. Helene Hayman, for example, is chairman of the trust at Whittington hospital; Julia Neuberger, a member of the Liberal Democrat party, is an excellent trust chairman. We want, as ever, people who are committed to the national health service, who are prepared to take difficult decisions and who are determined to improve patient care. We appreciate them on the trusts.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if implemented, the Labour party proposals to abolish the private sector for health will cost a great deal of money, which will come from the remainder of the health service?
Mr. Keith Mans: Yes, £90 million.
Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend says about £90 million. Would not that proposal, if implemented, slow down her success in getting people off trolleys in hospitals such as Ealing hospital? May I have her assurance that hospitals will not be closed while there is any chance of people having to be put on to trolleys or into emergency situations?
Mrs. Bottomley: I think that the memories of Barbara Castle echo around with the policy document today. The vendetta against the private sector is something that people are used to hearing about from the Labour party. Private patients actually benefit the national health service. My hon. Friend is right. No decisions will be made unless and until it is safe to make them.
My hon. Friend rightly referred to the unacceptable situation of patients being left for too long on trolleys. That cannot be tolerated. The chief executive has written to make that quite clear. There is a major investment programme in a great number of accident and emergency units across London and we are determined to ensure, not only that they are better organised within the hospital, but that some of the left-wing Labour authorities co-operate better with the discharge arrangements.
Mr. Banks: Name one.
Ms Harriet Harman: Would the right hon. Lady not insult my constituents by implying that the reason that they oppose her plans is that they have some old-fashioned and irrational attachment to the idea of measuring the success of the national health service by the number of hospital beds? Does she not realise that people in south-east London are worried about the plans that will
470
result in reduced numbers of hospital beds because they are worried that she will cut the hospital beds before the GP services and the social services improve and, therefore, people such as my constituent, an elderly woman who was on a trolley for 18 hours in King's College hospital last week, will continue to wait in unsatisfactory conditions?
Mrs. Bottomley: This is like the old days. As ever, the hon. Lady fails to welcome the good news. I should have thought that she would welcome the fact that neurosciences are to be moved to King's, which will be a world class centre of excellence. The hon. Lady has never been able to do anything other than talk down the health service, which is a tragedy for King's and for the service itself. The only good news is that she is no longer the shadow spokesman on health.
The hon. Lady should check her facts more carefully. The reason that the lady was left on a trolley at King's, which was unacceptable, was that 40 to 50 patients were waiting to be discharged into the community. The social services in London have received a 75 per cent. increase in the money given to them for community care, and part of it is for them to arrange with hospitals for the discharge of patients. We look to them to deliver.
Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that critics of trust hospitals should examine the record of hospitals such as the Royal Free, which has dramatically increased the number of patients treated and substantially reduced waiting lists? Does not that provide hope for the people of Newham?
Mrs. Bottomley: It certainly does. The Royal Free has done a magnificent job and the chairman deserves great credit. My hon. Friend will know that the chairman of the Royal Free is about to become the regional health authority chairman for the south Thames area. That bodes well for all of South Thames.
Ms Kate Hoey: May I welcome the part of the statement which continues to allow an accident and emergency unit at St. Thomas's and thus permits the hospital to operate most effectively? Does the Secretary of State agree that the people who are making the nasty point that the only reason St. Thomas's will retain its accident and emergency unit is that it is near the House of Commons are doing a great disservice to the thousands of people in my area who have signed petitions, campaigned and worked with dignity to ensure that their hospital would remain open? Will she confirm that 80 per cent. of the Philip Harris unit will still be used for the purpose for which it was originally planned?
Mrs. Bottomley: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. It was an extremely difficult judgment because the arguments are balanced. I well understand the disappointment of some people at the Guy's site that the decision did not go their way. I can say only that I have been completely direct about the basis on which the decision was made. I believe that there is a great vision for the future at the Guy's site. Indeed, only today the principal of King's College, London said how he welcomed the announcement. He said that it would
"enable a merger between UMDS and King's College to go ahead with a … commitment to the location at the Guy's site not only of basic medical and dental and life sciences teaching and research, but eventually of the whole of the merged multi faculty College."
That is a very exciting vision for the Guy's/Thomas's trust.
Mr. Rupert Allason: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Will she confirm that it can be interpreted as very good news for people in the west country and those who use provincial hospitals because there will be a switch of resources away from London to meet the greater need of the provinces and, in particular, of the west country?
Mrs. Bottomley: I can indeed confirm that, over time, it will be possible to have a fairer distribution of resources across the country. At the moment, 20 per cent. of the money is spent on 15 per cent. of the people. Areas outside London support London services to the tune of more than £100 million, a situation that cannot continue indefinitely. We are bringing it to an end.
Ms Tessa Jowell: Will the Secretary of State make available to the House the papers and documentation which informed her recommendations? Are the recommend-dations supported by the London Implementation Group, the four Thames regions and inner-London purchasers?
Mrs. Bottomley: In due course, the programme will go out to consultation before final decisions are made. Management documents were available. There has been a great deal of discussion and debate, not only about the cost, the service configuration and the need to preserve specialties. All the information that is necessary for public consultation will be available before the final decisions are made because we are bound by public consultation. What is important is that a decision is made.
Initially, the trust board provided a number of options. One that had seemed persuasive was to take no decision. At present, the subsidy to the Guy's/Thomas's trust runs at £18 million every year and is rising. The clinicians made it quite clear to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State when he visited each site that they wished for a single-site option, so further work was needed to ensure that we faced the decision—difficult though it was—to set the strategic direction for the future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I must make it clear that hon. Members who have not heard the entire statement but have come in late will not be called. That is not an innovation. The House will recall that I have made that statement several times, and I intend to hold to it.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: Will the Secretary of State desist from her shabby trick of playing London off against the rest of the country? It is singularly unconvincing in view of the havoc also being wreaked in cities other than London. Will she clarify her bland statement that the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Hackney is to be incorporated in local services? Does not she mean that provision for sick children in London will be weakened? Was not the Queen Elizabeth part of the Great Ormond street hospital for sick children?
Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady is right in the sense that because of medical advance it is no longer necessary to have the great number of hospitals and beds that were
472
appropriate in many city centres in the past. There has been a dramatic investment in primary care as care increasingly moves into the community. That change is common, in London and elsewhere. London is especially complicated because of the input of a number of colleges, universities and research institutes.
As for the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Hackney, the best way to organise services for children in a local community is with the other hospitals in that local community. Great Ormond street will continue as a specialty hospital of very high renown and the Queen Elizabeth hospital will continue its tradition of serving the local community. It is a hospital I know well.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Secretary of State accept that the people at Guy's feel not disappointment but anger and a sense of betrayal about the biggest U-turn in the history of this Administration's health policy? The Administration launched a flagship and constructed a state-of-the-art building but a couple of years later they evacuate the flagship and say that the building can be kept but with hardly any beds. The figures do not justify the Secretary of State's conclusion and she has not shown them to anyone. They are secret, but will she now reveal them?
She knows as well as I do that the reality of today's decision is that it was made because of pressure from the establishment. She would not take on people here or in Whitehall who would allow St. Thomas's to be closed. She is once again allowing the people in the south-east of London—the people, not the establishment—to suffer so that she can come to a brave decision while those people receive a worse service. That is unacceptable and disgraceful, and the anger that she is hearing this afternoon is only the beginning.
Mrs. Bottomley: I have made it clear that I understand that there will be disappointment at the Guy's site but a decision has to be made. I set out clearly the basis on which the judgment was made, which included the fact that there was a larger local population, the London ambulance service's strong views and the overall ability of the two sites to provide for alternative needs. There is a vision at the Guy's site for a research campus, a campus of learning, and the vast majority of the new building at the Guy's site will be used for the purpose for which it was intended.
There now need to be detailed consultations with the head of the medical school, the clinicians, the trust board and the special trustees about how to maximise the use of the building for the purposes of research and teaching, precisely the purposes for which it was established, in order to make it a great centre for the 21st century. I am confident that the trust's vision will deliver a first-rate university hospital, not only serving patients, but training future dentists, doctors, nurses and other health professionals.
Mr. James Couchman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I always take points of order after statements.

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

MONDAY 14 FEBRUARY—Until Seven o'clock, Motion on the Airports (Northern Ireland) Order.

Motion on the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order.

Motion on the Return of Cultural Objects Regulations.

Motion on the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order.

TUESDAY 15 FEBRUARY—Motion on the European Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order.

Motion on the European Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order.

Motion on the European Parliamentary elections (Changes to the Franchise and Qualifications of Representatives) Regulations.

Motion on the Auditors (Financial Services Act 1986) Rules.

Motion on the Accountants (Banking Act 1987) Regulations.

Motion on the Building Societies (Auditors) Order.

Motion on the Auditors (Insurance Companies Act 1982) Regulations.

Motions on the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.

WEDNESDAY 16 FEBRUARY—Motion on the Channel Tunnel (Security) Order.

Motion on the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order.

Motion on the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order.

Motion on the Statutory Sick Pay (Small Employers' Relief) Amendment Regulations.

Motion on the Social Security (Contributions) (Rerating and National Insurance Fund Payments) Order.

Motion on the Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Order.

THURSDAY 17 FEBRUARY—There will be a debate on the Royal Navy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY 18 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY 21 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I thank the Lord President for the comprehensive statement on next week's business.
Does the Lord President realise that the fact that there have been so many statements today before the Opposition debate on the Child Support Agency reinforces the impression already created by the Government that they are running away from a debate on that subject? I suspect that by the end of the business statement the time left for that debate will have been reduced from one day to half a day.
Before Christmas the Government wrongly and needlessly guillotined the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. As I recall, the right hon. Gentleman told the House that it need not be debated as it was so beneficial. Has the Leader of the House noted that that measure has been amended in another place? That should have been the business of this House, which highlights the need for reasonable scrutiny. It is as a result of the handling of that business that we are
474
now taking so many motions on the Floor of the House. Is not that another example of the Government shooting themselves in the foot?
We sought a debate last week, in Government time, on the report of the Public Accounts Committee on standards in public life, and the waste, incompetence and mismanagement that we are seeing under the Government. Has the right hon. Gentleman seen today's report of yet further losses of £48 million, which has been squandered on computer provision by the Department of Employment? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is of significance, or does he agree with the Chief Secretary, who is reported as saying:
"It happens in British business all the time"?
Mr. Newton: On the hon. Lady's last point, she will know that the Department of Employment will study the report of the Public Accounts Committee carefully. The Department has already issued a statement of initial comment making it clear that it does not accept all that Committee's criticisms, which appear to go beyond those made in the report of the National Audit Office.
The hon. Lady's earlier comments simply confirmed what I thought at the time—that she had not understood what was being said about the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. We did not say that it was not important enough to deserve debate. We said that, if the changes were to be brought into effect in an orderly way to allow industry proper time for implementation and for computer reprogramming, the Bill had to pass through the House before Christmas. Our view has been amply confirmed. One of the sets of regulations that I announced for next week follows on from the passage of that Bill. That will only just leave time for the proper implementation of the measure from the beginning of April. Those are the facts and I hope that the right hon. Lady will reflect on what she said.
I must tell the hon. Lady bluntly that her suggestion about today's statements was nonsense. Clearly, we had no reason for knowing that there would have to be a statement on Bosnia today. The House rightly expected a statement on Bosnia, but by the time we knew that there would be one, it would have been wrong to change the timing of the statement on the national health service. We had to have that statement to ensure that people outside the House were fully aware of the picture.
Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many politicians on the continent are puzzled at the lack of support—indeed, non-existent support—for European institutions that has come from this Parliament since the turn of the year? Those are important institutions, which cut across party boundaries and are germane to the interests of this country. Will my right hon. Friend do something about it? If he cannot, will he consider, in the longer term, providing time for a debate so that we can consider temporarily suspending our membership of those organisations?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend underlines a point which I have sought to make on several occasions and which was echoed in the debate on the motion to guillotine the Finance Bill by a number of right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House. I hope that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) will reflect on the fact that it is increasingly clear that the Opposition's action is not so much damaging the Government as damaging Parliament and the interests of this country.
Mr. James Wallace: The Leader of the House will be aware that today the Secretary of State for Scotland placed in the Library proposed amendments to the Standing Orders of the House. They involve the way in which Scottish business is handled. Will the Leader of the House state when the amendments will be tabled in the House and debated? Does he accept that people in Scotland will not believe it if the Government try to pretend that Labour party disruption is holding us back? They will not believe that as long as the Government are able to ram through measures such as the Sheriff Court Fees Amendment (No. 2) Order using their majority? Is there any hope that people can operate in a mature manner when introducing those modest improvements in the way in which Scottish business is handled?
Mr. Newton: I can confirm that my right hon. Friend has laid his proposals in the Library as the hon. Gentleman described. The proposals reflect the substantial discussions that were held before the usual channels were disrupted. We would obviously like to make progress as soon as possible, but I cannot give a date now.
Mr. Michael Bates: Will my right hon. Friend find an early opportunity next week to debate early-day motion 550?
[That this House notes that Labour-controlled Camden Council, which currently sets the highest council tax in Inner London, continues to waste vast sums of local taxpayers' money on inefficient services and ideologically-driven projects; is dismayed by the sense of priorities of a Council which spends nearly £150,000 per annum on six full-time trade union officials whilst, at the same time, closes down 16 play centres and junior clubs; is appalled to learn that the Council's HIV/AIDS housing project, involving the purchase and adoption of one property into five flats (four one-bedroomed and one two-bedroomed), cost a colossal £1·2 million and took two years to complete, and was then let to a Housing Association rent-free; points out that the £1·2 million could have helped far more HIV/AIDS sufferers if the money had been more thoughtfully spent; is not surprised that a report last year by the Local Government Ombudsman accused the Labour Camden Council of being guilty of "maladministration", a charge regularly levelled against Labour-run councils; and thinks it is about time the Labour Party censured Labour councils for spending taxpayers' money on politically-correct causes at the expense of vital local services, and encouraged them instead to follow the example of Conservative-run councils, which respond to the needs of the local community and provide them with an efficient and high quality service.]
That motion gives details of how the district auditors discovered that Labour-controlled Camden council had produced accounts showing a £20 million surplus, when there was, in fact, a £50 million deficit. Does my right hon. Friend know of any input that those Camden Labour councillors may have had into Labour's plan for business, as that would explain a lot to Conservative Members?
Mr. Newton: I doubt whether the people involved had any input into Labour's plan for business as the error was much too small for that.
Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Leader of the House find time next week for a debate on the steel industry? There is anger and apprehension at the
476
Government's unilateral decision to get rid of the European iron and steel employees readaptation benefits scheme, known as ISERBS. Does he realise that there is grave apprehension in the steel industry in Europe that there may be further cuts? Britain has made her contribution and we would like a debate so that we can tell the nation of our concern for the future of steel in Britain.
Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Gentleman will know that that decision was taken after a careful evaluation of the scheme, which showed that it was not very effective in helping redundant steelworkers to re-enter the labour market. If the hon. Gentleman has not already done so, I hope that he will study a copy of the evaluation report which was placed in the Library of the House last October.
Mr. Anthony Steen: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the Select Committee system is currently under pressure because of the number of pressure groups that are concentrating on individual Select Committees, making it difficult for them to carry out their work beyond small, identified investigations? In view of the fact that the Government introduced a deregulation Bill earlier this week, does my right hon. Friend agree that it might be appropriate to set up a new Select Committee on deregulation, encompassing all Government Departments and monitoring how deregulation is progressing?
Mr. Newton: I understand why my hon. Friend, with his interest in such matters, makes that suggestion, but he will know that since Select Committees were established the practice and feeling of the House has been that they should mirror the structure of Government Departments. What is most important to the deregulation initiative is that each Select Committee should be alert to the need and the possibilities in its own field.
Dr. Tony Wright: Is the Leader of the House becoming as weary of answering questions on the Jopling report and its fate as many hon. Members are of asking questions about it? Will he reflect on the fact that, in the past, substantial reform of this place, which is desperately needed now, has only ever come from energetic Leaders of the House, such as Richard Crossman and Lord St. John of Fawsley? Has he considered that the job of the Leader of the House is to lead the House, and when is he going to do it?
Mr. Newton: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is astonishing, in the circumstances precipitated by the Opposition Front Bench. The answer to it is a straightforward yes—but the second part of his question was addressed to the wrong person. It should have been addressed to his own Front-Bench spokesmen.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: May I ask for a debate on the structure of local government next week, so that hon. Members, especially Conservative Members, can emphasise how much importance we attach to the valuable work now being carried out by the Local Government Commission? It is important that, especially in my area, there is overwhelming support for a unitary authority. There has recently been all-party support for the devolution of powers within local government to town councils such as Kidderminster, which only the local government commission review could bring about.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will know that, as part of the basis of the commission's operations, it is expected to

477
take account of the views of people in an area. Of course I hope that it will take account of the views that he reports in his area.
Mr. Bob Cryer: As it is now nearly 12 months since the consultation document was issued and comments were received, will the Leader of the House give time next week for a debate on the curse of wheel clamping? The cowboy clampers are still hard at work extorting large sums, as much as £75 a time, from motorists who have left their cars not so much in awkward places as on what is obstensibly waste land. The clampers leap out, often in the dark, and hold people to ransom, keeping women away from their homes late at night. The practice is a real menace and should be brought to a halt. The Government should introduce legislation to bring England and Wales in to line with the Scottish courts, which have sensibly described clamping as theft and ransom.
Mr. Newton: I am of course aware of the concern felt on that subject by hon. Members on both sides of the House and I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's question to the attention of my right hon. Friends.
Mr. Richard Ottaway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as the world's population is growing by about 10,000 every 55 minutes, many people believe that that is the root cause of most of the world's problems—health problems, famine, poverty, migration and shortages of fuel and water? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the United Nations conference on population development will take place in Cairo in September and that the recent G7 summit placed great emphasis on the importance of that conference? The Government will now be formulating their policy for the conference, so would not it be appropriate to have a debate on the subject sooner rather than later?
Mr. Newton: I certainly accept the importance of the subject. I cannot promise an early debate, but I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's question in mind.
Rev. Martin Smyth: As there are difficulties in getting the business of the House through, I ask the Lord President of the Council whether it would be possible to have an early debate on global security, bearing in mind the fact that today we have heard at least two references to NATO acting out of area. It seems to me that the House should be given an opportunity to say where we think we should go on the whole concept of global security.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has raised another important point, which I shall bear in mind, in the broad terms in which he expressed it. Subject to your judgment, Madam Speaker, I may suggest in return that some observations on that subject might conceivably be in order in the debate on the Navy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House next week.
Mr. Ian Bruce: The question asked by the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) clearly showed the frustration of Opposition Members at the fact that the Leader of the House has not provided time for a debate on the Jopling report. Over the past week I have asked Opposition Members at random their views on the subject. To a man, and to a woman, they said that they could not get through to their own Front-Bench spokesmen. Will my right hon. Friend hold discussions
478
with individual Opposition Members, decide what we should do, and bring the matter forward at the earliest opportunity?
Mr. Newton: There is much force in what my hon. Friend says. I, too, am in a sense grateful to the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood, because he has said publicly on the Floor of the House what many of his colleagues are saying in the Corridors.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Building on what the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood and my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) have said, may I remind my right hon. Friend that early-day motion 9, advocating the introduction of the Jopling report, has been signed by more than one third of the Members of the House of Commons? As there is no co-operation, between the Front Benches on the business of the House, and as we cannot scrutinise Bills properly, because we are having to stay up so late, does my right hon. Friend think that he, as the protector of Back-Bench interests, has a duty to bring the report before the House to be debated forthwith?
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Newton: Again, the concern of hon. Members on both sides of the House has been made clear and I undertake to keep it very much in mind. However, I must tell my hon. Friend that he was in danger of confusing me, because according to my list, early day motion 9 is concerned with the Warwickshire police and has been signed by only seven people.
Mr. Harry Barnes:: Next Tuesday we shall deal with rather a lot of orders and some people may find that rather tedious. However, our business will have been enlivened earlier by a ten-minute Bill that I intend to introduce to improve electoral registration and access for disabled people to polling stations. That will be a rerun of a Bill that we dealt with last year, when the former Home Secretary said that although he was not against the principle, the Bill was premature. As a year has now passed, may we have a statement from the present Home Secretary on whether it is now time for the measure to be introduced?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman always enlivens our business, although not always in ways of which I approve. At this stage I cannot promise that my right hon. and learned Friend will join the enlivenment on Tuesday.
Mr. Gary Streeter: Will my right hon. Friend now yield to overwhelming public and parliamentary pressure, as reflected in early-day motions 459 and 559, and make room next week for a debate on the behaviour of the Liberal Democrat party in local government?
[That this House notes that the latest official Activists Handbook of the Liberal Democratic Party addresses the problems of delivering Liberal Democratic leaflets to "unintelligible inhabitants who appear to speak only in Punjabi, broad Cockney or Scouse or, worst of all, Glaswegian'; notes that this is only the latest example of the Liberal Democratic Party using racially offensive language or language that mocks regional accents; notes that it follows the publication by the Liberal Democratic Party of overtly racist literature in a local government election in Tower Hamlets, together with racist remarks by the Liberal

479
Democratic Councillor Tom Dommett in Somerset; and calls on the Right honourable Member for Yeovil yet again to expel Councillor Dommett from the Liberal Democratic Party and to withdraw the Activists Handbook forthwith.]
If we had a debate the scurrilous conduct now being swept under the carpet would be exposed to the full light of day.
Mr. Newton: That is another request that I shall bear in mind, because I believe that the whole House is becoming almost as frustrated with its failure to get action from the leader of the Liberal Democrats as some of the comments have revealed that it is over the Jopling report.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Why shall we not debate "taking stock" next week? Does the Leader of the House remember that a year ago the Government said that, just occasionally, some Scottish business might be decided by Scottish Members of Parliament? Since then Scottish local government has been gerrymandered by English Tory Members and last night the Government did not even allow a former Tory Solicitor-General for Scotland to speak on an issue of Scottish law, which was then decided by English Tories. Are the Government totally incapable of practising what they preach on any matter, and will "taking stock" descend into the same kind of farce as "back to basics"?
Mr. Newton: The very fact that the proposals following on from "taking stock" have now been brought further forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is a sign that we take such matters seriously. I wish that I could have a similar assurance from the hon. Gentleman that he acknowledges that this is the United Kingdom Parliament.
Sir Peter Emery: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will have words with those people who have been pressing him for debates during next week? If Standing Orders allowed the motions that have been laid before the House to be debated in Committee, we would have a three-day week next week in which many of the debates that have been requested could take place on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He adverts to the suggestion which was contained in the Jopling report and therefore embraces the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick).
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Given the ever-increasing importance of the regional dimension to our national life, and given the repeated statements of the Leader of the House that he will consider the matter, will the right hon. Gentleman now reconstitute under Standing Order No. 100 the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs?
Mr. Newton: I have no plans to do so at present. However, I always consider with care the suggestions which are made by the hon. Gentleman and others.
Mr. John Denham: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate next week on personal pensions? It is many weeks since figures were released which showed that 2·5 million people who transferred from state earnings-related pension schemes
480
were putting too little into personal pensions to avoid being worse off in the future. The Select Committee on Social Security is looking into the matter, but the Government's silence is deafening. With every day that passes, those people are seeing a reduction in their future pensions. The House must have an opportunity to discuss their plight and what action should be taken to secure those pensions.
Mr. Newton: With his interest in such matters, the hon. gentleman will know of the current work of the Securities and Investments Board. He will also know that its new rules on disclosures of charges and commission on life insurance, including personal pensions, in response to directions from my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will be a further solid step towards improving the marketing of those products and to helping investors make well-informed decisions.
Mr. Derek Enright: Will the Leader of the House consider the questions that I have been asking the Treasury for the past three weeks, which concern the amount of public money that has been put into Unicorn plc? The only reply that I have received from the Treasury is that such information is confidential. Surely that cannot be correct. Will he persuade the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) to give a personal statement of how much taxpayers' money went into that failed company?
Mr. Newton: I have commented on that matter on earlier occasions, but I shall bring the matter to the attention of my hon. Friend.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When are we to debate the calamity engulfing the civil service, and especially the Accounts Services Agency? The press has been informed that, tomorrow, a written answer will be given by a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry on the possible management-employee buy-out of that agency. In a secret ballot among the staff, only one member voted in favour. How on earth can we debate that issue if information is given via a written answer on a Saturday? When will we have the chance to debate what is happening in the civil service? A fortnight ago, the Leader of the House told me that it was codswallop to think that the standards of the civil service were on the slide because of the base business ethics which have been introduced. Since then, three major scandals have emerged in Wales.
Mr. Newton: I am having some difficulty recognising the fact that a written answer is being given on a Saturday. Leaving that aside and the fact that I do not accept the comments of the hon. Gentleman, not by a mile, I shall bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend who is responsible for such matters.
Mr. Elliot Morley: Is the Leader of the House aware of the decision of Mr. Justice Laws, which, bizarrely, has stopped Somerset county council preventing the barbaric activity of stag hunting on its land? He said that it was a matter for Parliament, an excuse also used by the National Trust council, in defiance of its own members who also sought a ban on stag hunting. Given those circumstances, will the Leader of the House find some time for a free vote so that once and for all we may decide whether there is a future for such barbaric activity in a civilised society?
Mr. Newton: Certainly, I shall not comment on judgments in court. However, on the point which I can consider, the hon. Gentleman will know that for a long time such matters have been regarded as those for private Members' proposals and the practice has been to have a free vote.
Ms Tessa Jowell: Will the Leader of the House find time next week for the Secretary of State for Health to explain why she has still not answered a question which I tabled on 13 January? The question sought information about the number of press and public relations officers employed by the national health service. Perhaps there were too many to count.
Mr. Newton: I shall bring the request for an accelerated reply to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Points of Order
5.27 pm
Mr. James Couchman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would you give urgent instructions to the authorities of the House to provide monitors in the Central Lobby and in the Lower Waiting Hall? I did not arrive in the Chamber for the beginning of the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health because I was snatching a few moments to collect some work from my secretary. I might as easily have been held up by a constituent. As a result of your decision not to call me, although I would not seek to question it and it seemed a shame that one person only was not called, my constituents were deprived of reassurance that they might have received from my right hon. Friend on the future of their health services.
Madam Speaker: If I may correct the hon. Member, there were two Members who did not hear the entire statement. Therefore, I could not call them. However. I know that the hon. Member is not challenging my decision on that point. The annunciator has clearly shown from about 1 o'clock onwards that the statements were to take place. The onus is on all Members to keep an eye on the annunciator and to be in their place if they are keen, as I know they are, to put questions.
I am sorry that in this case I could not call the hon. Member, but I shall certainly look his way on another occasion in the near future.

Points of Order
  WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 98(5) (Matter relating exclusively to Wales).
  WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

    EDUCATION STANDARDS
    That the Matter of education standards in Wales, being a Matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Patnick]
    Question agreed to.

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

  1. Social Security (Contributions) 1994.

  2. Statutory Sick Pay Act 1994.

Orders of the Day
  OPPOSITION DAY
  [3rd ALLOTTED DAY]
  OPPOSITION DAY

    Child Support Agency
    Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister. As Members would expect, I have had to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches between the hours of 7 and 9. I seek co-operation outside those hours as there is a great deal of interest in the subject.
    5.39 pm
    Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move,
    That this House believes a parent has a duty to contribute to the maintenance of his or her child, and that duty must lie at the heart of any system of child support; recognises the widespread anger and dismay felt by thousands of families whose lives have been affected by the introduction of the Child Support Agency and calls for a further urgent review of its operation; welcomes the changes announced by the Government and now approved by the House; but believes these do not amount to the fundamental review that is required and fail to tackle key areas of concern such as the lack of an independent review procedure to deal with special circumstances to be defined in statute, which must be addressed if perceived injustice is to be eliminated and public confidence restored.
    The House will be aware that about a week ago we discussed the Child Support Agency in the context of the new Government regulations. Some people may have been surprised that we have decided to return to it so quickly. By any standard, the decision is justified by the anger, dismay and sometimes the fear which have resulted from the change in the system of child support. People all over the country are worried about how they are to manage the unexpected consequences of the system. Arguably, they should have anticipated those consequences, but in many cases they did not and they have been left facing major problems.
    Few hon. Members have not been startled by the strength of feeling which they have encountered in their constituencies and have not been left with the uncomfortable impression that the complaint which has been put to them so forcefully has some justification, yet redress is impossible.
    It is important to stress that there are many more problems to come. It is difficult to get up-to-date figures in an organisation of such a size, but figures for 31 December 1993 show that 710,000 maintenance applications forms had been issued, of which only 210,000 cases had been cleared. In other words, there are at present about 500,000 cases in the pipeline on which final assessments are to be made. I fear that there is room for a great deal of heartbreak and anger in the figures.
    Last week, we discussed the regulations—the Government's changes. It is not unfair to say that the view that was taken overwhelmingly on both sides was that the provisions did not go far enough and that more was required. I do not deride what was on offer. I made that clear on that occasion and I am pleased to say so again. I especially do not deride the increase in protected income. I recognise that the whole package, when fully
    484
    implemented in 1996–97, will mean that about £95 million less will be ingathered by the Child Support Agency than would otherwise have been the case.
    I have learnt from a parliamentary answer that I received only a few minutes ago that, from the Government's point of view, about £50 million will be offset because of the reduction in the tax allowance to 15p on maintenance payments from 1995–96. However, all that will be little consolation for those who are paying maintenance because they will feel that they are in double jeopardy. They are paying their increased requisitions to the agency and they will get less tax relief to set against that. That will do nothing to improve the atmosphere.
    Ministers must face the fact that, the other week, speaker after speaker rose to say that there was a need for further action. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), apologetically defiant, but totally isolated—that is often his role these days—did his best, but he did not satisfy anyone. There is an urgent need to persuade Ministers to believe that they cannot close the file and tough it out.
    I make it clear that I am certainly with the majority on this issue. Today, we should concentrate on positive proposals, some of which I listed last week when I did not have the time or the opportunity to argue in any detail. I make one general point which may command a good deal of agreement although it is, in a sense, a little academic now. Looking back—I accept that hindsight is a fine thing—it is unfortunate that we made the system retrospective.
    I have talked to a number of people with experience of Australia. Australia will certainly crop up in my speech and I suspect that it will crop up in the deliberations of the House. In Australia, as many hon. Members will know, the Child Support Agency system applied to couples who separated on or after the introductory date of 1 October 1989 and to partnerships in which the youngest child was born on or after that date. It meant that there was a far longer transitional period as settlements made under court orders faded away. It also meant that there was not the pain and difficulty associated with our system in which long-standing arrangements and court settlements were torn up and in which settled arrangements were disrupted.
    Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman is saying with the benefit of hindsight that the system should not be retrospective. Does that explain why his party is making a U-turn on the issue? Labour Members were in favour of the CSA in principle; when they found that there were difficulties, they wanted to run away. All they want to do is to throw the burden back on the taxpayer.
    Mr. Dewar: I hope that I am not making a partisan speech. I am interested in the problem and I do not think that the intervention by the hon. Gentleman is helpful or typical of someone who takes these matters seriously. I make it clear that our support is for the general principle, which commands everyone's support, that a parent has a duty to contribute to the maintenance of his or her child. As the hon. Gentleman knows, if he was present at or has read the debates, there was a reasoned amendment dealing with the practicalities, on which we divided, which with remarkable perception identified and pointed to many of the difficulties that now haunt the system.
    It is a little remiss of hon. Members—I am sure that the Minister will not do this—to say that because we approve of the principle that lies behind the Child Support Act 1991

    485
    and will have no compromise on it, we are therefore bound to everything that has happened and to every detail of the way in which the CSA operates. That is not the case. We should now concentrate on looking for solutions and at ways in which we can rebuild public confidence in the system, which has been greatly shaken.
    There is nothing dishonourable in adjustment and change. The present system is not graven in tablets of stone. There were doubts in high places—I hope that this point is not thought to be partisan—from the very beginning. I draw the attention of the House to page 630 of "The Downing Stree Years" in which Lady Thatcher talks about her feelings. She writes:
    "I was also appalled by the way in which men fathered a child and then absconded, leaving the single mother—and the taxpayer—to foot the bill for their irresponsibility …So—against considerable opposition from Tony Newton, the Social Security Secretary, and from the Lord Chancellor's Department—I insisted that a new Child Support Agency be set up".
    I do not say that to make a cheap point, but to illustrate the fact that there have been doubts on both sides of the House about what was happening and about how the new policy was implemented. Unusually, I advance Lady Thatcher as evidence of that—[Interruption.] It may not be the only time that the Leader of the House has been right and Lady Thatcher has been wrong. That is a more general political point.
    I have been urging for some time the possibility of a review procedure. Hon. Members who attended our previous debate will remember that I briefly described it. An independent review officer would have the power to consider exceptional circumstances, to test the representations made to him against criteria defined in statute and, when the test was passed, to order a departure from the standard formula. I suggest that because of the fundamental concern, shared by both sides of the House, there is a great lack of flexibility in the system.
    Mr. David Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Dewar: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, which shows a certain charity.
    The lack of flexibility has led to perceived injustice and on occasions, to real injustice, which has been embittering. The introduction of a review officer, a proposal that unashamedly leans heavily on the Australian experience, is well worth considering. I am convinced that there is a strong case to answer.
    Mr. Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, thus allowing us to continue the debate we have had on previous occasions. If he feels that there should be an independent review procedure for child support cases, does he feel that the Inland Revenue tax system should have a similar independent review procedure in which independent officers could assess cases in which taxpayers felt that they were paying tax unfairly and wrongly? How would such a procedure be administered?
    Mr. Dewar: I understand the point made by the hon. Gentleman; he is arguing by analogy. I have not considered that proposition. I have considered the difficulties that we face with the CSA and especially the breakdown of confidence in the system. I recognise that no one likes paying tax and that the Inland Revenue is unpopular when one gets a tax demand. Fortunately, I do
    486
    not detect as yet the growing crisis of confidence that exists in the CSA system. That is why I want to speak briefly about the system in Australia and its relevance to this country.
    As hon. Members may know, the Child Support Agency system was introduced in Australia in October 1989. It progressed until 1 July 1992 without the review officer system. It was then decided that a review officer system was an advantage. The Australians made the change because they were running into problems not dissimilar to, although not on the same scale as, the problems that we face now. They built on their experience and they moved into the review officer system because they felt that it would defuse the situation and would help people who had a perception of injustice. The system changed successfully to accommodate those aims.
    I have inquired into the Australian system and I have been told that the review officer system is seen as speedy and effective. There is no legal representation, although the parties can meet the review officer and make their representations. The system is used sensibly and has not led to some of the practical difficulties that we have been invited to contemplate when such a system is suggested. I am not saying that we should adopt the Australian system with every dot and comma; it is not a lift and take argument. We may want to alter and argue the grounds, for example, on which a referral may be made to the review officer, and the test that he applies. It is important that we take this seriously.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is making an important proposal, and we accept that he is making it in all sincerity. The crucial point about the Australian system is that the appeals have tended to raise the amount that is contributed by the absent parent, rather than reduce it. It is incumbent on the hon. Gentleman to explain to people outside the House exactly who and what proportion of absent parents will be entitled to appeal, and on what grounds. If we are talking about confidence in the system, it is the constant demands for review which will undermine that confidence more quickly than anything else.
    Mr. Dewar: Certainly I am conscious, and cautious, of the points made by the hon. Gentleman. I tried to address them briefly in my previous speech on this subject, and I shall turn to them genuinely in a moment. I take what he says seriously.
    All I shall say on the general point is that review within the present system is based largely on change of circumstance and error in calculation. There is no independent scrutiny; at the end of the day, people who are discontented find that they are imprisoned within the iron walls of the present system. That builds frustration, which is dangerous.
    The Government have clearly and fairly stated their objections. The first is—the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bury, North, has said this on many occasions—that the Australian system is different, and there is no parallel, it is a broad-brush approach and it is much cruder than the sophisticated and, by implication, comprehensive and effective assessment formula that we use. I do not accept that. The similarities are much more important than the differences.
    The Australians were grappling—and I will not go into detail—with social problems, the growth in expenditure on

    487
    single parents, an increase in the number of single parents and the same sort of social phenomena with which we are familiar in this country. They have developed a somewhat different method of calculating the maintenance assessment. I take the point that there is no equivalent to the protected income. I agree that the formula of gross taxable income less exempt income to produce the adjusted amount is different. The Australians produced a system that relies on a set percentage of that sum as the final arbiter of the money to be paid. It is simpler but it seems to be similar.
    I have been told by people who are wiser in the ways of the system than I am, and who have spent a good deal of time on this, that if we apply the Australian formula and the United Kingdom formula to families with exactly the same circumstances, we end up with comparable results. I do not accept, therefore, that we have no parallels and no common identity of interest or that the experience in Australia cannot at least be seen as relevant to our experience.
    The second argument that was advanced can be put most crisply by quoting Viscount Astor speaking in another place yesterday:
    "The plain truth is that there are two options: discretion or a formula. These options are mutually exclusive; you may have one or you may have the other, but there is no middle road."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 February 1994, Vol. 551, c. 1682.]
    I do not accept that. It seems that the noble Lord, or the person advising him, has an over-tidy mind. There is a touch of absolutism about tht view which is not justified.
    I shall turn from the theoretical position to the practical. This is where we come to the point made by the Under-Secretary of State and to what happened in Australia. The practical results of what happened in Australia are the best advertisement for the case that I am advancing. There are many people in the world of law who certainly would not agree with Viscount Astor. Perhaps I shall quote only one of them. Recently, Mr. Michael Clancy, the deputy secretary in charge of law reform at the Law Society of Scotland, wrote to me in these terms. I quote:
    "I should mention that the Society considers that the Australian model of the Child Support Agency represents a more acceptable structure. It is unfortunate that the United Kingdom version did not adopt more of the flexible aspects of the Australian system."
    I could quote that sort of opinion from sources who would be seen as having relevant expreience and expertise over a wide range.
    I turn to the point made by the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin). I accept entirely that there is a danger that if we talk about a review procedure, people will see it as an open door—a court of second recourse rehearing the case from the beginning—and that that could lead to real problems. I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that I will not represent it in that way, certainly not in any sophisticated argument or serious debate about this matter.
    It is right that we should have some form of independent review that can look at situations where there are genuine facts that are relevant to the care of the children and the situation of the absent parent, which cannot be taken into account at present. I have a notice of determination by the
    488
    review officer in Perth, Western Australia. He has before him all the grounds of application which are defined in statute. I quote:
    "I have a duty to maintain another child or person has special needs.
    I have necessary commitments in supporting myself…High costs of access to the child.
    Special needs of the child",
    and so on. How they are interpreted is a matter of argument.
    One issue which has worried Tory Members from the south-east is commuting costs. Previously, the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) talked about being devastated by the impact of the Child Support Agency on his constituency, although he was a strong supporter of the system when the legislation reached the statute book. I will not say hard and fast—it will be a matter for further discussion—that commuting costs can be covered by those grounds.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): For the purposes of clarification, the Australian system does not take into account travel costs. We have confirmed that with the Australians.
    Mr. Dewar: That is fair enough. Undoubtedly, it will be a matter for argument. Some people may think that it will have to be argued under the heading:
    "I have necessary commitments in supporting myself."
    The point is that there could be discussion about exactly how the grounds are interpreted. I am arguing the structural case—the need effectively to tackle the justice deficit that is perceived in the system.
    Mr. Oliver Heald rose—
    Mr. Dewar: I want to finish this passage.
    I have tried to make inquiries into the use of this system in Australia. I am grateful to Nicholas Mostyn—he is well known for his work in this field—for the facts and figures that I shall give the House. In steady state terms, there are about 120,000 assessments annually in Australia; 12,900—about 11 per cent.—of them have got into the review system. Of that, 6 per cent. have been successful. It may be of interest to the hon. Member for Colchester, North that in 4 per cent. of the cases, the absent parent—normally the father-got a reduction in assessment. In 2 per cent. of the cases—this is significant—mothers managed to get increased assessments. Therefore, the system has not been overused, and it has not been abused since it settled down. It has been used by both parties—both sides of the equation.
    Having talked to people who are familiar with the system, I have to say that it is seen as effective, speedy, sensible and a necessary safety valve. I have talked not just to academics and lawyers here; I have had the advantage of discussing the issue with one or two Australian lawyers who specialise in family law, who are in the United Kingdom for a number of reasons and have the practical experience that I value. All of them have repeated that message and underlined it. I hope that the House will not slough off the arguments in this area. If we do so, we will do a great disservice to the agency and what it is supposed to stand for—and, indeed, what it potentially still stands for.
    The final argument—I shall deal with it quickly—used by the Under-Secretary is a reprise of what I mentioned before: the system is unfair because it raises false hope.

    489
    That cannot be right. Even if only a few people are suffering real injustice—I suspect that there will be a significant minority—we cannot erect a system that defies them and stops them from getting justice because it may lead to disappointment for others who do not have a good case. That is a dangerous—one might say pragmatic—argument and one that I hope will not find favour with the House.
    Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what he is describing—the right of appeal in only exceptional cases—will not do anything for the people who are complaining? Those include people who would like existing debts and the fact that the divorce happened many years ago taken into account. The hon. Gentleman is offering a narrow right to a small number of people. Is not that a bit of a con on the public, who may think that the Labour party is battling today for most of the fathers, when he is just talking about a handful?
    Mr. Dewar: I think that the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer.
    Mr. Heald: A what?
    Mr. Dewar: A lawyer. [Interruption.] I did not catch what the hon. Gentleman thought I said, if I may put it in that rather Irish way. I tremble to think what was in his mind, and I hope that it was not the result of a guilty conscience.
    In any event, I understand that the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer. I quoted the figures from the rather controlled Australian situation, where 11 per cent. of cases went to a review officer and 6 per cent. succeeded. If one makes that 6 per cent. of the much larger figures in Britain, there is a significant constituency for the appeal procedure. Many of those involved would be the worst cases.
    The hon. Gentleman may want to argue the opposite of what I suspect Ministers will argue, and say that the scheme ought to have wider scope. I am grateful for his intervention, because it shows that there is an area of debate as to how narrow the gate should be. The Minister and the hon. Gentleman may disagree about that if we get to that stage. The important thing, however, is to accept that there is a need for that safety valve. That is what I want to argue tonight.
    Dr. Robert Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Dewar: I must move on. It would not be fair to the many people who wish to speak.
    Mr. Lilley rose—
    Mr. Dewar: There are two other points on which I want to speak, but I will of course give way to the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman must not leave the House in confusion. Is he proposing a narrowly prescribed system which would help few people? Does he want to open the system up for wider use by discretion, which would inevitably take us back to the system which failed before and transferred all of the burden on to the taxpayer?
    Mr. Dewar: I do not want to leave the Secretary of State in confusion, and I am sorry if I have. The balance reached in Australia looks not unreasonable to me. I have made it clear that I would be open to argument from other hon. Members if we get to that stage of discussion.
    490
    The Under-Secretary said in a broadcast this morning that my motion was defective because it did not specify exactly what the grounds of appeal for the review procedure would be. I am not trying to argue that case arrogantly at the moment. As I have explained, I am trying to put a point of principle to the House, and I hope it is one to which people will respond.
    Mr. Thomas Graham: Will my hon. Friend put this point to the Minister? A constituent of mine who has never been in debt in his life and has always paid what the court told him to pay is now lumbered with more than £700 in debt. The agency has doubled the amount to £38 a week. The young man asked me how he was to get the money—should he rob a bank or disappear off the face of the earth? Is not that the situation into which the Government are putting people?
    Mr. Dewar: Many people feel that they are in a cul de sac. I hope that my hon. Friend advised his constituent against both courses of action. I sympathise with the serious point that my hon. Friend makes.
    I now turn to clean break settlements and to the situation in which a property or financial settlement has been made but cannot be taken into account. There is a great deal of anger over that, and a feeling of betrayal. The feeling very often is that good intentions are being ill-rewarded now that the system has been introduced. People have acted for the best, and have sometimes acted generously in difficult circumstances, and they are now being hit hard as a result.
    There has been recent litigation with the Crozier case. I understand from those with whom I have talked that that was perhaps not the strongest case to take as a test to court. Be that as it may, I suspect that there may be more litigation before too long, with people suggesting that a reference to the CSA is a unilateral abrogation by one party of a contract between two parties. In any event, the Crozier case has decided the issue for now.
    I again look to the Australian experience. There can be an agreement between the parties, and if there is a financial or property settlement which both parties agree will affect the maintenance award, they can specify how it is expected to affect that award. If it is lodged with the CSA for collection, that will be honoured. More important, if the parent with care ends up on benefit in the future and the CSA is making an assessment, it is possible to vary the assessment according to the recognition of the property transfer up to a maximum of 25 per cent.
    There is always room for argument, but there is virtue in that and it is at least something which we ought to consider. I was interested—I know that the Secretary of State will remember this—to re-read the White Paper "Children Come First" which was published on 29 October 1990. Paragraph 4.12 states:
    "There remains the issue of whether there should be some reduction in the formula award of child maintenance to reflect the fact that the absent parent has foregone permanently some or all of his share in the family home. If such reduction in the formula amount were to be permitted, the value of the reduction would he calculated by using standard accounting techniques for converting a lump sum into an equivalent weekly amount over a number of years."
    I draw attention to the fact that there is no suggestion in the White Paper that that was impractical or that there was some barrier which made it impossible. Clearly, it was an option in contemplation and the machinery, if it was to be implemented, was being outlined and defined.

    491
    The then Secretary of State for Social Security and the Lord Chancellor jointly produced that White Paper. Two months later, for reasons to which I am not party, that was not incorporated when the Bill was published. I believe now that it would have been sensible so to do. I have been told that it is not necessary to do that. I find those arguments perhaps the most implausible in this whole range of exchanges.
    The Minister says that if a parent has transferred a house or has settled a large financial sum on the parent with care, he is probably creating a situation in which he must buy another house. That is reflected in his housing costs, and therefore everything is all right and he has come out at least with justice and honour satisfied. I do not believe that is true in a financial or a property settlement. I need hardly say that an awful lot of people agree with that point of view.
    I do not often get annoyed with the Government's documents, or at least not in the way in which I did on this occasion. [Interruption.] There are exceptions when the personal authorship of a document sometimes riles me. On this occasion, I was rather miffed by paragraph 7.31 of the discussion paper on divorce law reform which we have before us. The document says that the CSA formula
    "takes account of each parent's income and essential outgoings at the time of assessment and, because it deals with the financial consequences of any property transfer, takes account of the practical outcome of 'clean break' settlements."
    I do not think that that can be justified or held to be true when we look at the practical reality.
    I cannot resist saying that I recommend that any hon. Member with an interest in the curious should read the Lord Chancellor's introduction. It must be the first time a Lord Chancellor has justified law reform by referring to what Jesus said to the Pharisees about Moses, as recorded by St. Mark. I cannot help thinking that the good Lord Mackay of Clashfern is remembering his roots.
    Be that as it may, the quotation which I have given does not stand analysis. Therefore, it is wrong to say that it is not necessary to consider clean break settlements. There are thousands of cases which testify to that up and down the country.
    My other argument—I will try to hurry this—is that the Minister commented on the Select Committee, and what it says in paragraph 74 of its report. The Committee has become the buckler and shield for the Minister in all the arguments and debates, and it is summoned twice to the aid of the party in the amendment to the motion. That is unfair, because it has been made clear that the Committee was making an interim report about the financial workings of the formula, and that it would return later to the matter in more depth. If we are praying in aid Select Committees, the Minister will certainly remember that, when the Bill was first published, the Select Committee on Social Security published two reports. Both argued that there must be a mechanism properly to reflect clean break settlements.
    The Minister spouted paragraph 74 of the current report. Even it says:
    "We can see no sensible way of attempting to place a current value on settlements made in the past in order to give some notional figure for current income which could be taken into account in the formula."
    That may be so, but it does not rule out some formula or arrangement of the type that I have mentioned, even at its most modest, to deal with settlements in the future.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): The hon. Gentleman missed the little bit before, which states:
    "Having examined the issue, we have to agree with the Minister."
    Mr. Dewar: No. I am sorry. I did not mean to be unfair. In his eagerness to find a lone supporter somewhere—a prop on which to lean—the Minister is building too much on the words that I am quoting. The report said:
    "Having examined the issue, we have to agree with the Minister."
    The issue in question is the paragraph that I quoted beginning, "We can see no sensible way". The Select Committee was referring to the difficulty of dealing with the past. On any reasonable interpretation of the text, it did not necessarily rule out the future.
    I leave the matter to the Minister. It is of great concern and one to which we should turn our minds, as I am sure the Select Committee will—collectively, I hope, not individually—at some future date.
    Mr. Thurnham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I point out that the report from the Committee is not an interim report? It is a first report and the duty of the Committee is to report "from time to time".
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is a matter for argument, not a point of order for the Chair.
    Mr. Dewar: I do not want to get into a barrack-room lawyers' argument with the hon. Gentleman. I fear that he would win that. If he wants some guidance on the matter, he should perhaps read the interesting speech made by the Chairman of the Committee in the Chamber last week. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would not obstruct a wish to have another look at the matter.
    I recognise the difficulties with a disregard. However, I believe that a disregard of some benefit for the purposes of maintenance should be considered and should be on the agenda. I said it last week and I shall repeat it. There is one overwhelming reason for it. Ministers proudly introduced the system as being about getting more money from more parents for more children. In fact and in practice, it is not. One of the difficulties is the notorious estimate that, of the first £530 million that was expected to be gathered—we understand that the expected figure is lower now, because of the changes that are being introduced, if nothing else -£480 million would go to the Treasury and only £50 million would go to families and children.
    Dr. Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Dewar: As the hon. Gentleman gave a speech that was so much on my side during last week's debate, I will give way.
    Dr. Spink: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the cost of a £10 a week disregard would be £340 million? The hon. Gentleman is a genuine man. Will he tell us two things? First, which taxes would he raise to meet that £340 million? Secondly, is he happy with the impact that the disregard would have in breaking up families?
    Mr. Dewar: I shall come to that in a moment. I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would repeat his points about the difficulties in his constituency and the unfairness of the system, but I suppose we have to live with these disappointments.

    493
    The children who are most economically deprived—those in families living on benefit—are the least likely to gain any advantage from the operation of the Child Support Agency. I do not believe that that was the intention of the system. I recognise that it is a matter of balance and that the Government and the taxpayers have a legitimate interest in reducing bills. However, the balance is wrong and many people will see it as wrong.
    The arguments are simple. One is that a disregard is unfair because it is something of a lottery whether the absent partner of Mrs. A is traced and pays. Mrs. B's partner may not be traced or, if traced, may not pay. So it is argued that it is unfair that one should be advantaged over the other. It seems an odd caricature of the position to argue for misery all round in order to preserve equality. If money is being paid, there is a strong moral case for saying that at least some advantage—however much goes to the Treasury and the taxpayer—should go to the children who are most economically at risk.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Dewar: I am sorry. I have given way to the hon. Lady on many occasions. I want to be fair and hurry on.
    I do not accept the disincentive for work argument. I recognise that it is a factor, but although a small disregard might be important cumulatively over a year, it would be a poor job if people were stopped from taking up work by a £5 or £10 disregard.
    The real argument is about cost. I do not believe that anyone has any doubt about the morality of helping the poorest families and children. I do not see the issue as a matter of tax, and the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) did. The Government make a decision about how the money gathered is split. They do not increase the total amount of money by refusing to allow a disregard. It is a matter of to what extent the Treasury is prepared to forgo some of the revenue collected to help children.
    Surely no one in the House will say that, in a system that is about the care of children and is supposed to be child centred and child based, there is not a case for considering a disregard and putting it on the agenda, especially in view of the figures that are emerging. The figure to which the hon. Member for Castle Point referred came from a parliamentary answer to a question that I tabled. I do not believe in dealing in generalities if I can get the information.
    The decision about a disregard depends on some difficult calculations and on the size of the disregard. The cost of a £5 disregard, which might still be of some importance, is £160 million or £170 million, according to the latest estimate. There are many variables. I am simply putting the issue on the table. The argument about a disregard is important and we should not sweep it aside in the way that Ministers could be tempted to do.
    In its recently published ninth report, the Social Security Advisory Committee said that it had examined the possibility of a disregard several times and believed that there was a case for a disregard. I have received representations from a range of opinion in favour of a disregard. At the end of the day, it boils down to bow we see the system, where the priorities lie and how we want to arrange these affairs. There is a strong case for putting children rather higher up the list of priorities than has been possible until now.
    494
    I regret what happened to the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bury, North when he was closing the previous debate. Hon. Members who were present will remember that he was cut short dramatically. He had just come to the pregnant phrase, "And now for the future", when the lights went out—metaphorically, you understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not literally. We did not learn about the future on that occasion and we were left to wait and wonder. We cannot afford to wait and wonder much longer. The issue will not go away. There is a justice deficit, and it has to be tackled.
    I have listened to what the Government have been saying. I have heard a selection of reassuring utterances, some of which offered a prospect of change. I draw one to the attention of the House because it is the most optimistic that I have heard, although it has not held the line. The Yorkshire Post of 27 January 1994 had a front-page story containing an interview with the Prime Minister, in which he said:
    "Where the operation of it"—
    the Child Support Agency—
    "was inadequate—as people believed it to be—we have sought to make changes. I hope we have got it right now. I can only repeat that we can't be certain. If it turns out not, we will have to look at it.
    That certainly suggested something of an opening and a softening of attitudes. I was particularly interested in the phrase
    "Where the operation of it was inadequate—as people believed it to be".
    It was as if there was now evidence that people no longer had that belief.
    I fear that if that is the Prime Minister's position, he is being over-optimistic. Since then, I am afraid that the evidence has turned against us. At Prime Minister's Quesion Time last week he said:
    "we stated that it would be kept under review. We are still true to that pledge—it still applies."—[Official Report, 3 February 1994; Vol. 236, c. 1019.]
    That is a ministerial form of words. I make no complaint about that, as every ministerial team uses it; it is a sort of placebo for worried Back Benchers. We are told that everything is under review—a good Government always keep their eye on developments. That is a way of putting off action, rather than promising early action or taking action that little bit earlier.
    The debates in the Lords yesterday, the interviews given today by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security and others and the amendment on the Order Paper hold out little hope for movement in the short term, but we need movement. We cannot wait and see. We do not have the time, nor has the system. If we do not act, consent—which is the foundation of the law—may be eroded. Without consent, the law becomes unenforceable. The problem is serious and Ministers have to recognise it as such.
    One day, a Tory who was sitting below the Gangway said, with great simplicity:
    "It has gone horribly wrong. We have got to put it right."
    I do not dissent from that view, and if it takes primary legislation and there is broad agreement on the principle behind such legislation, we will do everything to expedite it in the minimum time.
    Mr. Lilley: Is that a promise?
    Mr. Dewar: I can give the Secretary of State that promise. If he introduces legislation that commands general support, I am happy to say that we will be helpful; I hope that he will take that offer seriously.
    The motion is unashamedly narrow in focus; it does not have any general attack; and it is not decorated with political accusations of one sort or another. It states an important principle and restates what all hon. Members believe—that parents have a duty to maintain their children. The motion also welcomes the announced changes. I have repeatedly made it clear that I welcome them, despite my reservations about their scale. However, the motion also recognises that there is a problem, urges further reform and instances the need for an independent review procedure, which would go to the heart of the discontent—it is not the end of the list or the end of change, but it is a proper symbol of what we ought to be trying to do in the House and that is why it was included.
    It is never easy for Conservative Members to vote for a Labour motion on a Supply day, but if the motion is approved it will be a strong sign—perhaps even a direction to Ministers—that the mood of the House is for further reform and change. It would not be dishonourable for Conservative Members to approve the motion because they would be reflecting the mood of the country and the troubles and anxieties in every Member's constituency.
    The motion is fully justified and worthy of support. Many people will watch anxiously for a sign tonight that the House will not merely worry, agonise and do nothing. I hope that both sides of the House will support the motion, as it will have the support of people in every part of the country.
    6.22 pm
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    'welcomes the support of the all-party Select Committee on Social Security for the principles of the Child Support Act; reaffirms its own support for those principles, in particular that every parent has a duty to contribute to the maintenance of his or her child, that the amount of maintenance paid for children should be increased, and that the cost of bringing up children should fall on other taxpayers only if parents are unable to maintain their children themselves; recognises the inconsistency and arbitrariness of the previous court-based system, which gave insufficient priority to parental support of children and left many children on benefit; welcomes the important changes recently introduced by the Government in response to early experience of the new scheme and the Select Committee's report on its practical working; and approves the Government's intention to keep the arrangements under continuing close review as further experience is gained.'.
    I apologise for the slightly groggy tone of my voice. I applied to the BBC for an actor's voice-over, but was told that I would have to join Sinn Fein.
    I commend the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) for resisting the temptation to abandon his support for the Child Support Agency, which I know that some hon. Members will have tried to persuade him to do, and for the essentially non-partisan tone of his remarks today and when he has handled the issue previously. Although I must take issue with some of his points, despite the fact that this is an Opposition Supply day I shall respond in an equally non-partisan vein.
    This is too sensitive a matter for any of us to want to play politics. In any case, there is a wide measure of all-party agreement on the issue. The Act was passed with
    496
    all-party support and all parties agree on three key points. The first is the basic principle that parents are responsible for their children, that that responsibility continues even if, sadly, they should split up, and that the taxpayer should be involved only if the parents lack means to support them themselves.
    Secondly, none of us really wants to return to a system which failed—failed our children, failed the taxpayer and failed to uphold the principle of parental responsibility. There are about 1·3 million lone parents and 1 million of them depend on income support. Three in four receive not one penny of regular maintenance, many of the one in four with such an agreement are often paid late, irregularly, or not at all and the amounts are often inadequate and inconsistent.
    Sue Slipman, of the National Council for One Parent Families, put it very well recently when she said:
    "Before April last year, only 30 per cent. of lone parents got any maintenance for their children whatsoever in this country. Most of it was at derisory levels. And I will tell you what happened when you went to court to get someone to pay maintenance. Maybe he would turn up to the hearing. But maybe he wouldn't. And if he didn't it would be postponed for 6 months. You would then get a whole range of debts that would be presented and a whole range of other excuses for why maintenance could not be paid. You might then at the end of that get an order, and it might be paid for two to three weeks. No-one even enforced it, and no-one was ever interested. And as a result of that the experience of over 1.7 million children in this country was abandonment by one parent and a life in poverty with the other."
    Mr. Harry Barnes: The people who are contacting their Members of Parliament with detailed complaints are not the people whom the Minister is describing. They are respectable, responsible people who have always paid their maintenance, but who now find themselves in devastating circumstances because of the operation of the provision. What is to be done for them?
    Mr. Lilley: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We must distinguish between people who were not doing anything to meet their responsibilities and those who have been honourable throughout. We have tried to reflect that in our changes.
    Mr. Graham rose—
    Mr. Lilley: May I be allowed to make a little progress before I give way?
    Thirdly, we are all agreed that we want to make the Child Support Act 1991 work as Parliament intended when it was passed unopposed. We want to make it work fairly. We want to be fair to parents who care and to absent parents, to first and to second families, and to parents and taxpayers. Surely that is a common objective on both sides of the House.
    Mr. Graham: I have here all the letters that I have received from people who feel that they have been unfairly treated. They want an appeals procedure. Why does the Secretary of State not listen? He does not seem to understand that Opposition Members desperately want the right of appeal and review. We might then get some common sense.
    Mr. Lilley: I shall come to that matter in due course. We have tried to respond to the obvious concerns that all hon. Members have experienced in their surgeries. Obviously, one of the healthy aspects of our political

    497
    system is that we all have contact with our constituencies. Ministers also have direct experience of what their constituents are saying.
    We have said all along that we would keep the matter under review. We responded rapidly to the concerns voiced by Members of Parliament, which were considered by the Select Committee on Social Security and reflected in its well-thought-out recommendations. We rapidly introduced some important changes, which I shall come to shortly.
    I assure the House and my hon. Friends that we will keep the system under review. We will monitor it closely, will study how our reforms work and will respond to any new problems which emerge as a result of those changes.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the overriding problem is the scale of the change that parents have suddenly found themselves facing, for a range of reasons? The solution must be some easing of those circumstances. We have already had some helpful changes, but surely the mood of the House is that the process should be taken a stage further so that the system is perceived to be fair. Action of that kind would, I think, carry the House.
    Mr. Lilley: My analysis overlaps with that of my hon. Friend. We felt that we had to make some changes that would be reflected in the scale and speed of the impact. I shall be considering the changes—from which, of course, no one has yet benefited. Surely it is worth waiting to see how they work out and affect our constituents. That is what I shall spell out in a moment.
    Mr. Robert Jackson: My right hon. Friend has moved quickly to make some changes, and I accept that they ought to be given some time so that we may see how they work in practice. I hope that when my right hon. Friend discusses the further review that is mentioned in the Government amendment he will give some indication of the time scale involved. Indeed, he might even set a date. I hope that he will address also the question of the efficiency and responsiveness of the Child Support Agency bureaucracy, which is very unsatisfactory from the point of view of Members of Parliament and, a fortiori, much more unsatisfactory from the point of view of the clients.
    Mr. Lilley: We have demonstrated willingness to respond in a timely fashion to the need for change. That must be the best assurance that I can give hon. Members. It is better than setting out a specific time scale.
    With regard to the second point in my hon. Friend's intervention, I should say that it is clearly important that the agency be made to work effectively, efficiently and responsibly and that it be sensitive to the needs of those affected by it and take account of the concerns expressed, either directly or through Members of Parliament, by them. We have drafted in extra resources for the purpose of dealing with queries and complaints.
    However, it will be helpful if we can get the changes bedded down and under way. Continual change and turmoil will not help. The changes that are currently being introduced involve a major effort. If the agency were to suspend its normal operations every few months. for this purpose, that would not help in the provision of the sort of service that we all want.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Lilley: I should like to make a little more progress. I have no doubt that I shall be dealing with some of the points that hon. Members have in mind. In any case, I shall give way in a little while.
    I shall elaborate later on the changes that I have made. But it should be no surprise to anyone that the implementation of this legislation aroused opposition. Every similar agency in every other country—Australia, New Zealand, various states in the United States and Scandinavia—has met strong initial opposition from absent parents who have been asked to bear an increased share of the cost of supporting their children. But the fact that opposition is inevitable does not mean that it should be ignored—and we have not ignored it.
    Our task is to distinguish the genuine grievances and unintended consequences of the Act from an understandable reluctance to pay or to pay more. That is what I have tried to do, and I think that it is what the Select Committee tried to do. To be fair to the hon. Member for Garscadden, I have to say that he too has distinguished between, on the one hand, genuine and remedial concerns and, on the other hand, what he described last week as the inevitable problems and difficulties from which there is no escape.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: The Secretary of State will realise that my experience in this field is different from that of many other hon. Members. Half the cases with which I dealt at the last interview session in my constituency related to problems arising from the Child Support Agency. Some of the men I interviewed were in a quite distressed state. I am approached also by young, unmarried women with one or two children. I ask, "Who is the father? Who should be financially responsible?", and I am told, "I don't know where he is." Surely the Child Support Agency should be paying more attention to irresponsible young people rather than concentrating on people who are trying to meet their responsibilities.
    Mr. Lilley: That is a very good point. There is no doubt that the hostility towards the agency has been heightened by a number of misconceptions, concerning which I want to set the record right. There is a misconception about whether the agency is pursuing people who are not paying maintenance. We are certainly not pursuing only those who are already paying some. In a clear majority of all the cases that have been taken on so far, the absent parent is not paying a penny of regular maintenance and has not even agreed in principle to do so. In 96 per cent. of all cases so far, the child and the mother are living on benefit, yet the vast majority of absent fathers and any new family they may have are living significantly above that level, even after making any maintenance payment.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Secretary of Stae accept that if young unmarried mothers apply for a paternity suit in court the Child Support Agency holds up the process?
    Mr. Lilley: I should like to receive evidence of particular cases. That is certainly not necessarily the case.
    There is a third misconception. We are enjoying more success in tracking down absent fathers—men who have disappeared, leaving no address and making no contact. Indeed, the agency has been more successful than most people expected in tracing such people through national insurance numbers and information from Inland Revenue records. Indeed, in 90 per cent. of cases that we have

    499
    pursued so far—15,000 cases, in which there was absolutely no indication of where the fathers had gone—we have managed to track down the individuals.
    Hugh Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend have discussions with the Treasury about the ex-husband who creates a one-man company or a sole-trader organisation, thereby pushing the weekly expenses of his household above the line for accounting purposes, reducing the assessable income and depriving the former wife of support for her children?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend raised that matter in an Adjournment debate, and it is still being considered by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. It is always difficult to ensure that one has a proper income assessment in the case of a sole trader, but we have to do our best in the interests of fairness.
    There is a final misconception. It is that child support officers are paid a bonus related to the amount of money they secure from absent parents. Let me put the myth to rest. That is not true. Agency staff receive an element of performance-related pay in exactly the same way as do all other civil servants. That means that they are assessed by their line manager every year as to accuracy, adjudication, clearance times and service to customers. They are not assessed on the basis of how much money they have collected. There is no element of bounty-hunting. I hope that I have put the myth to rest.
    But even without those misapprehensions, there have been genuine concerns about the impact of the system. I decided that the best way to address the concerns and ease the position was not to elaborate the formula to accommodate specific concerns but to try to leave parents with more of their own money with which to cope with specific needs. The Select Committee reached the same conclusion.
    I have sought to tailor the easements that we are able to make to remove some of the roughest edges of the formula and to respond to some of the main areas in which there is a feeling of injustice with which one could sympathise. But it seemed that demands often fell too abruptly—particularly where people had second families and an existing maintenance agreement, which they expected, rightly or wrongly, to continue for the foreseeable future.
    So we have extended to all such families a phase-in period of up to 18 months. On a preliminary estimate, that should help a many as 100,000 absent parents over the next three years. Letters will go out this week and next to all those who have already received assessments and may benefit from that phase-in, telling them how they should apply for it.
    We have made three other permanent changes to the formula. They should help to reduce maintenance costs for 40 per cent. of absent parents who have so far received a maintenance assessment.
    Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one problem of perception is that, so far, we are seeing only cases where the women concerned are still on benefit and therefore see no direct result of the fact that the fathers of their children are paying an enhanced contribution for their responsibilities? We may come to a time when women who are not on benefit but on the borderline find that their maintenance is increased. If
    500
    we are not careful, we may then find that many people come to our surgeries asking why we are campaigning to reduce a formula that could have made all the difference to them and their children. If the change had been made in tandem with the benefit of hindsight, it might have been a different story.
    Mr. Lilley: Already, many women on benefit value and look forward to receiving their maintenance. It may lift them off dependency directly; if not, it provides them with stilts with which to walk away from benefit, because it is a portable benefit which they carry with them into work. That is extremely important.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Lilley: I shall come to that issue later, so hon. Members who wish to make points on it can do so then.
    Mr. Frank Field: Although it is important to think about how the reform will help hundreds of thousands of mothers in the long term, when their children are older and they can get work, the House and particularly the Secretary of State must deal with the short term. What the reform lacks is supporters.
    When we discussed in the House the specific proposal which the Secretary of State has mentioned, I argued against mothers on benefit being able to keep any of the money. I said that it would lessen the incentive to return to work, it was unfair on those whose children's fathers could not be traced, and so on. My hon. Friends the Members for Eccles (Miss Lestor) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) argued against me.
    The Government must accept the fact that most of the assessment forms to the millions of people affected have yet to be sent out. In the meantime, we must build up support for this reform in the country. The best way to do that would be to see whether mothers on benefit should keep a small part of the money paid. We must accept the fact that taxpayers have, primarily, been footing the bill, sometimes when they should not have been. We must be pragmatic about the matter. We shall be overwhelmed by fathers coming in to our surgeries. It will not be those who have never paid, because they will be too ashamed to turn up. It will be those who are paying and feel that they are getting a rough deal.
    Against that, we must build up a band of people who can see the value of this Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles was right from the word go and I was wrong. We should now seriously consider making that change.
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman has admitted to changing his mind. I am afraid that he has not convinced me that I should do so, and I shall explain why. Many people already know that they are benefiting from this system. Although they have not been vocal, my fear is that, once they realise that the changes that we are making will reduce correspondingly their entitlement to maintenance just as it reduces the maintenance obligation of the absent father, they will become more vocal. There will then be a redressment in the public's perception of the matter.
    That is already beginning to show in newspaper correspondence columns. A letter in the Today newspaper said:
    "I have even experienced my ex-husband saying on TV how unfair the system is to him and his new wife. The maintenance he pays for this two teenage sons is only fractionally more than the hire purchase repayments on his new hi-fi equipment."

    501
    The woman values that maintenance because she is on income support.
    Mr. Dewar: This is an important aspect. Will the Secretary of State consider the statistic that he gave? Although it will change to an extent, he said that 96 per cent. of parents with care are currently on income support. That will not change dramatically because we know that 70 per cent. of lone parents are on income support. There is a strong case for saying that we do not want to unbalance the argument by listening only to the absent parent lobby, but it would help the majority of people in the system—parents with care—if we included a modest disregard. For many absent parents, it would also give more point to the process of paying if they knew that some benefit would go to the families in whose name the system was introduced.
    Mr. Lilley: The 96 per cent. includes some mothers and parents with care who are on family credit rather than income support. There, a disregard exists because it acts as an incentive to work. It has the perverse effect of a disregard given to those on income support, as well as substantially reducing the benefits to the other beneficiaries from the system, whose interests should not be ignored—the taxpayers. They may be bringing up their families on incomes far less than those whose second families they are contributing to through the tax system.
    After phasing in, my next priority was to ensure that people on modest income should not feel that it was barely worth their while working once they had paid maintenance. That is why I have sharply increased the level of protected income. We have quadrupled the margin above income support level at which the floor is set. That means an extra £22 a week for many absent parents. We are allowing them to keep 15 per cent. of income above that level before paying maintenance. That goes beyond anything requested in the Select Committee's report.
    At the other end of the spectrum, I was concerned about some of the large maintenance payments sometimes demanded. Those can come about only as a result of the additional payment element. That is the share of assessable income over and above what is necessary and sufficient to pay enough maintenance to lift the child off income support. I am reducing that from a flat rate of 25p in the pound to just 15p in the pound for people with only one previous child; 20p if they have two; and 25p for those with three or more.
    The other major change is the reduction in the carer's cost once the youngest child reaches secondary school age. It will be reduced by a quarter at the age of 11; by half at the age of 14; and it disappears entirely at the age of 16. That could help 130,000 absent parents a year, and every absent parent will benefit in due course as his or her children get older.
    Some people have said that the basic £44 a week carer element is too high when the children are very young. But when we offer a £40 disregard in family credit for the cost of looking after chidren, the same people say that the amount is far too low. They cannot have it both ways. It costs money to look after children and someone must pay for it. In the first instance, it should be the parents concerned.
    I have included two other changes in the package. Henceforth, we shall include the entire cost of endowment mortgages up to £60,000, rather than trying to extract the with-profits element, which many people resented and
    502
    which was also an administrative hassle that slowed up the process of assessment. We are also remitting the collection fee where the agency does not collect money it is paid direct.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: One of the more tragic aspects of this legislation is the fact that families are now arguing whereas previously they did not argue, which is causing many problems for children. Moreover, families are arguing and children are suffering as a result.
    Another effect is this. I have talked to contract construction workers in my constituency. They talk about going on the black economy. We do not like that. We oppose it and do not want it to happen. Others talk about emigrating. Were all those factors considered when the legislation was introduced? If the overall impact at the end of the day is that families further deteriorate, surely there must come a point where Ministers begin to consider the whole legislation, and whether in principle it should be retained.
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman, who is an assiduous legislator, for which I give him credit, will have to tell us whether he considered any of those matters when the Bill was proceeding through the House. As to the black economy, he may be interested to know that, since the legislation was introduced, early evidence suggests that one of the successful consequences is that a number of people who were claiming income support withdrew their claim for it once their case was taken up by the agency and maintenance sought for them. One must assume that some were perhaps living with the alleged absent father—we call such cases collusive desertion—were living with someone else or were working and claiming at the same time. It is a benefit that such cases have been exposed. There are fewer of them now.
    The overall impact of the changes is far more significant than many people realise. No one has yet experienced that benefit, but large numbers will soon experience a welcome reduction in their maintenance obligation. Let me give an example of how it will help in one or two specific cases. Take a father who is on £15,000 a year gross income, which works out at about £200 a week net after he has paid tax, national insurance contributions and half his pension contribution.
    Suppose that he has one 12-year-old child by his former marriage, to whom he was paying £5 under a court order. He has remarried, and has a stepchild and a child of his own. Under the CSA rules prior to the changes, he would ultimately have had to pay £39 a week. Now, because of the changes that we have made, his maximum payment will be just £18 a week. So the new regulations will save him £21 a week.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the Secretary of State give way on a relevant point?
    Mr. Lilley: I should like to finish this point.
    If the same parent had twice the income—net weekly earnings of £400, or about £30,000 a year gross—and a £20 court order, he would have had to pay up to £111 a week before the changes. He will now benefit from phasing in and pay just £40 in the first six months, rising in £20 steps to a maximum of £87—a saving of nearly £24 a week. The agency is starting to implement those changes now. Last weekend it began the computer scan of all

    503
    existing cases. Tens of thousands of people will receive lower assessments as a result of the formula changes in the next few days. In addition, those who may benefit from phasing will receive a letter shortly about the new arrangements. I believe that there will be a significant shift in the atmosphere as the changes filter through.
    I shall now deal with the specific proposals of the hon. Member for Garscadden. He called particularly for a discretionary appeal mechanism. That was considered as the original proposals went through Parliament. I believe that the Select Committee considered it, too. It decided against, because it would lead us back to precisely the problems that we experienced before under a discretionary system.
    Of course, we have given parents the right to opt for a second tier review, by another officer, to ensure that their case has been properly handled. But that officer does not have discretion to override the formula. The trouble is that if anybody—be it a court or administrator—is given the discretion to transfer the cost of child maintenance to the taxpayer, people will increasingly resort to that. That is what happened under the court-based system. Any open-ended review will amount to a return to the system that clearly failed us as a whole.
    The list of items that can be given priority over the parents' duty to their children will be progressively lengthened. I recall a case that was in the newspapers a little while ago of a lady whose case was taken under the court system. The court gave priority over the cost of maintaining the children that she was looking after—those of her former husband—and gave precedence to the cost of his holiday in Bermuda and the cost of his pet food. I believe that children are more important. Indeed, they are the top priority.
    Mr. Derek Enright rose—
    Mr. Lilley: I shall make a little more progress, as I have been rather slow.
    New Zealand has allowed appeal to the court to override the formula—albeit on what they thought would be restricted grounds. Huge numbers have resorted to it. The courts have been swamped, and the system seems to have become unworkable and is having to be reviewed. The hon. Member for Garscadden holds up the Australian system as a model. That is very far from allowing a review body discretion to override the formula in the light of circumstances that the rules might not have foreseen.
    On the contrary, the Australian system allows adjustments in only a few highly specific and foreseen circumstances. Indeed, the Australian Government have made it clear that the whole purpose is to limit the use of discretion and to uphold the integrity of the formula.
    In a recent report that they gave to their Select Committee, the Australian Government said:
    "The child support legislation provides certain specified grounds for departure from formula assessment. These grounds are based on certain costs and are deliberately and closely prescribed. This is to ensure that the integrity of the formula is preserved and that there is not a reversion to a highly discretionary process for determining child support amounts based on the views and values of an individual judge, or an individual child support officer. That is important in protecing fiscal savings and the taxpayers' interests."
    Mr. Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the system and the formula in Australia is far cruder than the system in this country, and that one of the reasons why they have a right of appeal is to deal with that problem? In this country we have a much more sophisticated approach through the CSA.
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The formula in Australia is based on the gross income of two years ago. It makes no specific allownace for tax, national insurance, pension or housing costs. Nor does it set a floor of protected income for second families, let alone stepchildren. The main task of the Australian system of overrides is to adapt their formula to take account of many of the features that are automatically assessed by our formula. Their overrides can be more limited than what we provide for automatically.
    For example, in Australia, an absent parent will have to ask to have his child support reduced to take account of his housing costs. He may well not succeed. We provide automatically for housing costs in our formula. Nor does the Australian system allow any appeal for travel-to-work costs, any more than ours does.
    Another factor that the hon. Member for Garscadden failed to mention about the Australian system is that, on balance, it increases the burden on absent parents, raising maintenance awarded to the mother with care. Fewer than half of fathers' appeals are upheld, but nearly 90 per cent. of mothers' appeals are granted. Moreover, reductions in maintenance costs awarded to absent fathers result in only a £5 a week diminution. Yet increases awarded to the mother average three times as much.
    It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that he wants an appeal system, but would strictly limit the grounds of entry. He thereby holds out to everybody the hope that their special circumstances would be taken into account. Yet in his fine print he admits that most would be excluded. Until he is forthcoming about the grounds on which the formula could be overridden, he is trying to sell us a pig in a poke.
    Mr. John Spellar: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Australian system is not retrospective? That question goes to the root of most of the problems that we encounter in our surgeries.
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, and the Opposition have no proposals to change the current arrangements in that regard.
    Sir Jim Spicer: Few hon. Members want an open-ended appeal system; but we have all encountered several cases that no formula would fit. People on both sides of such cases are unhappy, and they desperately need to be catered for. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that such difficult cases will be dealt with sympathetically? Will he also assure me—I know that such an assurance has already been given, but it is worth asking for it again—that the entire process will be kept under review continually? The current system has been operating for only six months; it will take a long time for it to settle down, and for the rough edges to be smoothed.
    Mr. Lilley: I hope very much that many of the cases that have caused us most concern will benefit from the changes. I repeat that we will keep the system under review, and examine cases brought to us by hon. Members to ensure that we have got it right.
    Mr. Enright: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Lilley: I have given way a few times already; this is not Question Time.
    The hon. Member for Garscadden mentioned the clean break principle. He rightly reaffirmed that there cannot be, never has been and should not be a clean break between parents and children: the courts have never accepted that, and the Crozier case confirmed the point. It was stated at the time of that case that, precisely because it had always been possible for both parents and the Department of Social Security to seek changes in maintenance orders, no fundamental change had been made in that respect; the only alteration had been in the mechanism whereby maintenance assessments were updated, in connection with recipients on income support.
    The asessment relating to the applicant in the Crozier case, in fact, had been increased as a result of a DSS application under the old system. It happened then, and it can happen now. [Interruption.] The statement did not apply solely to that case; its import was that, because the possibility existed, the position was as the judge decided it had to be.
    The hon. Member for Garscadden suggested that we should adopt the Australian system, because it would allow a reduction of up to 25 per cent. in maintenance assessments to take account of the impact of property transfers between husband and wife as part of a clean break settlement. Under our system, it is possible to secure a larger reduction: if an absent father earning, say £20,000 a year transfers his £40,000 equity in the jointly owned house, and must therefore take out a further £40,000 mortgage to house himself subsequently, our formula—taking account of the effect on his housing costs—may reduce his maintenance assessment by more than 25 per cent. I agree with the findings of the Select Committee, which specifically stated that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was right: our formula could not take account of the impact clean break settlements in a better way.
    I have already dealt, essentially, with the hon. Gentleman's proposal for a disregard. According to him, a £10-a-week disregard would cost the taxpayer £340 million. Every penny would come from the taxpayer, and not a penny would go towards helping the absent parents who are responsible for the problems that we now encounter in our surgeries; perversely, such a move would create an incentive for parents to split up by increasing the amount that they would receive as a result of such action, relative to the amount received by parents who stayed together, and would also create a disincentive to work.
    Maintenance is valuable to mothers even when it does not directly remove their dependence on benefit, it provides them with the stepping stone back to work that many of them want. We have responded rapidly to problems that the whole House has recognised, having considered the well-thought-out proposals of the Select Committee. I believe that the impact of the changes that we have made will be far greater than many hon. Members perceive; but we need to let those changes take effect. We must be careful to ensure that we do not empty our surgeries of angry absent fathers, and fill them with angry mothers who have been left to care for their children.
    We have shown our willingness to respond to problems. We will fulfil the promise that the Prime Minister and I have made and will continue to keep the system under
    506
    close review. I believe, however, that the changes should be allowed to bed down. We will keep the system under review, having given a gauge of our good intentions and our willingness to respond when difficulties emerge. I hope that the House will take this opportunity to reaffirm its support for the underlying principles of an Act that passed through the House unopposed, and—I believe—retains the support of the majority of British people.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Hon. Members will be aware that the 10-minute rule is now operating. I urge them to speak even more concisely, to earn the gratitude of others.
    7 pm
    Mr. Nigel Jones: Of course I accept the underlying principles of the Child Support Act 1991; but Liberal Democrats welcome the chance to debate the issue again, especially in view of the Minister of State's wholly inadequate response last week.
    Like many other hon. Members, since last summer I have received what has seemed to be a never-ending stream of visitors to my weekly surgeries—people complaining of the workings of the Child Support Agency. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux regards 1,000 evidence forms a year on any one subject as a sign that something is pretty seriously wrong; on this subject, it received 290 evidence forms in October, and 430 in November. That suggests that something is indeed seriously wrong, and that the Act requires a fundamental review.
    Mr. Heald: During last week's debate on the new regulations, the Liberal Democrat spokesman said that his party would support the Government. When it came to the vote, that did not happen. What is the party's position today? What changes should be made? Tell us.
    Mr. Jones: I shall come to that later. As for my party's reason for opposing the Government, the Minister of State had given a totally inadequate response: when asked about the future, he did not reply, so we decided to register our protest.
    The spell-checker on my word processor rejects the initials "CSA", suggesting an alternative. It must be American, because its proposed alternative is "CIA". Some of those affected by the workings of the Child Support Agency have thought up some interesting names of their own, including some not very polite ones—for instance, "Complete Shambles Agency" and one that I particularly deplore, "Lilley's Gestapo".
    When the issue was first debated in 1991, my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said that he considered the concept that parents should be responsible for their children's maintenance "entirely unexceptionable". That is still the case; we support the principles behind the Act. My hon. Friend, however, was worried by the possibility that the DSS had adopted what he described as a "somewhat knee-jerk approach", pointing out:
    "Civil servants will always look for a quick administrative fix, but in doing so they may create difficulties for the child support officers for which the Bill provides".—[Official Report, 4 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 211.]
    How right he was. It is symptomatic of recent legislation that we are constantly debating, and the Government are

    507
    constantly amending legislation that was enacted only in the past few years, or, in the case of the Child Support Act, the past few months.
    Much of the debate on the Child Support Act in the House and outside has focused on the problems of fathers faced with high demands for maintenance.
    There is a fundamental problem with the modern Conservative party: it underrates the amount that people can pay in taxation, and overrates with equal consistency the amount that people can afford out of the other pocket, which is labelled private.
    The alleged Labour tax bombshell in the 1992 general election was £1,250 a year. My noble Friend Earl Russell has an interesting formula: when he hears of someone's maintenance assessment being increased by £2,800 a year, he says that his assessment has been increased by 2·3 bombshells. When the Leader of the Opposition was shadow Chancellor, had he proposed to increase people's taxes by £2,800 a year, the Conservative party would have gone apoplectic and used the term "tax holocaust".
    At the last general election, the Liberal Democrats proposed increasing tax by 1p to pay for better education. One of my constituents has had his maintenance increased to 150 per cent. of his income tax. I cannot imagine what Conservative Central Office would have said if the Liberal Democrats had proposed a tax rate of 37·5 per cent.
    The amounts being demanded by the Child Support Agency will have to come down. No one should be expected to pay more maintenance than income tax. There are many worthy causes for complaint and we have heard some examples today, but we cannot escape the fact that having families is an expensive business. I have three demanding children so I know about that. Maintaining two families is even more expensive. Because of or perhaps despite that, the difficult obligations of fathers must not become more important than the rights of children. We must not lose sight of the fact that children must come first.
    The Government must act once and for all to bring about a fundamental review to clear up the problems surrounding the Child Support Agency. They must make clear tonight exactly what they plan to do. Shilly-shallying and saying that they plan to keep it closely under review are just weasel words. Too many families are suffering.
    Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire warned that the Government risk losing all-party support not for the fundamental principles of the Act but for the operation of the Act if they refuse to take prompt action. The Liberal Democrats are one step away from calling for the Act to be scrapped and for a fresh start.
    The Government can save money in other ways. They should make a serious attempt to help marriages survive. It is a staggering fact that at some time in their lives, 50 per cent. of children under 16 will live in a home without both biological parents.
    Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, in one of the bluntest speeches I have ever heard from him—he is normally a mild-mannered man of the Clark Kent newspaper reporter variety—said that there would have to be a properly funded conciliation service. Organisations such as Relate are scratching around for money to provide counsellors for those whose relationships are in difficulty.
    Proper child care services and nursery education might
    508
    help to save marriages and remove the need for the CSA to step in. Research in the United States shows that every dollar spent on nursery education is worth seven dollars later.
    The Social Security Select Committee has already suggested several changes to the Act and the Government have implemented 3·5 out of 13. The Government must allow greater flexibility in the formula. It is simply not possible to put people in the straitjacket of a formula and expect the right results every time. We are dealing with human beings, and all individuals are different. We have all heard of ludicrous demands being made on absent parents who do not have sufficient disposable income.
    Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Jones: No. I have given way before and as there is a 10-minute limit on speeches, I shall not give way again.
    Absent parents who have made a commitment to their children in non-pecuniary ways, risk losing touch with their children because the cost of travel is not taken into account.
    What will happen to the clean break settlements entered into in good faith by both parties. Since the Child Support Act, clean break settlements are effectively dead, yet when relationships break down, it is often in the interests of children that they can remain in the same home and school and keep the same friends. The Government should compare the system with that in Australia.
    What about travel-to-work costs? Surely the formula has to include an assessment of disposable not gross income. Travel-to-work costs bite deeply into people's available income. The Government must make a choice either to treat as allowable expenses certain activities they do not wish to stop—and I suggest that they should encourage people to go to work—or they must accept that some people will give up such activities.
    Each case is different and the effect on second partners cannot be overstated. There is bound to be animosity between first and subsequent partners. Why does not the Department of Social Security talk to the Inland Revenue? It would be another way of saving money. Most of the information about the income and outgoings of a household is held by the Inland Revenue and computers are clever enough to avoid the unnecessary duplication of form filling demanded by the CSA. Why should taxpayers pay for the CSA to investigate absent parents who are on income support?
    The Child Support Act was and remains right in principle, but it is turning out to be a disaster in practice. Tonight the Minister must promise fundamental reform, or he will damage families and children alike. I know of a six-year-old child in my constituency—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
    7.11 pm
    Mr. Robert Hicks: Like the majority of my parliamentary colleagues who were Members of Parliament in 1991, I supported the legislation. We all knew about unfortunate cases involving women who were desperate because they could get no satisfaction or payment of maintenance through existing court procedures. They were unhappy about the previous arrangements, and understandably so. As a consequence

    509
    the Government were right to introduce measures designed to correct a social injustice about which we all agree, irrespective of where we sit in the Chamber.
    I accept the principles underlying the new system. Both parents should be responsible for maintaining their children and the state should be involved only when parents do not have the means to support those children. Having supported the legislation and the creation of the Child Support Agency, I am disappointed by the adverse practical effects.
    All Members of Parliament receive scores of representations—[Interruption.] Some of my hon. Friends say, "No." I can speak only for the south-west. During the past six months, the volume of representations to me has been almost as high as those on animal welfare. That may not be significant outside, but it certainly is among my parliamentary colleagues.
    There is no doubt that people are anxious and annoyed. To be as fair and objective as possible, I should add that, although the majority of those representations come from constituents who feel aggrieved at the new financial arrangements, they are not alone. I have also received complaints from single mothers about the response, or the lack of response, from the CSA in chasing up errant fathers. That is the very set of circumstances that we were led to believe, when the legislation passed through the House in 1991, would be the prime target of the CSA.
    It is also relevant, on the basis of my constituency experience, that some of the alleged errant fathers are employed by organisations such as Her Majesty's armed forces, so the CSA should have no problems associated with identification and location in those situations.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hicks: No; I have only 10 minutes.
    It would be fair to conclude that far too many people feel aggrieved. What is more—I have to agree with the sentiments that were expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—regrettably, people are experiencing an increasing loss of confidence in the operation of the CSA as a result of the way in which it has treated people whom all of us would regard as responsible and mature members of society.
    Ministers must accept that the majority of complaints that I have received are genuine ones from individuals who not only pay their first wives on the basis of a court decision or mutually agreed private arrangement, but are attempting, in many instances, to establish a second relationship—a new life—with a second wife. Many of them have children of that second union. Of course, many of them, when breaking up with their first wife or partner, agreed a clean break solution, or what was perceived to be a clean break solution, between partners. We recognise, attempting to be objective about that situation, that there was always recourse to the courts in respect of the level of child maintenance payments.
    The sad fact is that in certain instances the second permanent relationship, which may include children of that union, is placed in jeopardy, not only in financial terms but in personal terms.
    Mrs. Gorman indicated dissent.
    Mr. Hicks: My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) says from a sedentary position that that is
    510
    not true. If she sits with me next Saturday week in my surgery in Callington, she will have tangible evidence to the contrary.
    The danger to the second relationship must be avoided. I believe, therefore—to return to the sentiments of the hon. Member for Garscadden—that it is incumbent on all hon. Members, since we are all in this together, to find a satisfactory way forward.
    How do we do that? First, we should change the formula for assessing child maintenance levels. Whatever may have been said by Ministers hitherto, it is evident to me that in its application it is too rigid and restrictive. The protected income element should be widened in some way. It should be remembered that in many instances the previous settlement was acceptable to both parents. We have all been told about the situation in which basic household costs—items such as travel-to-work costs and certain arrears and debts—are not included in the present assessment. There is therefore a strong case for extending the application of the assessment formula by including other regular financial commitments.
    Secondly, in order to restore confidence in the whole system—whatever Ministers may say tonight—the Government's amendment says that they will continue to monitor the situation carefully; they must not dismiss now all possibilities for amending the existing arrangements, whether it be widening the formula or considering the question of some reference or appeal procedure. I hope that, when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State winds up, he will confirm that that is the Government's intention.
    We must not rule out the possibility of introducing some type of review procedure. Any review officer, in my judgment, would also have to have some powers of discretion to bring a more human and sensitive dimenstion to the existing formula. Whatever may be said by some of my Conservative colleagues, in my judgment the present system is too mechanistic. I look to the Minister to introduce at some stage modifications that bring a greater sensitivity and understanding to what are delicate, and often sad, human situations.
    7.20 pm
    Mr. Denzil Davies: I wish to reflect the indignation, resentment and anger of many of my constituents at the Child Support Agency adn the legislation that begat it. One could mention many arguments, but in 10 minutes they could not all be included, so I will mention merely a few.
    First, the fathers who have come to my surgeries and whom I have also met at meetings are not absent fathers. They resent being described as "absent fathers". They have legal access to their children. They exercise their rights of access; they love their children; they pay their maintenance payments, whether they are voluntary or court-imposed agreements; they take their children out, usually at weekends; they buy them presents and clothes; and they try to do their best, in difficult circumstances, for their children.
    It may seem an insignificant point, but I hope that Ministers will stop referring to my constituents—the people I have met—as "absent fathers". They are not absent fathers. They try to look after their children. Let us

    511
    not draw any moral conclusions as to the reasons why there are two families. We have learnt enough about that during the past few weeks not to moralise on those matters.
    Secondly, this is not a men versus women issue, as a writer in The Guardian tried to imply the other day—The Guardian, as we know, is out of touch about those matters. Most of the men who visit me are accompanied by their second wife. Most of the meetings that I have attended have been represented almost 50:50 by men and women. The second wife is often deeply resentful because she is a human being and a person in her own right.
    As a result of the patterns of employment in the country, often she not only works but also earns more money than her husband. In constituencies such as mine, many are professional women. They therefore resent being hounded, as they see it, by the Child Support Agency. They also resent finding that up to one third of their income can be taken into account in making the assessment.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: The Secretary of State quoted the example of a man with an income of £15,000 who would be helped by the changes in the review. However, if he had a new wife who had part-time earnings of £60 a week, he would be no better off.
    Mr. Davies rose—
    Mr. Lilley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Davies: I must continue. I have only 10 minutes.
    Such women resent the fact that apparently up to one third of their income can be taken into account and, in effect, aggregated. They have been brought up under successive Conservative Chancellors who, in the taxation system, have made it clear that women should be taxed independently; that there should be disaggregation of income.
    They understand their income as being their own, yet they find now that their income, or some of it, has to be taken into account. They resent the intrusion into their privacy when the Child Support Agency asks them for their income.
    Several Hon. Members indicated dissent.
    Mr. Davies: It is no good Conservative Members shaking their heads. If they will not give their income, a deemed income is estimated in order to get to the one third. Those are independent women, who work for their family and who resent the intrusion into their privacy that the legislation imposes on them.
    My third worry is the element of retrospection. I am old-fashioned and I remember debates in the House when all parties agonised over retrospective legislation, not only in the case of the liberty of the subject but in property arrangements, taxation and other spheres. The modern Conservative party has thrown the rule of law out of the window. Such issues are no longer matters of concern to modern Conservatives. It is extraordinary that I should have to remind Conservative Ministers that retrospective legislation that overthrows property arrangements and agreements is apparently acceptable.
    Proudhon would have been proud of the Secretary of State, who is apparently a right-wing Member of the Government. He understands property matters, but he
    512
    stood at the Dispatch Box to defend retrospective legislation that overturns not only private property arrangements but arrangements imposed by and pronounced in a court of law.
    One of my constituents understands the situation very well. He told me that, at the end of the day, he did not mind having to pay what a judge told him to pay. He had been to court and sat through an inquiry which cost him £4,000. It was a traumatic experience for him and his ex-wife, but the judge pronounced. He resented the fact that a civil servant, in accordance with a mere formula, could overturn the arrangement and tell him what he should pay.
    Does the Secretary of State know of any other administrative agency that transfers money from one private citizen to another?
    Mr. David Shaw: The Inland Revenue.
    Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman has been making stupid comments from a sedentary position for a while, and he is getting even more stupid. The Inland Revenue does not transfer money from one private citizen to another; it transfers money to an individual or takes money from an individual.
    I repeat my question: do the Secretary of State or the Minister know of any administrative agency—not a court of law—that orders one private citizen to transfer his money to another private citizen?
    Mr. Burt rose—
    Mr. Shaw: I have only 10 minutes. I am sure that the Minister will get a note from a civil servant; he can reply then.
    The Government have imposed a monster—
    Mr. Burt rose—
    Mr. Davies: I am not giving way.
    Mr. Burt rose—
    Mr. Davies: I am not giving way. The Minister of State will have half an hour in which to wind up the debate but I have only 10 minutes.
    Mr. Burt: I am not a Minister of State.
    Mr. Davies: No, and I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman ever will be, after today's debate.
    Fourthly, I deal with travel to work, which is not a problem only in the south-east. A constituent of mine who is a lorry driver came to see me. At 4 am every day, he has to drive to a lorry park to pick up his lorry. His travel-to-work costs are 50 per cent. of his net take-home pay. There is no way he can afford what he is supposed to pay under the new child support arrangements, and pay to get to work to earn the money in the first place. It is ridiculous to suggest that the problem applies only to the south-east.
    The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), who mentioned the Inland Revenue, is knowledgeable about tax matters. If an individual can prove that his expenditure is fully justified, I do not understand why it cannot be allowed against his assessment, as happens with the Inland Revenue's calculations.
    I end by referring again to my constituent, who resented being told by civil servants how much he would have to pay. He is not a professional person, but an ordinary working man. He queried whether the system—the

    513
    intrusion on his privacy, the overthrowing of arrangements, the spying on people, the overturning of court agreements and the lack of an appeal or hearing—were very British. I am sorry but I had to say that, after 14 years of arrogant government under the Tories, it seems to have become a very British system. It is a system that flies in the face of the rule of law.
    Mr. Heald: The Opposition voted for it.
    Mr. Davies: But the Conservative party is the party of government, and it has to do something about it.
    If the Secretary of State thinks that this issue will go away, he is making a big mistake. The system is fundamentally flawed and will have to be changed. If it is not, it will probably bring down the Government and the Tory party.
    7.34 pm
    Mr. Richard Alexander: The Child Support Act 1991 has benefited some people—for example, lone mothers whose male partners have not supported them in the past, but have deserted them and been traced, and are now being made to pay proper maintenance for their child or children. However, for others the Act has become a bureaucratic nightmare, with which hon. Members, legal advisers and others are unable to deal. Unless something is done, I fear that the beneficial aspects of the Act will be far outweighed by the hardship that it is inducing in many people.
    Legal advisers are telling their clients that they cannot understand the elaborate formulae that have been devised. They can tell them, however, that there is no appeal against the CSA's findings—only a review conducted by the very civil servants who made the assessment in the first place. It is not in accordance with natural justice that the assessment of child maintenance should be completely removed from the courts and applied by civil servants in accordance with ever-changing rules. Nor does it seem fair that CSA decisions can be retrospective.
    I am aware that the clean break settlements between the parties can never be clean breaks for the children. I am also aware that too many fathers were leaving their children dependent on income support. I do not resile from that. However, when civilised arrangements have been made between parties to a former marriage, often sanctioned by the courts, it is wrong and unfair that those arrangements should be wholly ignored when calculating what is proper for a parent to pay for the maintenance of a child.
    Civil servants now substitute their judgments for those of the parties and the courts—not for future cases, which would be understandable, but for past cases, in which parties have lived for many years under the arrangements. Those arrangements have been made within the law and often have the sanction of the law.
    I have had to deal with many cases relating to the CSA. There have been many such cases in my constituency, but perhaps not so many in the constituencies of colleagues who are happier with the way in which the Act is working. No one has questioned the need for the Act, but, in every case with which I have dealt, the couple—it is usually a couple, not only a father—have said that the pendulum has swung too far against so-called absent fathers, and that there is very little fairness in the way the system operates.

    As the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said, it is often unfair to describe these fathers as "absent"
    514
    fathers. They try to maintain close relationships with their children, but those relationships are being made more difficult by the demands of the CSA.
    I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) to accept that we have to allow second families to live decently. It is not only the children of first marriages whom we must look after—second families must live decently, too. We must be more compassionate in calculating a father's protected income.
    These days, the mobility of labour means that travel-to-work costs must be taken into account. Certainly in my constituency it is often difficult to find work without travelling away from home. Travel-to-work costs, the costs of travelling to see one's children who are often in distant parts, the insurance on a second home, the council tax and water rates are all essentials in a second marriage. They are not luxuries. Because the assessment is so high, many parents also believe that the costs even of employing a child minder should be taken into account as essential.
    I have been dismayed to be told by fathers about the way in which they have been treated by the CSA. They have reported indifference, rudeness and smart alick answers. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that civil servants are encouraged to show more humanity than they have hitherto shown to many of my constituents? Unless we tackle the way in which people are dealt with, we shall have produced a system that is inhumane and builds up resentment, which will not be easily forgotten. It is often the decent parent who is penalised under the regulations. Violent partners often escape, as women whose former partners were violent are not obliged to name them.
    Parents have said that the Child Support Act 1991 is squeezing them, even when they have usually done everything to maintain their financial and emotional links with their children. The result is an enormous strain on second marriages. I urge hon. Members and the Minister not to be blind to the unacceptable pressure that swingeing, unfair demands place on second marriages. Taking any of the second wife's income into account penalises someone with no responsibility for the children of the first marriage.
    I support the Government's proper concern for the children of the first marriage, but I doubt their lack of obvious care and compassion for the effects on children of the second marriage. I am anxious that my right hon. Friend should be aware of that. We can all accept the broad aims of the Act—there has been little dispute about that across the Chamber—but it will not save money for the taxpayer if its operation breaks second unions and encourages fathers to give up their work and their family responsibilities.
    Many of those who have been to see me say that that is what they will probably have to do—and that is not an empty threat. We must not create clear financial advantages for people to be feckless and unemployed, and stay single rather than marry, if there are children from a first marriage.
    I support the ideas and aims of the Act, but my charge relates to its unfairness, unpredictability, retrospection and lack of an appeal mechanism. Another serious charge is that it may discourage many men from marrying for a second time, and thus increase the number of never-married single parents. I urge my right hon. Friend to give greater thought to many of those implications, and to do so soon.
    7.43 pm
    Mrs. Audrey Wise: The Act imposes punitive assessments on non-resident parents and, in the overwhelming majority of cases, resolutely refrains from passing on any maintenance to the parent with care. It causes turbulence in the lives of countless children of first and second families. Families who have come through bitter times to reach an uneasy peace are thrown back into the melting pot, causing turbulence.
    If the Act were really about children, first and foremost it would consider the roof over the head of the child. The Act does no such thing; it endangers the roof over the head of the child. The Minister cast much scorn on clean break settlements, but they were proposed and, indeed, encouraged by courts and by the Government in 1984 to preserve homes. That was a worthy objective.
    The Secretary of State said that that objective was still taken into account because the parent's next mortgage would be taken into account. But not all non-resident parents have another mortgage. Some of them rent and some live with relations. The housing costs of those who live with relations are not even counted. The housing benefit of their relation, however, is deducted. The Government try to have it both ways.
    I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) that the retrospective element should be removed. In the future, it should be possible to make a notional calculation of equivalent income if a capital settlement is made to preserve the children's home. That is particularly important in view of the ferocious attacks made on the housing rights of lone parents by the Government. Under the Act, children may lose their homes, but not even have the rights of homeless families.
    The punitive assessments do not count travel-to-work costs. Much has been said by Conservative Members about that and I agree with their comments. There is one danger; I would not like the Secretary of State to say that arrangements will be made if the travel-to-work cost is very high, as it may be if one commutes many miles to and from London. Some travel-to-work costs may not seem high to hon. Members, but they will seem high to many of my constituents on low wages.
    Travel-to-work costs of £10 a week are common and they take a big slice out of the wages of many of my constituents. Those costs should be exempt, whatever their level. I agree with the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) that council tax and water rates should also be exempt. If parents defined such expenses as non-essential and refused to pay them, the courts would soon have something to say about that. Council tax and water rates are clearly essential expenses.
    There should be a right of appeal and it should be widespread. It is normal to have an appeal system that is open to everyone who has a complaint. That system should allow special circumstances to be taken into account—not everybody lives a straightforward life. Some people have the "temerity" to take on responsibility for aged relatives. Is the cost of looking after such relatives taken into account? No, it is not. The appeal system and some discretion would allow such expenses to be taken into account. There should be a recognition of other responsibilities, as well as the cost of parenting and access.
    Parents with care can also be worse off. It is often said that the great advantage of the maintenance benefit over income support is that it can be continued after one finds
    516
    a job. That theory is based on the assumption that there is a job to be found. The jobs of most women in my constituency pay low wages, which are getting lower as a result of Government policy. If those constituents claim family credit, they are allowed to keep the magnificent sum of £15; yet the absent or non-resident parent might be paying £100 a week. That is unsatisfactory. There should be a substantial disregard to provide an incentive and to put children first.
    I tell the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State that, when the first statement was made on the proposal, I asked a critical question. My gut reaction was that nothing good would come of it. Unfortunately the Opposition were misled, because we actually believed the title of the White Paper—"Children Come First". In reality, children come last. Conservative Members talk about children as a burden on the taxpayer, which they want to transfer to parents. Only people such as they can think of children as a burden.
    Last Wednesday one of the principles of the Act was enunciated by the Under-Secretary of State:
    "The principle that a natural child should have first call on a parent's income".
    Just before that, he had said:
    "one of the principles of the Act was that parents should, as a priority, be responsible for their own natural children."—[Official Report, 2 February 1994; Vol. 236, c. 945.]
    So if someone is trying to build a second family, in which there are stepchildren, and trying not to make the same mistakes that he made with his first family, that is just tough. The stepchildren are regarded as "unnatural" children. The Under-Secretary of State talked about "natural" childen and refused to take the cost of parenting stepchildren into account. The concept of deserving and undeserving children is disgusting; yet that is what the Conservative party is introducing into family life, and it will cause more family breakdowns.
    I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli that this is not a matter of men against women. A woman spoke to me this week who has been driven to such despair that she is threatening suicide, because the Child Support Agency is threatening to deduct at source. She says that she will have no money left to live on. I have her budget here, and it is frugal in the extreme. That woman works six days a week and manages to bring home an income of £146 a week after tax and national insurance. She has been driven to threatening to commit suicide; she may not actually do that, but she will have a breakdown, and that will be a cost to the state. No wonder there is a big public sector deficit if that is the way affairs of state are managed.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) talked about people being driven into a cul-de-sac, but it is worse than that; it is a trap, which is driving them to desperation—men, women and especially children. Children will see the disturbance and bitterness and they will feel responsible. Any calm that may have been achieved will be disturbed and if no calm has yet been achieved, the Act makes sure that it never will be. It is a disgraceful Act; indeed, its effect on family life makes it a wicked Act.
    I speak as a Member of the House who believes in stable relationships and has a moral appreciation and a stable marriage. Conservative Members, with all their moralising, which is not in any way backed up by their personal

    517

    behaviour, are causing unlimited harm to countless children and other people who simply want to be able to live peaceful lives—
    Mr. David Shaw: At the taxpayer's expense.
    Mrs. Wise: There we hear it. There is the truth of it. They will not be able to sustain the tax cuts—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
    7.53 pm
    Sir Donald Thompson: I thank Ministers and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—Ministers for the way in which they have looked after my constituency cases, and the hon. Member for Garscadden for having remained calm, sensible and reasonable.
    There is no doubt in my mind that children should be the responsibility of their own parents. Everyone with whom I have spoken agrees with that—although I am not sure what the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) really believes. My speech will necessarily be brief, so people will have to read the rest of the debate and take the arguments about travel-to-work costs, absent fathers being consulted, and so on, from what other people have said.
    There is a general acceptance of the Child Support Agency, but it cannot continue as it is. It must be continually reviewed, or it will ultimately damage the young women whom it is meant to help. Make no mistake; we must realise that there are thousands of women whom it can help. I went to a meeting about child support recently and before I set off a young lady rang me to say, "Don't let them bully you. There are a lot of us who are very glad that the Child Support Agency has turned up."
    My three main concerns are flexibility, the clean break, and the mistakes that the CSA has made. The agency sometimes rolls on despite the wishes of the people likely to benefit from it. A lady in my constituency, whom I have known for some time and have helped with other problems, has two children by one marriage and now has another young child. She heard about family credit and applied for it by filling in the forms, but then she found that her former husband was immediately dunned by the CSA. The woman is appalled. She does not want to fall out with her former husband and is willing to give up the family credit. She and her new husband are willing to manage without it, but there is no retrospection and no unpicking the situation. The good relationship that the sons have with their father, who does not live with them any more but sees them every weekend, is now in jeopardy.
    Flexibility must be the watchword of any new legislation and any changes that we make to it. But inflexibility is revealed in the following letter written by the CSA in Merseyside to a constituent of mine:
    "Further to my telephone conversation today, I am writing to confirm the information that you requested:

    (i) Payments that are made monthly, are made monthly in arrears.

    (ii) I asked you to pay £335·75 today for your regular maintenance whilst I clarified the position regarding your arrears.

    Also it appears that an error has been made by the Child Support Agency and that the information previously given was incorrect.
    I am looking into this matter".
    As a result, my constituent says that he is now £800 in arrears, and he is bitter. He wrote to me:
    518
    "I still find this very hard to believe that from the point of the CSA, that if things were left as originally planned, I would not be suffering with over £800 in arrears. So I have to suffer from somebody else's negligence. I await your comments".
    I shall comment; I shall send him the Official Report of the debate, advise him to read it all and say that I have written to the Minister. As I have said, Ministers have been most courteous.
    Finally, I shall deal with clean breaks. What are we to make of the following document from Keighley county court if it does not mean a clean break—not with the children but with the former wife—and that the money can be adjusted later? It is headed "By Consent", and continues by saying that one party is to get 75 per cent. and the other 25 per cent. of the goods and chattels when sold, and the house,
    "upon the parties acknowledging that neither has any further claim in respect of the contents of the former matrimonial home."
    Referring to the child of the family, the document also says that there will be
    "periodical payments at the rate of £15.00 per week payable weekly until she shall atttain the age of 17 years … Upon compliance with Order 36 Rule 1 the Petitioner be at liberty to register the aforesaid periodical payments order in the appropriate Magistrates Court."
    Finally, it says:
    "This Order be in full and final satisfaction of all claims the parties hereto have against each other of a capital and/or income nature and the Petitioner's prayer in the Petition for periodical payments for herself be dismissed."
    That is a clean break. Or at least, back in 1989 the recipients of that document would have thought that it was a clean break. I can understand that £15 a week. The rates set out in a typically good document from the Library state that payments are made of £15 for children aged under 11, £22 for ages 11 to 15, £26 for ages 16 to 17 and so on. I can understand why the periodic increases should be set by the Child Support Agency, but my constituent says that he has had a clean break from his wife, so he wonders why he should have to pay £44 a week to look after his children. I could continue, but I shall not.
    I was appalled in the previous debate at the ways in which the Opposition sneered at my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) when she tried to convey women's point of view. It was a poor display from Opposition Members who have mostly been compassionate. The Government are rightly trying to correct many things which were wrong in the original Bill. Hon. Members have unanimously accepted those elements.
    Without being partisan, I feel that there is growing feeling among young women and in the country that the male-dominated unions are urging the Opposition to push the Government to return support for the child from the natural father or the parents to the taxpayer. The union lads are feeling disgruntled. Many of the constituents whom I have met are rightly fed up with the rough justice. If that pressure grows from the male-dominated unions, it will rebound on the Opposition and on the House.
    I shall finish as I began. Parents are responsible for their children. To make that possible, the CSA will have to be continually reviewed in a flexible manner in ways in which we have heard already. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends will continue along that path.
    8.1 pm
    Ms Mildred Gordon: The Secretary of State said that there are 1·3 million lone parents in the country and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that 70 per cent. of those are on income support. Of that figure, 53 per cent. are women who were married to the fathers of their children and who were separated or divorced and 32 per cent. were never married to the father. Considering those lone mothers, the fathers and the children together, one can see that the lives of a large percentage of the population will be affected by the Child Support Agency and by the Act. It was absolutely important that the Government got it right and, tragically, they got it so wrong.
    The courts had a lot to answer for when they made maintenance assessments which were often low and which varied in different parts of the country. The system for pursuing defaulters was imperfect to say the least and there could have been a time lag if the father refused to appear in court. The system needed altering, but one important aspect that that system had in its favour was that the courts had discretion and they could assess all the valid factors when making a maintenance order.
    The CSA has a rigid formula which has caused misery and fear and has wrecked relationships. The more people that it pursues, the more the turbulence, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) termed it, will increase. Groups throughout the country are mushrooming in opposition to the agency and the Act, which is unusual.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Ms Gordon: I have only 10 minutes, so I shall not give way.
    There is a clear divide in the House between Members who are worried about the enhancement of their electoral chances if the Government are not in a position to give another round of tax cuts and Members who think that the interests of children should come first. I am pleased to say that there are Members on both sides of the House who support the latter. The Act's purpose to facilitate tax cuts is clear because it has been said that only £1 in every £10 will go to the family and that the rest will go to the Treasury.
    That tax-cutting angle is certainly clear when one takes into account the benefit penalty. I asked the Minister the other day if he would abolish that penalty. He answered that only 160 cases have been referred to the Benefits Agency for reduced benefit and that 20,500 cases where good cause was pleaded had been accepted. The Minister said that that was about 57 per cent. Therefore 43 per cent. of such cases have not been accepted.
    Are they to be directed to suffer a benefit penalty? What about all the other mothers who have the threat of a benefit penalty hanging over their heads? No Government who care about children would have a benefit penalty for people on income support who are already below the poverty line so that £8·80 of their income is taken away—leaving less money for food, clothes and all the things that children need. That cannot be right. It is evil.
    The collection fee should also be abolished. Mothers who feel that contact with absent fathers is threatening ask the agency to collect the maintenance. Those very fathers
    520
    threaten the mothers when they are asked to pay the collection fee. That fee will engender violence and should be abolished.
    Another sore point is that of absent parents who are on income support and who are being pursued by the agency for a measly £2·20 a week. A constituent of mine is a father with care. His ex-wife is mentally ill and has been sectioned innumerable times. He has begged the agency not to force him to sign the form to pursue his wife because he says that it would drive her into hospital from where, drugged up to the hilt, she would phone and upset their child. Even if she receives the order, she would not be able to manage her affairs properly and would never regularly pay that £2·20, but he and the child would lose it. There are many such cases and the section should be abolished.
    The Government will not have an income disregard for parents on income support because they think that that would be a disincentive to taking a job. However, they say that a £15 disregard for caring mothers will
    "enable them to take a job with considerably lower take-home pay than if there had been no disregard."
    Those lucky women will be able to take a low-paid job in addition to looking after their family and doing the housework and can claim £15 a week disregard plus family credit.
    Many, perhaps most, will be worse off, because they will get no help with the mortgage interest payments and no more free school meals—with a number of children that is significant. They will lose other passported benefits such as for glasses and for dental treatment and they may get £28, as the Government have promised, for child care. That may pay for looking after an older child after school until the mother comes home, but in my constituency, I believe that the standard rate for having a young child looked after all day is £90 to £100 a week. Mothers who need such care will be in trouble. In addition, on family credit, it takes six months to review a change in circumstances, whereas on income support, changes can be reviewed at once. Many of those mothers will be far worse off.
    Fathers who have previously paid the mortgage payments on the home of their first families will have to choose whether to meet their CSA assessments or stop paying the mortgage, and repossessions will result. The Labour party will be monitoring carefully how many mothers and children will be thrown out of their homes because of that dreadful law.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) rightly said, separated fathers object to being called absent parents. One such father came to my surgery and told me that his former wife had moved to the north of England. Once a month, because he wants to keep close contact with his children, he pays a high fare to travel north. He has to rent a hotel room, pay for looking after the children for the weekend and take them out. It is expensive. After the assessment, he will not be able to afford that. He will become an absent father and he does not want to be one. He, his ex-wife and their children will all suffer. That cannot be right.
    Separated fathers need a discretionary body, but the Government do not want one. What factors need to be taken into account? What factors require discretion? Travel to work is one. A commuter may pay £2,000 to £3,000 a year, and even when the cost is less, it is a significant part of a person's income, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston said. No account is taken of the cost of travel to see children, the cost of keeping them, the cost of taking them

    521
    out and the cost of providing treats and all the extras that children need, such as sports gear. There is no discretion about that. There is no discretion about the cost of looking after elderly parents. There is no discretion about paying the mortgage for the first family. Voluntary payments are ignored.
    When an assessment is made, it applies from the date that the maintenance inquiry form has been sent out. That can create huge arrears. The courts used to take past maintenance paid into account and they gave credit for it. All those matters require a discretionary body which could take them into account. This is real life; we cannot use an abstract formula to rule people's lives and drive them to despair.
    A constituent who was deeply in debt came to see me. He had been honourably paying off his debts, which he had incurred because of illness. He has now been assessed and he will not be able to continue to pay off his debts. He does not know what to do. He said, "Shall I give up my job? What shall I do? I cannot pay my debts and pay the assessments." He was already making voluntary payments and buying equipment and clothes for his child.
    Another factor that has not been taken into account is that of families abroad. There are immigrant fathers in my constituency who have children abroad and who send money to them. No discretion is allowed there.
    The case for a discretionary body is irrefutable. Such a body could take a family's whole situation into account. In our debate last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that the Government had got it wrong, that the agency should be wound up and that they should start again. I fully agree. We need a system that is responsible and workable and which puts the interests of children first.
    8.11 pm
    Mr. Alan Haselhurst: It is clear that the Opposition are speaking with many different voices in the debate. They would have been better advised not to press the matter to a Division tonight. I do not believe that they foresaw the current situation any more than the rest of us did. The reasoned amendment moved by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on Second Reading of the Child Support Bill contained not a hint of the problems that might arise for absent parents.
    Miss Joan Lestor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Haselhurst: No.
    Miss Lestor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Haselhurst: No.
    Opposition criticism then centred mainly on the welfare of the children and on the needs of the caring parent. For most of the time, they looked in the opposite direction. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) seems to be getting quite excited about what I am saying. She came nearer than any other Opposition Member to recognising that there might be some problems of the type with which we have been preoccupied in this debate. By and large, it is clear from the reports of the Committee and Report stages that the Labour party was looking in completely the opposite direction and cannot claim now to have foreseen the present problems. I find it faintly odd that Labour Members now seek to present themselves as
    522
    leading the pack in defence of the absent parent. Although I am critical of the status quo, I shall not be tempted into the Labour Lobby this evening.
    I am content to rely on the continuing close review offered by the Government. I note, however, the words in the Government's amendment:
    "as further experience is gained".
    Considerable evidence is accumulating and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will take good note of it and learn some of the lessons from it.
    It would be preferable for this debate to be approached not in a spirit of partisanship, but in a shared acceptance that our scrutiny process at the time of the Child Support Bill was defective. Many of us simply did not anticipate what was to follow the implementation of a reform that we were all happy to support in principle. We may have accepted that it would change people's lives, but we did not realise how drastic the change would be in may cases. If 'we are honest—one or two of us have been very honest in this debate—some of us thought that the legislation was directed mainly at absconding rather than merely absent parents.
    The main problem has been the dramatic nature of the change that we have wrought. Fairly or not, divorced parents have lived their lives on certain assumptions. New marriages have been made and new families have been created. It may be right for Parliament to impose suddenly on those people the judgment that they must bear a heavier responsibility for their natural children, but we must at the same time appreciate the impact that that can have on the life they are now leading and on the people who are part of that life. The CSA has seemed, in many cases, to have no appreciation of the effect that swingeing increases in maintenance payments will have.
    The affected people feel that they are being retrospectively censured for doing something that was not in itself wrong—separating from an unhappy marriage and starting all over again. The new demands have been the cause of worry and despair which, in some cases, has turned to tragic extremes. When society's judgment about what parents in this position should pay is being delivered with seemingly impervious bureaucratic zeal by the Child Support Agency, their despair turns to deep resentment. Many of us have felt that deep resentment in our mail bags and through our surgeries over the past few months.
    Like many of my hon. Friends, I am very unimpressed by the performance of the CSA. It has been bad in responding to the anxious queries of the clients whom it has contacted. Its response to letters from Members of Parliament has, for the most part, been extremely wooden. If the explanation for the poor performance of the CSA is that it is overwhelmed with work, that is surely a reason for implementing the new requirements more gradually and on a phased basis. Ministers seemed to be under pressure from the Opposition throughout our proceedings on the Child Support Bill to promise that everything would be done with all possible speed. The Opposition are the last to have the right to criticise the Government for some of the consequences.
    We have been told that 50 per cent.—I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggested that the figure might be more than 50 per cent.—of the cases so far tackled by the agency are those in which no maintenance at all has been paid. If that is the case, why did not the agency confine itself exclusively to such cases to start with? Why did it not get those out of the way before

    523
    moving on to people who had already made settlements, as my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) has recently described?
    The trouble with the formula is that it gives insufficient regard to the current circumstances of the client. I welcomed very much the changes that we approved last week. They may make life bearable in a number of cases. It is perfectly fair for the Government to say that not until those changes have been implemented can we see the effect on assessments. The mists may then clear, allowing us to gauge the degree of injustice that may remain. On that count, it is right for the Government to say in retaliation to the Opposition that their motion is premature as well as presumptuous.
    However, I contend that the formula is not right. Mention has been made of clean breaks, and I emphasise that too. It may be difficult to quantify, but the plain fact is that a property settlement, heavily biased in favour of the parent with care at the expense of ongoing maintenance and accepted as a reasonable deal by a court, affects the resources available to the person who becomes the absent parent. A greater allowance in the formula for housing costs is simply not adequate compensation for some of the housing and financial settlements that were made. My right hon. Friend should not rely on generalities in dismissing that factor altogether from the equation.
    I also add emphasis to what has been said about travel-to-work costs. It may be easy from an administrative point of view to want to ignore those costs, but they are creating genuine difficulty in many cases. On the clean break factor and the travel to work factor, I ask my hon. Friends to look at the consequences of making such sweeping exclusions from the formula. In some cases, it is having a devastating and totally unfair effect.
    In conclusion, the figures contained in the formula still need some moderation, even if it takes longer to reduce the burden on taxpayers. Taxpayers have borne the burden for many years. We now have arrangements in sight which are intended to reduce that burden, and I do not disagree with that. Surely, the speed with which we reduce the burden must be governed with an eye on the effect on those who will be affected.
    There needs to be some further degree of phasing. I want to hear less about administrative convenience in any future discussions of this matter, and more about fairness to all the parties concerned. It cannot be right to have swung the pendulum so violently that we have shifted the misery and deprivation across the spectrum from the parent with care to the absent parent.
    All I say to the Government is that we must recognise that this is not yet a closed chapter. We must have a guarantee of more attention to the details which many hon. Members have raised tonight, and a promise of further action if equity so dictates. Surely, all of us want to ensure that we get the balance right in determining how the burden should lie between the various parties involved in these matters.
    8.20 pm
    Dr. Joe Hendron: I think that all hon. Members agree with the principle that parents have the responsibility of looking after their children, certainly in
    524
    my territory of west Belfast, where there is great poverty and deprivation and, for many reasons, there are many lone parents.
    I shall start by making a point about poverty and the lone parent and her children. The majority of lone parents, certainly in my constituency and in other parts of Northern Ireland and elsewhere, experience various degrees of poverty. Their children require a coherent strategy of family support covering social security and child care and a positive employment strategy, rather than an approach that is characterised by a single Act solution, as in the Child Support Act 1991.
    Punitive measures have been referred to a number of times. Such measures for achieving compliance with the operations of the Child Support Agency will risk further disadvantaging children in lone-parent families who rely on benefit, as well as the second families of absent parents. As to family violence, it is important to appreciate that theemphasis placed on parents to provide information about the identification and tracing of liable parents fails to recognise that some mothers have good reasons for refusing to name an absent father.
    I make no apology for referring directly to my constituency of west Belfast where, no matter what indications of deprivation are used—whether it is the Jarman index of social deprivation or social class distribution—there is more deprivation per 1,000 of the population than anywhere else on these islands. I should point out that in, west Belfast, there are more people in prison per 1,000 of the population than anywhere else on these islands. Taking those points together, one realises that the question of the lone parent is a major one.
    As I said, the emphasis on parental responsibility is welcome. Many hon. Members have put great emphasis on that. Unfortunately, most fathers are not responsible for the children when parents separate. The people who must be looked after are the children. The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) made many of those points earlier and I congratulate her on an excellent speech.
    Family breakdowns, terms of maintenance and related child care disputes are complex and stressful. Families in that position need a co-ordinated package of support services. It must therefore be clear that detailed monitoring of the implementation of the Act is fundamental in assessing whether the objectives of decreasing child poverty and increasing parental responsibility are achieved.
    Inclusion of the personal allowance for the caring parent in the maintenance bill conflicts with the recent adoption of divorce legislation which promotes a clean break between partners, and may be strongly resented by caring parents and absent parents alike. I appreciate the fact that that point has been covered by a number of hon. Members.
    Another point is that the provision for children with disabilities and special needs requires additional costs. I am not convinced that that aspect was covered adequately in the legislation. What we need is a comprehensive child care policy—that is what should be developed. The Child Support Agency should not undertake any child support activities on behalf of a family without the formal authorisation of at least one of the parents. Parents should also have the right to appeal against a proposed maintenance assessment before its implementation. Finally, there should be a continuing review of child care and child support.
    8.25 pm
    Mr. David Shaw: I oppose the Opposition's motion because I believe that they are morally wrong. They are supporting the continuance of anti-social behaviour and seeking to undermine the position of 1 million single mothers. They are arguing that pensioners and others on low incomes should pay more for the children of absent fathers. That is wrong.
    During Prime Minister's questions today, the Leader of the Opposition showed his skills as a lawyer. Three years ago, he used his skills as a lawyer to support the Child Support Bill and the Child Support Agency. Today, he used his skills to undermine the Act and the 5,000 staff in the Child Support Agency. Having made a tough decision, he now finds that he cannot live with it and seeks to run away from it. That is not acceptable.
    The Child Support Act is, first and foremost, about children. It is concerned with the priority of parents in relation to their children. If people have children, they must make up their minds whether they will be responsible for them, or try to pass them over to other people. It is surprising and sad that the low priority some absent parents give the first family is often seen in our constituency surgeries. It is sad that not enough attention is paid to the first family by absent parents in their second family.
    Recently, I was extremely saddened by one case that came to my office whereby the second family showed in their budget that they put a higher priority on dog food than on the child in the first family. I was staggered that dog food appeared in the long list of items of expenditure that were deemed to be a higher priority than the child in the first family. That is not acceptable. We cannot expect the child in the first family to go without so that the dog in the second family can be properly fed.
    The old system was totally unfair. It was inconsistent and the administration often broke down. In our constituency surgeries, we saw many cases where that happened. I have seen court assessments for £15 a week or less. They are totally unacceptable. Such assessments meant that pensioners and others on low incomes had to pay for the children, and the absent fathers were simply not paying.
    We are concerned not just with taxpayers but with the children of taxpayers. We must make sure that they have equality of treatment and that those children in a one-family situation do not suffer so that absent fathers can have two or more families. Priority must be given to those families who are united and who intend to stay together, otherwise many more families will break up.
    The work of the CSA and what is contained in the Act should be supported. I wish to make a few comments about the CSA's work. I have met the local staff in my constituency, and they are courteous, knowledgeable, and well trained. They deserve the support of hon. Members, and it is sad that not enough has been said in their support today.
    I should also like to pay tribute to those who work in the Hastings regional office. I took up a case on Christmas eve with the Hastings regional office on behalf of a constituent who was concerned about his assessment. The office staff devoted considerable time to the case. They were helpful and efficient, and they wanted to ensure that they were correct in dealing with the case. I believe that that was very much in their favour.
    Dr. Spink: I have had exactly the same experience with the Hastings office and the staff were very helpful.
    Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend confirms the hard work which is put in by the CSA. With colleagues on the Social Security Select Committee, I interviewed Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive of the CSA. I was left with the impression that she was knowledgeable and sincere, and that she was an effective and capable manager who was concerned with doing a good job. She and her colleagues should be congratulated on the good job that they are doing on behalf of the nation's children and on behalf of the many women who are benefiting by receiving maintenance in proper amounts for the first time.
    There was all-party support on the Committee for the principle of the Act, and also for the vast bulk of the operations of the CSA. There was support for the way in which the Government had implemented the Act. It has been a difficult Act to bring into being because it requires people to pay, including many people who have not being paying enough and many who have beeen been evading payments. Consequently, the Act was never likely to be popular with everybody.
    It is the duty of hon. Members to be prepared to stand up and explain to people why they have to pay more. We have had to do that to many taxpayers and to absent fathers. We cannot single absent fathers out and give them special protection from paying more, and then say to our taxpayers that they have to pay more in VAT or more in taxation generally. The Committee's investigations showed that the Act was operating in a fair and balanced manner, but the problem unquestionably was that it was tough on some fathers who had not planned their budgets. Those fathers had married for the second time and had not properly worked out their finances.
    Clearly, that is not something for which either Parliament or the Government can take the blame. If an absent father does not budget properly for his second household, that father somehow has to re-budget, as everybody else does. All our pensioners will suffer if they have to receive less in their pensions to support absent fathers.
    The Government have adopted many of the Committee's recommendations, and they have shown that they are capable of being flexible in relation to the Act. They have also shown courage in realising that there is a point where one must stand up and be counted. The Opposition will not do that. They have gone weak at the knees at the thought of having to stand up for something. That shows that they will be unfit to govern this country, if they are ever in a position to do so.
    Clean breaks do not adequately take into account the distribution of capital. Clean breaks do not look at deferred pensions, which some absent fathers have, and wives often come off second best in them. Such settlements are about capital and its distribution, but I do not believe—nor did the Committee—that capital in a marriage can be worked out to the extent that is necessary to get a fair settlement. Consequently, there would be enormously complicated calculations if the Government adopted any arrangements to take into account clean breaks on capital. The CSA would not be qualified to work out those calculations. Even the Inland Revenue finds it difficult to assess capital and valuation, and the CSA is not in a position to take on that job.

    527
    The appeals procedure for which the Opposition ask would be unique because it would be based, so they say, on fairness. I am aware of no other appeals procedure in government or in administration which is based on fairness. The Inland Revenue appeals procedure is based on the law, not on fairness. The social security appeals procedure is based on law, not on fairness. We have to accept that the law sometimes operates unfairly and, until Parliament has the opportunity of reviewing and changing the law, all appeals procedures must be based on law. It is not possible to have an appeals procedure in any other way.
    Hon. Members have a chance in the Lobby tonight to show whether they support fair payments—
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order.
    8.35 pm
    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) made a characteristically robust speech, but he was somewhat unfair about the motion and the opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). Given the hon. Gentleman's small majority in Dover, it might also be regarded as a somewhat reckless speech.
    As a member of the Select Committee, I welcomed the Government's decision to accept the recommendations which allowed absent parents to keep more of their income. I believe that that addresses the real problems which absent parents have been experiencing.
    The Government could have gone further in their response to other issues—particularly asking absent parents to pay retrospectively from the moment that the assessment form is sent to them. The Government should carefully consider the recommendations by the Committee that the payment should be made from the time the assessment is made after the form is sent back to the CSA.
    The CSA has been criticised by hon. Members today, and the Committee did so previously, for the way in which it has been working. It has been suggested that the CSA is swamped with work. Hopefully, further changes might be made to the formula which will affect the targets the CSA has been set and the way in which it manages its work. We need information about how the CSA has been affected, and what assistance will be given to the staff to meet the changes.
    I turn to one area which has not been mentioned in the debate. In the letters which I have received from constituents, and from people from all over the country—as a Committee member, I have been sent letters from different groups—what has come across to me is the bitterness, hurt and anger which people are feeling about the work of the CSA.
    I have been somewhat surprised to hear hon. Members say today that they have been surprised at that reaction. Surely, if the Government set out with the task of requiring parents to take financial responsibility for their children, there is bound to be such a reaction. We should have known that that was going to happen and been prepared for it. Perhaps we should have taken more seriously the idea of phasing in. We should have thought about it.
    What has happened demonstrates to me a certain myopia in the way that we have dealt with families and family issues in social policy. We have sought to make
    528
    divorce easier and more civilised by making it easier to arrive at. We have enabled couples to divorce in a way that allows them to maintain a relationship with their children and, necessarily, with their former partner. We have not sufficiently taken into account the effects of all that on children.
    Anyone who saw the "Panorama" programme on Monday night could not fail to be impressed by the anguish that had been caused to children. Parents believed that they were doing the right thing and helping their children by separating and ending an unhappy marriage. But they caused anguish to their children which the children did not express because they were unable to do so, given their relationship with their parents.
    Perhaps the Government should take some of the taxpayers' money that we have been talking about—the rights of the taxpayer are recognised by Opposition Members, too—and use it to help families to stay together. If they used it to fund research into the effects on children of the child support policy, other policies, long-term unemployment, divorce, separation and becoming mem—bers of new families, we could start to see a real return from the work of the Child Support Agency.
    We would not simply be in defensive mode, trying to justify the work of the agency. The agency is hurting people. There is real hurt out there. Genuine hurt is being expressed to all of us, if we are honest about what people are saying to us. If we used some of the money in the way that I have suggested, we could make something positive come out of the experiences of the past few months.
    8.41 pm
    Mr. David Lidington: I agreed with the tone and substance of the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy). The problem that we are grappling with today is how we frame arrangements for divorce. We are rightly asking parents to take responsibility for their children. Often, those parents have entered into financial arrangements or commitments to a second family on the basis of ground rules that Parliament has now altered dramatically.
    My concern is not so much for families who divorce now, after the Child Support Agency has come into operation. My concern is the extent to which we can and should mitigate the dramatic effects that the legislation is having on families who, under previous arrangements, made commitments in good faith for themselves, their second partner and their second family.
    I found it difficult to take seriously some of the comments made by some Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon), who is no longer in her place, wanted to see the whole system swept away. She condemned any idea that there was merit in using revenue from the Child Support Agency to offset benefit payments provided by taxpayers.
    The point about tax was well made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when he pointed out that maintenance provides the parent with care with a portable income. It enables the parent with care to take employment, without the risk of benefit automatically being withdrawn, leaving her no better off than before. Certainly, women have come to my surgery since the general election to complain to me that, under the previous

    529
    arrangements, it was impossible for them to take a job, because they would have been no better off in employment than remaining on income support.
    Nor should we dismiss the idea that it is important to put money back into the Treasury. I believe that about £4·9 billion is spent by the taxpayer on income-related benefits for single-parent families. That is roughly equivalent to half the total annual spending of the Department for Education. It is not a small sum.
    To be fair to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), to his credit he has never shied away from the fact that any arrangements that we may make to mitigate the impact of the Child Support Act 1991 on the absent parent will mean either that less money goes to the parent with care or less accrues to the Treasury, with consequences for Government spending or taxation in the broader sense.
    Some Opposition Back-Bench Members have neglected the extent to which the old system was inadequate. It was arbitrary. Decisions were inconsistent. Far too many parents with care of children were left without any support.
    My right hon. Friend gave the statistics. He said that 90 per cent. of CSA cases involved children whose parents were so poor that they were on benefit. In two thirds of cases in the first year, no maintenance whatever had been paid. Three quarters of lone parents receive no regular maintenance whatever. That is evidence that reform was urgently needed.
    I am afraid that I am unpersuaded by the notion that a review process is the way in which to address the matter. If an independent review body is to meet the expectations of the people who complain about the impact of the CSA, it will have to go further than the four or five constituency cases to which my hon. Friend for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) referred in an intervention. Then we will be into a discussion of what should be the criteria for a review. Either we would risk returning to a system of pure discretion, with arbitrary and inconsistent decisions, or we would have to list the criteria very clearly.
    The hon. Member for Garscadden gave us some illustrations of the type of rules that might apply in such a review procedure. I am afraid that they sounded as if they were couched in general terms that would give rise to demand for an additional tier of appeal beyond appeal at first instance, or to attempts to seek judicial review of a decision on the grounds that the independent reviewer had failed to interpret the rules properly in the specific case before him.
    An area in which we could take further action, following the welcome changes announced by my hon. Friend the Minister last week, is in some of the details of the formula. The arguments about stepchildren have been well aired in the Chamber. I simply refer my hon. Friend the Minister to the case of one couple in my constituency who are both now in their second marriage.
    The man is being asked by the CSA to make a much higher maintenance payment for the children of his first marriage, who live with his ex-wife. His stepchildren—the children of his second wife—receive virtually nothing from his second wife's ex-husband, because he is unemployed and receiving benefit. When there is that discrepancy in payments, it makes for neither trust and support for the arrangements that Parliament has put in place nor for healthy family relationships for any of the couples or parents.
    530
    Travel-to-work costs have been mentioned by several of my hon. Friends. Certainly the cost of travelling from Aylesbury to London is not small. I would not expect the Government to enter an open-ended commitment to pay any amount of travel-to-work costs of an absent parent for all time, but I wonder whether they should consider a time-limited or cash-limited arrangement to enable people to make the transition.
    Even with the 18-month transitional period announced last week, there is no doubt that the new arrangements put in place by the CSA can make life extremely difficult for absent parents who have entered into financial and family commitments on the basis of previous rules.
    On the operation of the Child Support Agency, when I have phoned the parliamentary desk at the Dudley regional office my queries have been answered courteously and efficiently. However, I am concerned for those of my constituents who have not had such a fortunate experience. I have been told of forms lost, letters going without response and telephones left apparently permanently engaged.
    However, the hon. Member for Broadgreen alluded to the worst problem—the great gap in time which so often elapses between a request for a new assessment being made to the CSA and that assessment being served on the absent parent. As a result, the parent is faced all at once with arrears, which may run into many hundreds of pounds, with no opportunity to make provision for the payment.
    My right hon. and hon. Friends should therefore consult the chief executive of the Child Support Agency to find out how those administrative and managerial problems can be overcome. That task, as well as possible further changes to the formula, needs to be tackled, if the agency and the principles that underlie the Child Support Act 1991 are to win the public support that they deserve.
    8.50 pm
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Although it is tempting, because of the time factor I will not respond to some of the remarks made by Conservative Members. Suffice it to say that I find that the arrogance of some of their remarks—especially those of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw)—does little to enhance the democratic processes. We are trying to resolve a difficult problem which, as constituency Members of Parliament, we all face.
    It is also easy to think that we are debating the abolition of the Child Support Agency, when we are trying to resolve the problems that have confronted certain people and to consider how they affect children. Sometimes, one would think from hon. Members' comments—especially those of Conservative Members—that children are inanimate objects, who can be moved around like pieces of furniture. We are talking about children—the children of first marriages, second marriages and stepchildren. We are also talking about the hurt and concern that has been caused not only to children but to all the other family members.
    There has been an element of hypocrisy in the debate. Conservative Members say that they care about children, when in reality they are talking about saving money. They talk about the rights and responsibilities of taxpayers, but as a taxpayer who does not have children I am happy to pay my taxes for their benefit. I think that they are a greater

    531
    priority than spending money on Trident. Those are the sort of political priorities that we are here to decide, and hon. Members would be well advised to heed them.
    My colleagues and I on the nationalist Benches will support the Opposition motion. The Minister and the Secretary of State should realise that we are being asked to absorb a series of complex changes in the working of the agency. Announcements were made before Christmas, and the officers with whom I have had to deal were not sure how and when they were supposed to implement the changes.
    Another series of changes was announced last week and today, and the Secretary of State said in his opening speech that thousands of reassessment letters would be sent out during the next two or three weeks. That will place the agencies and their representatives under a huge amount of stress and it also places continuing stress on the parents involved. Whenever a new letter arrives, they do not know whether it is good, bad or indifferent news, or whether they will face yet another problematic form, which they have to fill in to resolve the situation. There should be a clear time scale for implementation of the changes. Our constituents should be given that reassurance.
    I have had to deal with a substantial number of cases in my area. Other hon. Members have referred to the fact that they represent constituencies where armed forces personnel live. There are two Royal Air Forces bases in Moray—RAF Lossie and RAF Kinloss—which are well recognised and respected. The bulk of the cases that I have had to deal with have involved people from the bases. They seem to be readily identifiable, and have already been paying maintenance for their children from a first marriage or previous relationship, yet they seem to be the first people to be landed with a reassessment. They are also not allowed to get into debt.
    At my surgery on Friday, I learned of a flight lieutenant who has taken early retirement from the Air Force because of debts that he could not meet, caused by his reassessment. As a result, he will lose some of his pension rights. There is a strong argument for reviewing how we deal with the people we expect to go into any conflict on our behalf, if that is how we treat them.
    The formula lacks flexibility. The Secretary of State seems to be arguing for a rigid formula, but when one is dealing with families and children, we cannot have that rigidity of rule. We need flexibility.
    I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) would agree, given his legal training, that we need the sort of attitude that has been tried and tested in the sheriff courts of Scotland for centuries, where decisions on aliment and maintenance were based on very sensible grounds. The men in those courts listened and understood the reality of life. They knew all about hard knocks, and ensured that all aspects of people's lives were taken into account before decisions were reached.
    I must emphasise that the retrospective aspect of the legislation is intolerable, as other hon. Members have said. Also, in a rural constituency such as I represent, travel-to-work payments are important, and I ask for discretion on that matter.
    The Secretary of State did not understand my argument earlier. Perhaps I did not express it effectively. From my work with one of the legal companies in my constituency,
    532
    I know of a girl who is seeking to raise a paternity suit in the Scottish courts. She has been denied access to legal aid because, until she proclaims the name of the child's father to the Child Support Agency, the legal aid forms cannot be signed.
    That role is not suitable for the CSA. Surely it should be restricted to the legal profession. I shall send the papers to the Secretary of State and the Minister, as the matter concerns me greatly. I may have come across only one such case, but I am sure that other hon. Members will have encountered similar ones.
    It is very difficult for these young women to decide to raise paternity suits. Such a course is not undertaken lightly; it requires courage, especially in small communities where people tend to know a great deal about each other's business.
    I should like to refer now to a matter about which I wrote to the Secretary of State this week. A couple from my constituency who separated last year decided to reconcile. In such a situation, will money be reclaimed from the wife if she received income support during her husband's absence? Will there be any exchange, or will the separation be deemed never to have occurred? A couple trying to get together again should not have to face such a debt. This is an unusual aspect of the situation, but it is an important one as people do try to work out their differences.
    The Secretary of State has said that the chief executive of the Child Support Agency did not receive performance-related pay. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of evidence that was taken on 2 November 1993. On that occasion, Mrs. Hepplewhite made it quite clear that performance-related pay was involved. It was stated that clear targets had been set, and that if they were not reached, there would be an alteration in pay structure.
    I have it in black and white. This is one aspect of the whole affair that our constituents find difficult to accept. They feel that they are being penalised in order to pay someone else. What we are asking for, in the name of all humanity, is not performance-related pay for executives but flexibility and a humanitarian attitude towards our constituents and their families.
    9 pm
    Sir David Madel: I welcome in particular the last part of the amendment, which indicates that the Government will
    "keep the arrangements under continuing close review as further experience is gained."
    Like many other hon. Members, I am sure, I shall gain further experience of the Child Support Agency at the constituency surgery tomorrow night. When one is confronted with such cases one never knows what problem is going to arise.
    During the debate on 2 February, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), referring to constituents rather than to himself—as I am doing—said:
    "Constituents who come to see me complain that the agency simply will not answer their questions, either by telephone or by letter; all it does is send those draconian assessments. Even when a response by the agency is received, it is belated and does not solve the problems that have been put to it."—[Official Report, 2 February 1994; Vol 236, c. 968.]
    The Child Support Agency ought to make much better use of the telephone when contacting fathers about their assessments. If it wonders what sort of standard it should aim at, let me suggest one. My constituents and I received

    533
    nothing but help from the disability living allowance telephone unit in Blackpool when we encountered difficulties with the introduction of that allowance. If the CSA aims at such a standard, progress will be made.
    However, it must phone at sensible times. It is obvious that people who go out to work should be called when they have returned home. That will mean evening calls. My experience is that when, occasionally, people manage to get through to the CSA by telephone, problems can be solved, but the agency must demonstrate flexibility and sensitivity.
    I agree with those hon. Members who have said that they do not like the term "absent parent". It is a misleading and upsetting term. On 2 February 1994 my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State—my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt)—said:
    "There can be no clean break between a parent and his children."—[Official Report, 2 February 1994; Vol. 236, c. 943.]
    It would be much better to refer to the parent without custody.
    As I have said, the amendment refers to the Government's intention to undertake a close review as further experience is gained. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will remember that many fathers not only are in touch with their children but contribute over and above maintenance payments. Sometimes they take the children on holiday or buy them clothes and presents. In other words, there is no clean break. These people are making an additional contribution towards the well-being of their children.
    Many hon. Members have mentioned the question of travel-to-work costs. As a Member from the south-east, I want to emphasise this problem. Some system of relief ought to be built in. Of course, such relief would be time-limited, as children get older and maintenance changes accordingly. If, as I suspect, the Child Support Agency is anxious about how this might be worked out, let me suggest that there is a case for looking at the tax system to see whether it can be used to provide some relief in respect of travel-to-work costs. Some people have a company car or receive a mileage allowance for using their own car or have their British Rail season ticket paid for by the firm. Anyone who does not receive such help could be granted a temporary adjustment in his income tax code.
    It cannot be beyond the wit of the Government to use the tax system to provide a temporary help to people who want to stay in work but find, as a result of their assessment, that their travel-to-work costs swallow even more of their taxed income so that they face difficulty in staying in work. Throughout the debate, the Government have endlessly emphasised that they want as many people as possible to stay in work or get back to work. Will they use the tax system to help people pay their travel-to-work costs?
    People are understandably worried about what will happen if their income suddenly drops. Will their assessment be changed quickly or will they be pursued immediately on the basis of their previous income? The Child Support Agency sometimes makes the mistake of not differentiating between salary and earnings. Earnings fluctuate and some bonuses are paid not monthly but annually, if one is lucky. I had a dreadful job trying to get it across to the Child Support Agency that a constituent received an annual bonus if he was lucky and that a
    534
    monthly bonus was not built into his earnings. The agency must take the greatest care to differentiate between straight wages and earnings.
    Another problem experienced by constituents arises when the father can genuinely no longer pay because he has lost his job or been sacked. In that case, will the mother be able to return to benefit quickly and without difficulty? That problem needs attention.
    I welcome the Government's assurance that details of the second wife's income will not be passed to the first wife where it is irrelevant to an assessment. I hope that there will be more publicity on that, because it is one of the greatest causes of complaint. We should stress and explain to people that, if the second wife has a very low income or no income whatever, taking it into account for an assessment means that her husband will pay less. People do not mind giving intimate details of their financial affairs if it means that they pay less.
    In the previous debate on this subject, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) spoke of the welcome changes which the Government are introducing. He said:
    "However, I thought it essential to introduce the changes as soon as feasible, even if that may cause some difficulties and delays to the normal day-to-day business of the agency."—[Official Report, 2 February 1994; Vol. 236, c. 947.]
    That sounds a little ominous. It is a political decision to introduce more phasing in and alter assessments. Those changes are welcome and I support them, but I am worried about
    "delays to the normal day-to-day business of the agency"
    because that might mean further delays for people who are in the middle of dealing with the agency.
    I appeal to the Government to make the Child Support Agency more sensitive, courteous and customer friendly. They have made political decisions in the right direction and assured us that further changes will be made in the light of experience. I appreciate the fact that they do not do the day-to-day administration. It is done by the Child Support Agency. I hope that the agency will strive for better standards, because those are vital.
    9.7 pm
    Mr. Gerry Steinberg: While many of my constituents would put out the flag if they heard that the Child Support Agency was to be consigned to the scrap heap, I hope that we can, by less drastic means, adapt the working of the agency to the mutual benefit of absent parents and parents with care. I hope that we can reassure parents that the agency can do its job without striking fear into the hearts of people who are paying three and sometimes four times what they were paying under a court agreement. We should also send the message that we are listening to their concerns and are prepared to take action.
    Reassurance can only come from a change to the fundamental workings of the agency itself. We all agree that an absent parent must fulfil a financial obligation to his children. The CSA can never function fairly unless that is its only objective. The powers of the CSA go far beyond that basic principle. In many cases, the formula has given rise to such huge increases in maintenance agreements that it is hard to believe that the assessment was based on the needs of the child. Indeed, we have all heard of the classic case of the absent parent who can no longer afford to visit his children because of increased maintenance payments.

    535
    Under the present system, many absent parents are being asked to increase maintenance payments substantially, with next to no consideration being given to their financial obligations towards any children that they have by a subsequent marriage. When a maintenance settlement previously agreed in court between parents is trebled, or sometimes quadrupled, can it really be said that it is for the sake of child maintenance? If a perfectly reasonable court settlement is destroyed by increasing the maintenance payments, in many cases far beyond the amount that the individual can afford to pay, such action will act against the interests of the child.
    Even after the recent changes, the scheme will disproportionately benefit the wealthiest parents. The poorest absent parents will pay an additional 85p in maintenance for every extra £1 of income. Those whose disposable incomes allow them to meet the basic requirement will pay an extra 50p, while the wealthiest absent parents will pay only a further 25p maximum, and less if they have fewer children. If the child support scheme is to succeed, it must be fair to all parents. How else can it be said that it protects the interests of the child?
    I believe that the formula for maintenance assessment is designed specifically so that the maximum amoung of money is extracted from the absent parent. That is the root of the problem. If the formula is to remain unchanged, at the very least the public should be given the right of appeal to the agency for a review of the assessment, although I am sure that we would all have preferred to see a fairer system in the first place. All too often, there is no justification for the agency's involvement. I refer, for example, to a couple who made an informal mutually acceptable and long-standing financial agreement based on the needs of the child. Why interfere in such cases? What can the agency achieve by its involvement that has not been achieved already by the parents?
    One case came to my attention of a woman who has had an informal agreement with her ex-husband for many years and received money from him every month on the same day without fail. The CSA came along—not at her request—and upped his maintenance payment. She readily admits that she did not need the increase. The result of that interference was that the ex-husband now pays the money direct to the CSA, which is supposed to pass it on to her within a few days. She has not once yet received her money on the appointed day. When she telephones the CSA to complain about that, it can never tell her when she will receive the money. The reason that the agency give is that the cheque may be in one, two or three different places.
    Who benefits from that? The absent parent who pays more does not; nor does the parent with care who does not receive the maintenance on time, although the CSA has received it on time. Quite clearly, the interests of the child are not the motivating factor in the CSA's involvement in such a case. Why does it need to be involved in a mutually successful arrangement? I hope that the Secretary of State can explain who benefits from that and perhaps clarify whether it is to prevent child poverty or simply to raise money for the Treasury as a form of indirect tax.
    I would dearly like to see the CSA doing what we were told that it would do—chase absent parents who pay no maintenance or pay it at inadequate levels. Like my colleagues, I have cases in my constituency where people
    536
    are vowing to leave work rather than work to pay such huge increases and be left with just a pittance. Recently, a gentleman wrote to me:
    "I have no objection to paying sensible, affordable maintenance but the CSA has left me financially worse off working than being on benefits … I would prefer to work but I am not stupid and if the CSA make it easier to be unemployed, that then is my obvious option."
    The issue of clean break settlements has been widely discussed, and rightly so: it is a bone of contention that will not go away. For years, the courts have encouraged property transfer as part of a comprehensive divorce settlement; any parent who walked away from the marital home with nothing more than a suitcase and the clothes he or she was wearing has a right to feel aggrieved when told that that now means nothing at all—which is fundamentally wrong.
    A gentleman who came to see me recently had been party to a once-and-for-all break. He told me that he had left the marital home with a cut-glass vase that his mother had given him for his birthday, and nothing else. He was paying £100 a month in maintenance for his children. The CSA became involved. Now he has to pay £400 a month. He feels aggrieved, and no wonder.
    Many absent parents simply cannot afford to pay what is asked of them. I examined the weekly budget of one family in which a parent had remarried, had one stepchild and was responsible for the maintenance of a child from a previous relationship. That parent could pay his maintenance only by ceasing to travel to see his son, and by paying for no more school trips, clothes, holidays, pocket money and telephone calls: those were the only voluntary elements of his budget. That gentleman lives in my constituency, in Durham; his child lives on the Isle of Wight. That is why I mentioned the travelling.
    I believe that the Government misled us by suggesting that the agency's purpose was to pursue maintenance dodgers. It exists simply to reduce social security costs. It is not too late to reassess the workings of the agency, and to refine them—in short, to enable it to carry out what I was led to believe was its purpose: securing maintenance payments for children who would otherwise receive nothing, or next to nothing.
    9.16 pm
    Mr. David Martin: There is plainly an enormous amount of common ground on the assertion that the problems we have encountered with the CSA stem not from the principles of the Child Support Act—which are fundamentally sound, and generally approved of—but from the consequential regulations and administrative provisions that the House empowered Ministers to put into practical effect.
    We—by which I mean hon. Members on both sides of the House, including busy Ministers: they have constituents too—trusted, perhaps too readily, that a measure containing so much justice in principle would be justly administered from the outset, and would be seen to be so. The Child Support Agency was introduced into an extremely sensitive and emotionally charged area. I remember the matrimonial cases with which I dealt during my practice at the Bar in the early 1970s; nothing much has changed since then. The bitterness, anger and resentments that are inseparable from divorce proceedings—particu-

    537
    larly where children are concerned—are all too frequently of a harrowing magnitude that no one could fully understand without experiencing or witnessing them.
    The CSA set out to unpick many of the arrangements that had been so carefully constructed, and so often finally settled after months—even years—of recrimination and sorrow. That required very sensitive handling. Unfortunately, the whole thing got off to a poor start owing to bad publicity based on, for instance, a leaked report of priorities, and the reporting of examples that, by comparison, almost rehabilitated Shylock.
    Initially, I had a sense that my serious concerns on behalf of some constituents with genuine grievances were not being dealt with sympathetically enough. Since then, Ministers and the CSA itself have been working fast to improve matters—to publicise the true facts effectively, and to persuade us, our constituents and the media of those facts. Those moves include the welcome concessions on which we voted last week, which will help matters significantly when they are properly understood. That is a crucial condition.
    I do not intend to go into individual constituents' cases. I shall continue to take them up by letter and by personal meetings with my hon. and right hon. Friends the Ministers most directly concerned. My main purpose today is to mark my continuing concern about certain features of the operation of the agency and of the rules and regulations which apply. I reinforce what the Government amendment makes clear: that the present arrangements will be kept under continuing close review. Of course they must be.
    9.19 pm
    Mrs. Llin Golding: I feel as though I have become the Marjorie Proops of the House of Commons as I have brought into the Chamber a pile of letters—more than a foot high—that have been sent to me from all parts of the country about the so-called Child Support Act. Those letters express the anger, bitterness and despair that many men, women and children and their families feel about how the Act is working.
    I received one letter this morning; it is the last one on the pile. It says:
    "As a person who has always supported my children and has done so not because it was the law but because I take pride in my duty as an absent parent, I now find myself unable to comply with the unrealistic demands of the CSA formula and unable not to comply with the CSA demands for fear of criminal prosecution … this crippling increase, implemented in a haste destroyed mine and my partner's life … we are not unwilling to pay we are unable.".
    When we examine any legislation, we should consider whether we support the principle and the way it is to be put into practice and agree that the result is what was intended. Each letter supports the principle of parents maintaining their children. Far from wanting to abandon their children, there is an overwhelming feeling of wanting to maintain contact.
    The Minister should see some of the letters that I have received from Families Need Fathers to know how desperately fathers battle against women who use children to spite their former partners and deny them access, and how they struggle to maintain contact. Even where there is no conflict, it is mostly men who travel many miles to reassure their children that they still love and care for them. So there is no disagreement about the principle of the Act, but there is a huge tide of feeling about how it is being put into practice.
    538
    Many of the letters speak of clean break settlements under the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings act 1984 which had been agreed in courts and not discouraged by the Government at the time. How can the Government now turn that Act on its head and say to absent fathers, "You may have given up your home and its contents and given a lump sum to your wife as well as paying some maintenance to the child. You may have taken out a large mortgage and bought a car on hire purchase, which is essential for your work, with any money you had left. You may have other purchase agreements and responsibilities, but we shall ignore your commitments and previous court settlements with the statement that your first responsibility must be to maintain your child." What do the Government consider such a man had been doing under the court procedure?
    The inflexibility of the formula is damaging the lives of far too many people. The Government say that the vast majority of those approached so far have never paid maintenance. That is good, but what about the remainder, the responsible parents who have been paying maintenance, who have taken over family debts and who are now faced with long-term commitments which they can no longer meet? They may have long-term commitments to new families or other children. Do they have no rights?
    Are those responsible, caring men and women to be threatened and treated in a way which reduces them to pleading desperately in those letters, "I cannot pay this amount. Please can someone help me?" When did it become right to act arrogantly, without even a spark of decency or understanding, when dealing with families and children?
    What of the children? Not very much has been said about the children by Conservative Members, but have the Government no understanding of the strain that divorce and family break-up cause to children? Do they not understand the need of children to know that both parents love and want them? Does the standard formula that produces predictable and realistic amounts—as the Child Support Agency describes its formula—take into account the warmth and reassurance that children need to grow arid the contact that they need with both parents? As many of the letters show, contact between parents and the children does not enter the calculations of the Child Support Agency.
    Is that what the Child Support Act 1991 was intended to do? Can we not find a halfway house, another way—something that takes the children's feelings into account? Is there not some other way of assessing maintenance which considers children and their needs—not the need for money, but for care, for contact and for their feeling and the way in which they wish to grow to be taken into account?
    I would not wish the decision to be made by courts again, for they, too, failed miserably in dealing with maintenance payments. The principle of the Act is right. The inflexibility of the formula is wrong. Surely an Act with a formula that puts so many decent people into debt and drives them to despair, causing them to write letters in such vast numbers to me, cannot be what was intended.
    The Minister must reconsider immediately and amend this flawed and unsatisfactory Act.
    9.26 pm
    Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Since time immemorial, women have been left holding the baby in poverty and it has taken until 1993 and the present Government to put the matter right. If the teeth of the Act are to be drawn, we shall return to the situation of relatively rich father and relatively poor mother, and we do not wish to do that.
    There has been a black hole in much of the debate—one that was referred to by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) in his opening remarks, in which he said, blatantly, that the majority of people in the House were in favour of major changes. That is simply because the hon. Members who have been able to speak—or perhaps have come to speak—have largely spoken for an articulate minority of men who have sat down and written to us or come to our constituency surgeries. However, I shall speak for the great number of women—the silent women—who benefit from the reforms and are grateful for them.
    I shall also speak for another silent minority in the country, those who pay for the reforms. I have received a letter from a pensioner who says:
    "As a … pensioner, no State benefits, I was delighted to hear"
    that the Government have at last decided to ensure that people who have children do not expect them to be supported by
    "single people, pensioners and childless couples".
    She says that she has saved and paid for her pension all her life and that she
    "should not be expected to help men shirk their responsibilities."
    That is another silent group of people that we need to take into account before we start speaking about changing the Act.
    It is interesting that in the debate all that we have heard about is men not wanting to part with more money for the children of their first marriage. That has been the basic theme. We have heard about the little treats that they give children—the extra pair of trainers, the sweeties, the trip to the zoo, the holiday. Why should they not pay? They should pay a proper amount so that their children do not have to wait for daddy to turn up and give them a few crumbs from his income. That is not how we should expect people to behave.
    Reference has been made to the way in which the Child Support Agency operates. I am glad that some of my colleagues complimented the agency because every case that I have brought to its attention has been handled courteously, promptly and kindly. I have nothing but good to say about the job that Ms Hepplewhite is trying to do under new legislation which is extremely contentious.
    I am sure that all hon. Members will admit that most complaints have come from men. It is almost axiomatic that it is articulate, middle-class men—or sometimes their second wives—who are writing to us because it is the better-off fathers who are expected to pay more. By definition, poorer fathers are not expected to pay, if they are expected to pay anything at all. Their second family responsibilities are taken into account before the payments for their first families are calculated, and stepchildren are included in the calculation.
    There must be no suggestion that the Government reverse the changes that have been introduced. The
    540
    changes were greatly needed and were welcomed by all the women to whom I have spoken. I have only one further suggestion to make to the Government.
    The women to whom I speak are grateful for the help that the Government are giving, but, in addition to keeping the extra payments, they would like to be able to go out to work and earn a little more. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to talk to the Treasury team about giving these women a little more support. They do not want to be dependent on state benefits or have to hold out their hand for a little extra from the father of their children. They want to be independent and the Government are helping them to be so.
    9.31 pm
    Miss Joan Lestor: This is the International Year of the Family, an irony that has not escaped me as I have listened to the catalogue of complaints from hon. Members of all parties about how a Government agency acts against the interests of parents and children. One of the aims of the IYF, according to the Government-funded office in London, is to be
    "a catalyst for building a more family friendly society."
    The IYF booklet tells us:
    "Opinions may vary about what family means, but we all agree now more than ever before, that families matter and their well being and that of each individual member of the family is crucial to the well being of society."
    The Children Act 1989 also put centre stage the interests of the child.
    I am glad that that the Secretary of State seems to have moved on a little from his appalling speech at the Tory party conference two years ago when he talked about single young ladies trying to jump the housing queue by becoming lone mothers. I hope that some of his remarks tonight mean that he has a little more understanding of the situation.
    From what we have heard today and from our constituency post bags, it is abundantly clear that the Child Support Act 1991 and the Child Support Agency are not working in the best interests of children and families—they do not have their interests at heart—and that they are not working in quite the way the Government predicted. Last week we debated the Government's regulations to amend the agency. The changes were welcome, but they were not sufficiently far reaching or comprehensive.
    The Secretary of State, and the Prime Minister only today, said that the agency would be kept constantly under review. I think it was the Prime Minister who said that we should need more evidence before we make any more alterations. Presumably, we have to wait for the other 250,000 cases to come forward. We are all aware that the agency will have to be altered before long if its principle is to work without the hardship that its application causes to many people.
    The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) rightly said that some mothers—4 per cent.—have benefited from the legislation, and I welcome that fact; it is great. Most of us support the principle of non-resident parents—mostly men—supporting their children financially and emotionally. Precious few have said that it is not a matter of either/or—just because 4 per cent. are benefiting does not mean that the rest should suffer as a result. That is the implication. As we have heard tonight, some will be worse off, as they will be floated off income support, with the subsequent loss of passported benefits.

    541
    The hon. Member for Billericay ridiculed the loss of one-off payments. There is nothing wrong or worthy of derision in a father agreeing to pay for a holiday, buy the shoes and contribute—that is what fatherhood is all about and I welcome it. Those are some of the things that the non-residential parents are doing.
    Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Miss Lestor: I shall not give way. With great courtesy, may I say to the hon. Gentleman that both the Government and the Opposition Front-Bench teams agreed to cut the length of their speeches so that more Back Benchers could speak. I have a lot to say and, although I speak quickly, I might not have time to advance all my arguments.
    Some people have lost benefit because they have refused to co-operate with the agency. That is terrible. It may involve a small number of people—160, I believe—but if people had an incentive and a disregard, it might assist in bringing irresponsible, absent fathers to book.
    We are all aware of the devastating impact of the Act on second families and stepchildren. It puts a strain on new relationships and causes hardship to the children. It is the children about whom I am concerned. All those problems were predicted when we first discussed the then Child Support Agency Bill. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) referred to my speech in that debate, because the Government refused to listen.
    The then Minister, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), accused us of political deceit when we tabled our reasoned amendment. He said that we were trying to undermine
    "in the mind of the public the wholly honourable intentions of the Bill."—[Official Report, 4 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 240]
    A lot of history has been rewritten tonight. I want to make it clear that we supported the principle that men should be responsible for the children that they father. That was why we did not vote on Second Reading of the Bill. We tabled the reasoned amendment to show some of the difficulties that would arise from the Bill.
    We argued that clean break settlements should be properly taken into account. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) now supports the principle that the impact of the Act on second families should be taken into account. Indeed, Ministers were keen during discussions to play up the moral argument, but they did not take account of the fact that many people were already contributing. I remember one hon. Member referring to "tower block stags", who tend to jump from one flat to another with no responsibility for the children they father. That got a "Hear, hear" from Ministers. The message was clear and many people were misled.
    The Child Support Agency was supposed to be the means by which non-resident, irresponsible fathers who did not contribute a penny to the families they had abandoned were to be brought to account. I am afraid that it has not worked out like that. CSA staff have been advised to go after the soft targets first—parents on higher than average incomes, parents with second families, parents who rent rather than have a mortgage and those who are in regular contact with their first families. Those are not the Jack-the-lads whom we were told were the principal targets of the Act. It is disgraceful that those who refused to name the father of their children have had their benefit taken away or reduced.
    There is another difficulty. The agency has made many mistakes. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr.
    542
    Ashton) gave me the example of a man who received through his letter box a demand for £75. He was told that he was responsible for a child he had fathered and for whom he had not paid. The demand bore his name, but it was not his child. When he asked for details, he was told that he could have them. What happened? His marriage temporarily broke up and, as the man had had a vasectomy, the efficacy of medical science was also undermined. That is not on. Surely to goodness when an agency or anyone else is chasing an absent father, it should make sure that it has the right man before it makes a move.
    Mr. Joseph Ashton: Even worse than that has happened in the same neighbourhood. A father committed suicide when he was told how much he had to pay, and the inquest said that it was all because of the Act.
    Miss Lestor: Yes; I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
    Many such parents are responsible caring parents, who pay regularly and who share the care of their children. The hon. Member for Billericay dismisses such matters, but those fathers take care of their children, take them on holiday and buy them clothes and all sorts of other extras above the maintenance levels agreed in court.
    The White Paper "Children Come First" has been totally undermined. Because of the agency's involvement, some first and second families are financially worse off, and some children are seeing less, or even nothing, of their father if he cannot afford visiting costs on top of the increased maintenance. Is that putting the interests of the child first?
    Indeed, some fathers have been told that they would be better off if they became unemployed, because the sums demanded from them are unworkable. Who would benefit from that? Not the family, not the father and not the Exchequer. Some fathers slip through the net altogether. I was advised that when fathers are really absent, because they are resident abroad, the agency can take no action.
    The giveaway was making the agency chief executive into a bounty hunter. When the Secretary of State opened the debate—
    Hon. Members: Rubbish.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse):Order
    Miss Lestor rose—
    Mr. Jenkin: You are wasting time, dear.
    Miss Lestor: Don't call me dear.
    Mr. John Evans: Come over here and say that.
    Miss Lestor: He dare not. He has not got the guts.
    The giveaway was making the agency chief executive into a bounty hunter through the introduction of performance-related bonuses. The Secretary of State said that that was not so, and that the arrangement was no different from what happened everywhere else. However, he said that there were no plans to make the document available in the Library; so if what he says is true, will he publish the details of the enforcement and special tracing section? My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) has already asked for that, and his request was refused.
    When the Bill was passed, it was said that it would operate on a straightforward principle, aiming to improve

    543
    on the existing court system that had failed so many mothers and their children, leaving more than 80 per cent. of lone parents on income support. We were told that that was the principle—but family policies are never that straightforward, and Acts of Parliament, especially those such as the Child Support Act, which have such a strong and direct impact on the lives of ordinary families, cannot be viewed in isolation.
    The backdrop should be a coherent family policy which embraces employment opportunities, a national child care strategy and a mediation and conciliation service to help families cope with the stresses of separation and divorce. The CSA is operating in a vacuum. Although this is the international year of the family, there is no Minister for the family to develop a co-ordinated approach to support for families; instead, the Government are concentrating on penny-pinching short-term measures that increase costs in the longer term, both financially and socially.
    At the beginning, when the agency was first set up, the Government argued strongly that the taxpayer should not be left to pay for other people's children. I do not regard money spent on children as wasted, unlike the tens of millions of pounds that were lost pushing ahead with the iniquitous poll tax and then scrapping it, or the administrative bungling recently unearthed by the Public Accounts Committee, the £48 million Whitehall project. There have been all sorts of losses. I say to hon. Gentleman, and to the Minister in particular—[interruption.]—and hon. Ladies—that most people in this country would prefer—[Interruption.] Don't be so stupid.
    Given the choice, I know how I should prefer my taxes to be spent, and I think most people in the country would want to put children first. Cherishing children is an important principle, yet today their interests are being sacrificed to feed the Exchequer.
    Most of the hon. Gentlemen who spoke—not the hon. Ladies—said that they were dissatisfied with the working of the agency. They pointed out the hardship that it was causing and they were absolutely right to do so, as were all my hon. Friends who spoke. If that is true and if that is what those hon. Gentlemen believe, I ask them to join us in the Lobby tonight. There have been hardly any supporters of the Child Support Act 1991 here tonight.
    Mrs. Gorman: The supporters are outside.
    Miss Lestor: The hon. Lady said that they are not here, but outside. Few have got up and stood for the Act—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman ought to get up and say what he has got to say and not snipe.
    Mr. Burt rose—
    Miss Lestor: I am not talking to the Minister. I am talking to the one with the silly grin on his face.
    If Conservative Members who have spoken are concerned—I share their concern and we know that what they say makes sense—about the operation of the Act, if they join us in the Lobby tonight, we can begin to alter the Act and establish a principle that, yes, not only makes people responsible for their children but does not impoverish second families and put the interests of children at risk. Those are the principles and that is why we
    544
    have moved the motion. I hope that the hon. Gentlemen who have complained about the operations of the agency will join us in the Lobby tonight.
    9.47 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): This has been a lively debate with a variety of speeches. They have been mostly measured speeches on both sides of the House, and there have been one or two that we would have wanted to listen to again. As I said in the past week—the debate is second on child support recently—I am not 100 per cent. certain that all the speeches made in the House showed an acceptance of the basic principles of the Child Support Act 1991. I should like to develop that theme and suggest to the House why our amendment is the best way to move forward in the circumstances.
    The Child Support Act 1991 did a number of things. It certainly reiterated a principle which we all find easy to sign up to—that parents should be responsible for their children. No one seriously disagrees with that. However, I must remind the House that the Act did other things as well which we now find not so comfortable with which to identify.
    First, the move from a discretionary system to a formula system was deliberate. My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) said clearly, and with some degree of honesty, that hon. Members had not appreciated the full impact of the move from the discretionary system to the formula, and he was right.
    Secondly, the Act gave a retrospective ability to the agency to consider settlements. I wanted to make the point to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) that it is by Act of Parliament that the agency does what it does and it is not for us to say that it is a bureaucratic organisation that acts on its own. The House must recognise its responsibility for creating the Child Support Agency which works to the formula that we set.
    I am grateful for the variety of comments made about the CSA by my hon. Friends the Members for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson), for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks), for Newark (Mr. Alexander), for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) and for Bedforshire, South-West (Sir D. Madel).
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) spoke about those who worked in his local CSA. As with all public servants, we probably all have constituents who are Child Support Agency officers. As with all other civil servants, they work according to what we wish them to do and try to do their job. I found some of the criticisms of the Child Support Agency made by Opposition Members quite uncalled for. Those who work for the agency are civil servants doing a job. I wish that all colleagues would take the opportunity to see their local field officers and to talk to them about their work.
    I shall now respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy), who made an excellent, measured contribution to our debate. She especially asked what assistance we were giving the agency with the changes. We are giving assistance to the agency. We recognise that the changes will make a difference to targets and that they will make a difference to administration costs.
    I hope that I have reassured the hon. Lady. She was the first Member this evening to raise the point about the sheer

    545
    misery of divorce and separation, and about our growing awareness of its impact. No hon. Member of any party can safely ignore that point. The hon. Lady was right to raise the matter in the way that she did.
    I spoke earlier about the House's responsibility for the Child Support Act 1991. The move from a discretionary approach to a formula and the reasons for acting retrospectively were justified. Colleagues must understand the position from which we moved. Few hon. Members have pointed out how bad the previous system was. It was because so many women did not receive maintenance through the courts that we realised that we could not go on as we were. It was because we recognised the effect on the taxpayer that we had to look at all aspects of the previous position.
    I shall quote, justifiably, from the report by the Select Committee on Social Security. I want to quote this paragraph because Opposition Members repeatedly made the point about the taxpayer. I want them to see what a Select Committee—not the Government—said about that point, and I want to remind them of what they clearly intended to do a couple of years ago.
    At paragraph 20, the Committee says:
    "The Committee has received complaints that causing absent fathers to pay money which was formerly paid by the social security system is a distortion of the original purpose of the Act. There have also been criticisms that the money being sought from absent parents does not provide any extra benefits for the children. Given what was said in the White Paper, these criticisms are misconceived. One of the purposes of the changes was to provide a secure income that would enable parents with care to take paid employment without losing another part of their income, as would be the case with Income Support. However, it was always intended that, in cases where it was assessed that the absent parent could afford to do so, the financial responsibility for the care of children should move from the social security system to the absent parent. In some cases maintenance will be a substitute for Income Support; in others, the sums received by the children will certainly improve their circumstances."
    That is what we passed; that is what the Select Committee recently said we were right to pass. That is the principle that we should all live up to, it may be uncomfortable for hon. Members.
    As we did last week, we have today confronted a number of genuine issues. The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) was right when she talked about how she wished to spend her taxes. How do we strike the right balance for our children, especially in relation to separation? How do we get the balance right between the interests of both parents and the interests of the taxpayer? Three years ago, the House was clear—let us make no bones about it—about what was the best thing to do. We felt that the first family had been disadvantaged for too long. We knew that we had to redress the balance for such families, and we knew that we had to redress the balance for the taxpayer as well.
    The mood of the House has now changed; we are not quite so clear about the issue. That is the honest truth. Having seen the Act in operation, we are not quite so clear about the balance. It is because the House is less clear than it was that I invite the House to support the Government amendment. I believe that it more accurately reflects the mood of the House than does the Opposition motion, which tries to come up with a solution before the issues have been thought through.
    We made our position clear with regard to the legislation. As the Select Committee said, it is the most major social change in 40 years. We made a commitmenmt
    546
    that we would review the Child Support Agency once it was established. When a piece of considered work came to us reflecting the concerns of the House, our constituents and many commentators, we listened and responded. That pledge is not the empty words suggested by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). When we said that we would keep something under review, we meant that if something came up, we would respond—and we did so. That is what the House approved last week in the proper terms that we proposed.
    It is right to allow the changes that we made, prompted by the Select Committee, to have effect so that we can judge the impact. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the impact on the changes will be significant. It is right to assess the impact. From the variety of issues raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House, I do not believe that simply accepting the hon. Gentleman's solution is the right answer. He suggested that there was one easy panacea.
    I refer to the debate that I had with the hon. Gentleman this morning—I have had the same debate with him on one or two previous occasions—about what an appeal means. I still cannot get it out of my head that what he means by an appeal, which sounds attractive, is that in some way all those people who are concerned and upset about the changes will have a way out.
    I did not think that that was a genuine and honest proposal to put to the people. We must define the gateways to the appeal system because, if everyone appeals, we would go back to the discretionary system to which the hon. Gentleman in his next breath said the House did not want to return.
    As I cannot be sure that the hon. Gentleman is clear about what he wants the appeal system to do, and how he wants it to be drawn up, I cannot recommend it to my colleagues tonight. I simply say that, because of the degree of concern and uncertainty raised by my colleagues, we meant what we said in terms of keeping the Act under review. In the past, we have proved that we are able to respond, and that is what I offer my colleagues tonight.
    Once again, a voice not heard so much in this debate was that of lone parents—that silent group mentioned by the Select Committee and one or two hon. Members in this debate, and championed so strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). They made the point that the House must not forget why we made the changes in the first place. If we move too precipitately to change—the House should have some experience of this now—and if we lose the gains that we have made, that would be wrong.
    I shall quote from a letter that I received yesterday morning from a lady in Northampton:
    "I am just writing to say as a single parent through no fault of my own, I am very grateful for the CSA's help.
    After two and a half years of no maintenance, it is now being sorted and feel I can now get on with my own life.
    As a nurse I can now seek employment, as the maintenance will help with costs for a childminder giving my son and myself to have a better future to look to.
    You have my full support and I just hope that any changes wail not affect us too much."
    That is the honest and straightforward voice of a woman who has seen a number of changes.
    Mr. Tony Marlow rose—
    Mr. Burt: No. I must refuse to give way to many of my hon. Friends because time is short.

    547
    I cannot recommend the Opposition's motion to the House because of my uncertainties about it.
    Let me now comment on the question of absent parents—this may help hon. Members on both sides of the House. An absent parent does not mean an errant parent. [Interruption.] I am happy to reassure the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) that we know the difference. We are chasing errant parents who did not pay money before. We are trying to find them. We have a tracing mechanism that has been successful in 89 per cent. of cases. In the past, the men involved in those cases would have disappeared. We are now catching them, and it is right to do so. All that the term "absent parent" denotes is the distinction between them and the parent with care. It is not meant to be pejorative in any way.
    We have proved that when we are offered solid reasons for reform, our commitment to review the legislation is good and we respond. I am not prepared without proper consideration to return to a system of discretion, which I fear is behind much of what the hon. Member for Garscadden has said.
    We will look carefully at what the Act is doing, but it was introduced to improve a system of maintenance that was bad. The system left women dependent for too long on maintenance which was not there, and on the taxpayer on whom she did not want to be dependent. I am not going to allow the lone parent to return to that position, and I ask the House—
    Mr. Derek Foster rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 316.

    Division No. 118]

    [10 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Ainger, Nick

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

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Burden, Richard

    Allen, Graham

    Byers, Stephen

    Alton, David

    Caborn, Richard

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Ashton, Joe

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Austin-Walker, John

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Barnes, Harry

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Barron, Kevin

    Clapham, Michael

    Battle, John

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Beggs, Roy

    Clelland, David

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Bell, Stuart

    Coffey, Ann

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Cohen, Harry

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Connarty, Michael

    Benton, Joe

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Berry, Dr. Roger

    Corbett, Robin

    Betts, Clive

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Blair, Tony

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Blunkett, David

    Cousins, Jim

    Boateng, Paul

    Cox, Tom

    Boyes, Roland

    Cryer, Bob

    Bradley, Keith

    Cummings, John

    548

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Darling, Alistair

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Davidson, Ian

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jowell, Tessa

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

    Keen, Alan

    Denham, John

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Dewar, Donald

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Dixon, Don

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Dobson, Frank

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Dowd, Jim

    Leighton, Ron

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Lewis, Terry

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Litherland, Robert

    Eastham, Ken

    Livingstone, Ken

    Enright, Derek

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Etherington, Bill

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Fatchett, Derek

    McAllion, John

    Faulds, Andrew

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    McCartney, Ian

    Fisher, Mark

    Macdonald, Calum

    Flynn, Paul

    McFall, John

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    McGrady, Eddie

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    McKelvey, William

    Foulkes, George

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Fraser, John

    McLeish, Henry

    Fyfe, Maria

    McMaster, Gordon

    Galloway, George

    McNamara, Kevin

    Gapes, Mike

    McWilliam, John

    Garrett, John

    Madden, Max

    George, Bruce

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Gerrard, Neil

    Mahon, Alice

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Mallon, Seamus

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Marek, Dr John

    Godsiff, Roger

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Graham, Thomas

    Martlew, Eric

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Maxton, John

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Meacher, Michael

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Meale, Alan

    Grocott, Bruce

    Michael, Alun

    Gunnell, John

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Hain, Peter

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Hall, Mike

    Milburn, Alan

    Hanson, David

    Miller, Andrew

    Hardy, Peter

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Henderson, Doug

    Morley, Elliot

    Hendron, Dr Joe

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Heppell, John

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Hoey, Kate

    Mudie, George

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Mullin, Chris

    Home Robertson, John

    Murphy, Paul

    Hood, Jimmy

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Hoyle, Doug

    Olner, William

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Parry, Robert

    Hume, John

    Patchett, Terry

    Hutton, John

    Pendry, Tom

    Illsley, Eric

    Pickthall, Colin

    Ingram, Adam

    Pike, Peter L.

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Pope, Greg

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Jamieson, David

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Janner, Greville

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    549

    Prescott, John

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Purchase, Ken

    Stern, Michael

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Stevenson, George

    Radice, Giles

    Stott, Roger

    Randall, Stuart

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Raynsford, Nick

    Straw, Jack

    Redmond, Martin

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Reid, Dr John

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Rendel, David

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Tyler, Paul

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Vaz, Keith

    Rooker, Jeff

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Rooney, Terry

    Wallace, James

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Walley, Joan

    Rowlands, Ted

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Wareing, Robert N

    Salmond, Alex

    Watson, Mike

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Welsh, Andrew

    Sheerman, Barry

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Simpson, Alan

    Wilson, Brian

    Skinner, Dennis

    Winnick, David

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Wise, Audrey

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

    Wray, Jimmy

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

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Snape, Peter

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Soley, Clive

    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. Dennis Turner.

    Spearing, Nigel

    Spellar, John

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Burns, Simon

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Burt, Alistair

    Alexander, Richard

    Butcher, John

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Butler, Peter

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Butterfill, John

    Amess, David

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Ancram, Michael

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Carrington, Matthew

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Cash, William

    Ashby, David

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Churchill, Mr

    Atkins, Robert

    Clappison, James

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Baldry, Tony

    Colvin, Michael

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Congdon, David

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Conway, Derek

    Bates, Michael

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Bendall, Vivian

    Cormack, Patrick

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Cran, James

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

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

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Body, Sir Richard

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Booth, Hartley

    Day, Stephen

    Boswell, Tim

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Devlin, Tim

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Bowden, Andrew

    Dicks, Terry

    Bowis, John

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Dover, Den

    Brazier, Julian

    Duncan, Alan

    Bright, Graham

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Dunn, Bob

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Dykes, Hugh

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Eggar, Tim

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Elletson, Harold

    550

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Knapman, Roger

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

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

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Knox, Sir David

    Evennett, David

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Faber, David

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Fabricant, Michael

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Legg, Barry

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Leigh, Edward

    Forman, Nigel

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Forth, Eric

    Lidington, David

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Lightbown, David

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Lord, Michael

    French, Douglas

    Luff, Peter

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Gale, Roger

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Gallie, Phil

    MacKay, Andrew

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Maclean, David

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Garnier, Edward

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Gill, Christopher

    Madel, Sir David

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Malone, Gerald

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Mans, Keith

    Gorst, John

    Marland, Paul

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Mates, Michael

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Merchant, Piers

    Hague, William

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hannam, Sir John

    Moss, Malcolm

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Needham, Richard

    Harris, David

    Nelson, Anthony

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Hawkins, Nick

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hawksley, Warren

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hayes, Jerry

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Heald, Oliver

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Norris, Steve

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Hendry, Charles

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Ottaway, Richard

    Hicks, Robert

    Page, Richard

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Paice, James

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Horam, John

    Pawsey, James

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Pickles, Eric

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

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Hunter, Andrew

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Richards, Rod

    Jack, Michael

    Riddick, Graham

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Key, Robert

    Sackville, Tom

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    551

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

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

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Tracey, Richard

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Tredinnick, David

    Shersby, Michael

    Trend, Michael

    Sims, Roger

    Trotter, Neville

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Viggers, Peter

    Soames, Nicholas

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Walden, George

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Waller, Gary

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Ward, John

    Spring, Richard

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Sproat, Iain

    Waterson, Nigel

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Watts, John

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Wells, Bowen

    Steen, Anthony

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Stephen, Michael

    Whitney, Ray

    Stewart, Allan

    Whittingdale, John

    Streeter, Gary

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Sumberg, David

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Sweeney, Walter

    Wilkinson, John

    Sykes, John

    Willetts, David

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Wilshire, David

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

    Wood, Timothy

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Yeo, Tim

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Thomason, Roy

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Irvine Patnick.

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—
    The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 279.

    Division No. 119]

    [10.15 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Bowis, John

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Alexander, Richard

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Brazier, Julian

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Bright, Graham

    Amess, David

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Ancram, Michael

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Ashby, David

    Burns, Simon

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Burt, Alistair

    Atkins, Robert

    Butcher, John

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Butler, Peter

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Butterfill, John

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Baldry, Tony

    Carrington, Matthew

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Cash, William

    Bates, Michael

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Batiste, Spencer

    Churchill, Mr

    Beggs, Roy

    Clappison, James

    Bellingham, Henry

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Coe, Sebastian

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Colvin, Michael

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Congdon, David

    Booth, Hartley

    Conway, Derek

    Boswell, Tim

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Bowden, Andrew

    Cormack, Patrick

    552

    Cran, James

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

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

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Day, Stephen

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Hunter, Andrew

    Devlin, Tim

    Jack, Michael

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Dicks, Terry

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Jessel, Toby

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Dover, Den

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Duncan, Alan

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Dunn, Bob

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Key, Robert

    Dykes, Hugh

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Eggar, Tim

    Knapman, Roger

    Elletson, Harold

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    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

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Faber, David

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Fabricant, Michael

    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

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Lord, Michael

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Luff, Peter

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    French, Douglas

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Fry, Sir Peter

    MacKay, Andrew

    Gale, Roger

    Maclean, David

    Gallie, Phil

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Gardiner, Sir George

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Madel, Sir David

    Garnier, Edward

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Gill, Christopher

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Malone, Gerald

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Mans, Keith

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Marland, Paul

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Gorst, John

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Mates, Michael

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Merchant, Piers

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Hague, William

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Moss, Malcolm

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Needham, Richard

    Hannam, Sir John

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Harris, David

    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

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Ottaway, Richard

    Hendry, Charles

    Page, Richard

    Hicks, Robert

    Paice, James

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Horam, John

    Pawsey, James

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Pickles, Eric

    553

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Sykes, John

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Thomason, Roy

    Richards, Rod

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Riddick, Graham

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Thurnham, Peter

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

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

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Tracey, Richard

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Tredinnick, David

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Trend, Michael

    Sackville, Tom

    Trotter, Neville

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Viggers, Peter

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Walden, George

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Waller, Gary

    Shersby, Michael

    Ward, John

    Sims, Roger

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Waterson, Nigel

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Watts, John

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Wells, Bowen

    Soames, Nicholas

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Whitney, Ray

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Whittingdale, John

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Spring, Richard

    Wilkinson, John

    Sproat, Iain

    Willetts, David

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Wilshire, David

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Wolfson, Mark

    Steen, Anthony

    Wood, Timothy

    Stephen, Michael

    Yeo, Tim

    Stern, Michael

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Stewart, Allan

    Streeter, Gary

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Sumberg, David

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

    Sweeney, Walter

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Burden, Richard

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Byers, Stephen

    Ainger, Nick

    Caborn, Richard

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Allen, Graham

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Alton, David

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Canavan, Dennis

    Ashton, Joe

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Austin-Walker, John

    Clapham, Michael

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Barnes, Harry

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Barron, Kevin

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Battle, John

    Clelland, David

    Bayley, Hugh

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Coffey, Ann

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Cohen, Harry

    Bell, Stuart

    Connarty, Michael

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Benton, Joe

    Corbett, Robin

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Berry, Dr. Roger

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Betts, Clive

    Cousins, Jim

    Blair, Tony

    Cox, Tom

    Blunkett, David

    Cryer, Bob

    Boateng, Paul

    Cummings, John

    Boyes, Roland

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Bradley, Keith

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Dalyell, Tam

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

    Darling, Alistair

    554

    Davidson, Ian

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jowell, Tessa

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

    Keen, Alan

    Denham, John

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Dewar, Donald

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Dixon, Don

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Dobson, Frank

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Leighton, Ron

    Dowd, Jim

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Lewis, Terry

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Litherland, Robert

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Livingstone, Ken

    Eastham, Ken

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Enright, Derek

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Etherington, Bill

    Loyden, Eddie

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    McAllion, John

    Fatchett, Derek

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Faulds, Andrew

    McCartney, Ian

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Macdonald, Calum

    Fisher, Mark

    McFall, John

    Flynn, Paul

    McGrady, Eddie

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    McKelvey, William

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Foulkes, George

    McLeish, Henry

    Fraser, John

    McMaster, Gordon

    Fyfe, Maria

    McNamara, Kevin

    Galloway, George

    McWilliam, John

    Gapes, Mike

    Madden, Max

    Garrett, John

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    George, Bruce

    Mahon, Alice

    Gerrard, Neil

    Mallon, Seamus

    Gill, Christopher

    Marek, Dr John

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Martlew, Eric

    Graham, Thomas

    Maxton, John

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Meacher, Michael

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Michael, Alun

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Gunnell, John

    Milburn, Alan

    Hain, Peter

    Miller, Andrew

    Hall, Mike

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Hanson, David

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hardy, Peter

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Morley, Elliot

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Henderson, Doug

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Hendron, Dr Joe

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Heppell, John

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Mudie, George

    Hinchliffe, David

    Mullin, Chris

    Hoey, Kate

    Murphy, Paul

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Home Robertson, John

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Hood, Jimmy

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    O'Hara, Edward

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Olner, William

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Hoyle, Doug

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Parry, Robert

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Patchett, Terry

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Pendry, Tom

    Hume, John

    Pickthall, Colin

    Hutton, John

    Pike, Peter L.

    Illsley, Eric

    Pope, Greg

    Ingram, Adam

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Jamieson, David

    Prescott, John

    Janner, Greville

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Purchase, Ken

    Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Radice, Giles

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Randall, Stuart

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Raynsford, Nick

    555

    Redmond, Martin

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Reid, Dr John

    Straw, Jack

    Rendel, David

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Tipping, Paddy

    Rooney, Terry

    Turner, Dennis

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Tyler, Paul

    Rowlands, Ted

    Vaz, Keith

    Ruddock, Joan

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Salmond, Alex

    Wallace, James

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Walley, Joan

    Sheerman, Barry

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Wareing, Robert N

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Watson, Mike

    Simpson, Alan

    Welsh, Andrew

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

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

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

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

    Wilson, Brian

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Winnick, David

    Snape, Peter

    Wise, Audrey

    Soley, Clive

    Wray, Jimmy

    Spearing, Nigel

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Spellar, John

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. Alan Meale.

    Stevenson, George

    Stott, Roger

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House welcomes the support of the all-party Select Committee on Social Security for the principles of the Child Support Act; reaffirms its own support for those principles, in particular that every parent has a duty to contribute to the maintenance of his or her child, that the amount of maintenance paid for children should be increased, and that the cost of bringing up children should fall on other taxpayers only if parents are unable to maintain their children themselves; recognises the inconsistency and arbitrariness of the previous court-based system, which gave insufficient priority to parental support of children and left many children on benefit; welcomes the important changes recently introduced by the Government in response to early experience of the new scheme and the Select Committee's report on its practical working; and approves the Government's intention to keep the arrangements under continuing close review as further experience is gained.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you recently any notification of a statement tomorrow at 11 am on the investigation report on the Beverly Allitt case? That subject should be brought before the House, and if that is to be done, the appropriate Department should have notified you tonight, so that people know in good time for tomorrow morning. Has the Department had the decency, good sense and sense of co-operation to do that?
    Madam Speaker: I have not been informed of any statement this evening. As the hon Gentleman and the House are aware, the House and I do not need to be notified until 10 am if the Government wish to make a statement.

    Further Education (Swale)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
    10.31 pm
    Sir Roger Moate: I warmly welcome this opportunity for a debate on the subject of opportunities for further education in Swale. It is a matter of great importance to my constituents, whether they be young people who may be seriously losing out or the employers—large and small—who may be deprived of the skills and professional work force on which we all depend.
    Do I exaggerate when I say "losing out"? I do not think so. The latest analysis produced a startling figure. It showed that only 13 per cent. of Swale youngsters opt for further education, compared with 26 per cent. in the whole county of Kent. That suggests a serious educational deficit, and one that we can, and must, correct. Why it has occurred and how we can correct it are matters that I shall mention tonight.
    I welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education. I thank him for his concern and the interest that he has already shown in the subject. I know that he already knows a lot about the borough of Swale. I shall mention some background facts that are crucial to the debate.
    Swale in north Kent, most of which is covered by the Faversham constituency, is rightly perceived to be a most attractive part of the garden of England. It is the birthplace of the English fruit industry. It is proud of its orchards, hop gardens, north downs villages, estuarial land, coastline and bird reserves. Agriculture, horticulture and food distribution are still the largest sources of employment. What is not widely understood is that Swale is also one of the most important industrial areas of the south-east of England.
    In 1989, the national percentage of people engaged in manufacturing industry was 18.3 per cent. In Swale, it was 29 per cent. The port of Sheerness on the Medway is one of the largest ports in the United Kingdom and—with the Olau line ferry—directly and indirectly generates thousands of jobs. The steel industry produces a significant percentage of United Kingdom steel production, pharmaceuticals, electricals, glass, ceramics, three major paper mills, a major brewery, plasterboard manufacturing, many large industrial estates and much more besides.
    With our concentration on industry, construction and commuting to London, we have been hit very hard by the recession. As a result, the Sittingbourne and Sheppey travel-to-work area—that is, the borough of Swale—has the 10th highest unemployment rate in England, the 13th highest in the United Kingdom as a whole, and the highest rate of long-term unemployment in the county of Kent.
    Because of that, our area has been granted assisted area status: that, coupled with the prospects for economic growth nationally, presents a great opportunity, but one that can be seized only if we can offer a skilled work force for new or expanding companies in manufacturing or the service industries.
    Surveys show that among the top issues that the business community wants to be addressed are further education and skill training. Two of the main constraints on expansion locally were shown to be poor infrastructure and lack of skilled labour. We are moving rapidly ahead at last on infrastructure—on road and rail investment; the

    557
    question is, what are we doing about skill training and further education? There we must do more, and we need Ministers' help if we are to more ahead.
    As I said earlier, the number of Swale youngsters entering further education is only half the figure for the rest of the county. Almost every other borough in Kent has its own dedicated further education facility; Swale has not. Students and trainees from Sittingbourne, Faversham, Sheerness and the surrounding district must travel to Canterbury, Maidstone or Medway.
    That travelling time is the crux of the problem. Cross-county communication in Kent is never easy; even those living close to railway stations must spend two or three hours travelling each day. Someone living at the eastern end of Sheppey—perhaps that is the most extreme example—would have to travel for about four hours each way to and from Canterbury.
    Let us take a BTEC business administration course at Canterbury college. It starts at 1 pm, and ends at 8.30 pm. Someone from Sittingbourne would get back to the station at 10 pm, which is too late for most 16-year-olds, and certainly impossible for anyone living on Sheppey. Those transport problems must be the main reason why young people from Swale are not entering further education at the same level as young people in the rest of the country. That is very serious.
    Swale is a large borough, with a population of 116,000. That figure is rising fast, and already represents about 8 per cent. of the county of Kent. Further education funding for 1992–93 for the whole county was £34 million, and the Swale share of that could be seen as just under £3 million.
    If we could direct resources of that order—or even part of that amount—into Swale, we could establish excellent local facilities of a good size. That is a goal worth aiming for, which should be in our minds when we consider the more immediate steps that can be taken. Our goal should surely be a Swale college, and I hope that that concept will stimulate a sympathetic response from the Department and neighbouring further-education establishments.
    The right framework is already in place, in the form of the Swale training centre. That organisation has grown out of a remarkable level of co-operation between the business community and Swale borough council, the education service, Kent technical college, Swale chamber of commerce and many other agencies. It is important to underline the amount of backing and co-operation that the community would provide in support of a new further education initiative in Swale.
    Swale Training Centre Ltd. is Kent's largest training provider, housed on a 1-hectare site in Sittingbourne. It has 6,000 sq m of workshops and other facilities, and is very well equipped to a very high standard. Those training facilities are very highly regarded, and are in a very good location. The training centre was founded in 1981, and now employs more than 100 staff and consultants. It assists the training and development of more than 3,000 people annually, and is accredited by most examining organisations and industry-led bodies.
    Like others, I had hoped that the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 would be the springboard for expansion. The Act provides for the funding of external institutions such as the Swale training centre—further education colleges that cannot meet local needs because of, for example, location or lack of specialist provision. It required that any external institution had to be endorsed by an existing college—one within striking distance.
    558
    Funding decisions are taken by the Further Education Funding Council, which is clearly constrained by the Act. It is not obvious how much discretion it has when a neighbouring institution is not able or willing positively to endorse an external institution that would obviously be competing for funds from the same pot.
    Swale training centre applied for funds last year, but the application was rejected. Although the application was routed through an existing college, the lack of positive endorsement was cited as a reason for rejection. This year we are applying again, and it is tremendously important that we secure funding for the first important step in the expansion of further education in our area.
    Let us be clear what will happen if we do not get the funding: perhaps hundreds of youngsters will not get the training opportunities that they need and that could be made available in September.
    The funds that we are seeking this year will be about £250,000, which would provide facilities for at least 100 full-time students. They would include a range of BTEC courses in vocational subjects such as mechanical engineering, business administration, motor vehicle mechanics, information technology and a range of courses for the new general national vocational qualification—equivalent to A-levels—in manufacturing, construction, catering, design and so on. There is a special problem, as the application forms are not yet available, although the courses start in September.
    I am sure that the requirement for endorsement by an existing college was conceived with the best of intentions, but it should not be a straitjacket stifling new initiatives and local enterprise. So what is the position? The funding council might not statutorily be able to fund an external institution that has not received positive endorsement from an existing college.
    Last November, however, the funding council, in consultation circular 93/34, put forward a number of options for the method of funding external institutions. One was sponsorship by a college, another was sponsorship by the local education authority, and a third was direct funding by the council to largely autonomous external institutions, of which Swale training centre is undoubtedly one. That suggests that the Act does not prevent direct funding. There is also an implication that approval could be allowed even where sponsorship falls short of enthusiastic endorsement by another existing further education college.
    What specifically am I asking the Minister this evening? First, it would be greatly appreciated if he could come and see for himself just how good the Swale training centre is. I can assure him that he will be impressed. At the same time, he could experience some of the other delights of north Kent.
    Secondly, will he use all his best endeavours to help ensure the success of our funding application this year? It may be that his officials at this early stage in the application—the application has not been submitted because we do not yet have the forms—could advise us on the best route to achieve approval in accordance with 1.he requirements of the legislation. Where there's a will, there must be a way.
    Thirdly, I should like to ask for my hon. Friend's encouragement and that of his Department for the concept of the Swale college, and again seek his support and advice on how best to attain that objective, albeit perhaps a longer-term one. It is not an issue of local pride, nor is it

    559
    about creating institutions for their own sake; it is about providing vitally needed training and further education to hundreds of young people. We have clearly identified a serious educational deficit. That gap—that deficit—exists for geographical reasons, which are unalterable. That gap exists in one of the most important manufacturing areas in the south of England. It is a gap that can and must be filled, and I repeat my hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can, and will, give us a helping hand tonight.
    10.44 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): I must begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) on securing a debate about what is, I know, an important subject for many of his constituents—and, if I may say so, on the excellent manner in which he presented his case and the obvious concern that he showed for them, as ever. It is also a subject of general interest to the House.
    My hon. Friend has spoken eloquently of the difficulties that confront some of his constituents in gaining access to further education. I will turn to his specific concerns in a moment, but first, I should like to say a few words about the Government's general policies for further education. Those have two main aims; to increase participation and to raise levels of achievement.
    I am glad to say that the participation rate of 16 to 18-year-olds in education and training is at record levels. That marks a definite shift in cultural attitudes. It is now normal for young people to continue in education and training after the age of 16. The participation rate of 16-year-olds in full-time education—both further education and schools—in England in 1992–93 was 70 per cent., up from 42 per cent. in 1979–80
    For 17-year-olds, the participation rate in full-time education in 1992–93 was 54 per cent., up from 27 per cent. in the same reference year. Adult participation has also increased, to the point at which adults now account for 70 per cent. of the total number of students in further education.
    Those are impressive increases, but our aim must be to increase the figures still further. I am aware that, in certain parts of the country, participation rates are lower than elsewhere—indeed, there are considerable variations even in individual areas.
    The Government have taken practical steps to ensure that we secure an increase in participation. In 1992, we announced that we were aiming for a record expansion of student numbers in further education of 25 per cent. during the three years to 1995–96. The expansion plans announced in the unified Budget allow for that expansion to be sustained, and for a further 3 per cent. increase in 1996–97 to maintain participation of 16 to 18-year-olds at the level that it will have reached in 1995–96.
    That is against the background of the most difficult public expenditure round for many years. I believe that that shows clearly that further education continues to be at the heart of the Government's policies for raising levels of achievment and increasing skill levels.
    Our plans will also enable a large step to be taken towards achievement of the national education and training targets. Those are the minimum that we must achieve if we
    560
    are to match the levels of achievement of our competitors. I should like to take the opportunity of the debate to reaffirm the Government's commitment to achieving the targets.
    That, then, is the national picture. It is one of which we can, I believe, be justifiably proud. I fully recognise, however, that it is important that the progress that we have made in recent years, and the further progress to which we are committed, are reflected throughout the country.
    That is why the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 gave the Further Education Funding Council responsibility for securing the provision of facilities for all full-time education for 16 to 18-year-olds, and for certain types of part-time education and certain types of full-time education for those aged over 18.
    The funding council carries out its duties principally through the 465 colleges in the further education sector. However, in drafting the legislation, we recognised the need for the council to take account of other providers. That is why the Further and Higher Education Act requires the council to have regard to education provided by other institutions, such as schools and city technology colleges.
    In recognition of the diversity of local provision, the Act also allows institutions outside the further education sector—known, as my hon. Friend said, as "external institutions"—to request funding from the funding council for providing certain types of part-time courses for 16 to 19-year-olds and full-time courses for older students who fall within the council's responsibility. They include courses which lead to academic or vocational qualifications, access courses and basic skills courses. All are courses of national significance. As my hon. Friend said, the mechanism by which they may apply for funding is known as the "sponsorship" mechanism, the relevant provision being section 6(5) of the Act.
    I understand that that is the procedure under which Swale training centre sought funding unsuccessfully in the current year—1993–94—and under which it will be seeking funds from the Further Education Funding Council in 1994–95. I can perhaps lay to rest my hon. Friend's fears about the forms. I am advised that they are now available from the funding council, and that they need to be returned by, I think, 21 March. I suggest that he advises the college to get on with its application.
    In discussing the Swale case, it is important to be clear how the procedure is designed to work. When an external institution wishes to seek funding from the Further Education Funding Council, it must first put its case to a college in the FE sector. It is then for that college to decide whether to support the request and to make the application for funding to the funding council on behalf of the external institution.
    The criteria against which the sector college—the "sponsoring body" in the legal parlance—must reach a decision are clearly laid down in the Act. The Act states that, where there are no arrangements for the provision by any other institution of any facilities of the kind specified in the application for people living in the locality, or where the arrangements for such provision are inadequate, the sponsoring body should submit the application for funding to the FEFC.
    Following extensive consultations with colleges and local education authorities, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made an order specifying all institutions in the new further education sector as "sponsoring bodies". However, my Department has also made it clear in

    561
    guidance that, in order to fulfil its role, the sponsoring body has to be able to take an objective view of the adequacy of the provision available for the population of its locality.
    "Locality" must be interpreted sensibly; it will apply differently in urban and rural areas. In most cases, the suitable choice of sponsoring body will be the nearest sector college to the applicant institution or, if there is more than one within a reasonable distance, one of them.
    As for last year's procedure, the funding council has told us that the funding request from the Swale centre was not supported by the sponsoring college—in this case Canterbury college—on the basis that the facilities already available for the local population were adequate. Indeed, I gather that it was the college's view that Swale training centre's application would duplicate existing provision, including franchised arrangements between Canterbury college and local schools. The funding council did not, therefore, make any funding available.
    My hon. Friend made much of the inadequacy of opportunities for further education in the Swale area, but Canterbury college's decision to refuse to support the request by Swale training centre for funding to alleviate the perceived lack of opportunity does not appear to square with that. Moreover, in assessing adequacy of opportunities, any relevant provision offered by schools in the area needs also to be taken into account.
    In order to review the effectiveness of the section 6(5) procedures that I have described, the funding council employed a consultant last year to visit the Swale training centre and similar institutions. I understand that the consultant reported that courses of the type for which Swale training centre was requesting funding were already being provided in at least two of Kent's further education colleges—Canterbury and Mid-Kent—whether directly or through a franchising arrangement of some sort.
    I fully appreciate the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend about the difficulties and long journeys faced by many of his constituents, especially the younger ones, in travelling from Swale to Canterbury and Mid-Kent colleges. Public transport is not one of my responsibilities, but it is clearly an issue that Swale training centre will wish to stress in making its request for funding in 1994–95, and something which the sponsoring body will need to take into careful account.
    My hon. Friend argued that the section 6(5) mechanism—a mechanism that we introduced to ensure that bodies outside the further education sector, such as the Swale training centre, could have access to funds from the Further Education Funding Council—did not appear to be working. But I must beg to disagree. The funding council made available a total of £50 million in 1993–94 in support of applications from external institutions. Those allocations were designed to deliver broad stability from the previous year, with some growth in the following year. I believe that the procedures have worked well.
    Two important indicators have emerged. First, there are clear signs of buoyancy in demand for courses. Secondly, the procedures have led to increased co-operation between institutions in the further education and local education authority sectors.
    It is not for me or for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make the judgment as to the adequacy of local provision. The Act very properly gives that decision to the institution which best knows the extent of both existing provision and demand in the area—the local college in the further education sector.
    562
    There are safeguards to those procedures. If an external institution feels that the decision of the local FE college is misguided, it can approach the funding council direct, which could review the case with the sponsoring college.
    My hon. Friend expressed fears that potential sponsoring bodies would not support an application from Swale training centre, because it would be seen as a competitor. As we made clear during the passage of the Bill, the funding council—as well as my ministerial colleagues and myself—would be concerned by evidence that a college was blocking an application for purely self-interested reasons.
    In the last resort, the external institution may complain to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the sponsoring college's view of the adequacy of local provision is not soundly based, or that the college—or indeed the council itself—had failed in its statutory duty. I should add, however, that, for the Secretary of State to be able to intervene, it would be necessary to show that the sponsoring body's view about the adequacy of provision was not simply different from his or the council's, but manifestly ill founded. I should expect that to be a hard test to pass.
    My hon. Friend spoke about the support which the Swale training centre has had locally for its application, and I have myself seen letters from the local education authority to that effect. I may add, however, that one of the factors which the funding council took into account in considering applications from external institutions via sponsoring bodies in 1993–94—the first year of the council's operation—was whether the courses for which funding was being requested had been funded in the previous year by the local education authority.
    That was because the council was quite rightly concerned to ensure continuity of provision wherever possible. I understand that, when the council came to consider the new request from the Swale training centre, it noted that the request was for the funding of new provision which Kent education authority had not supported the year before. Thus, even if Canterbury college had supported last year's request from Swale for the current year, the council would not have been inclined to support it.
    For 1994–95, the funding council is introducing new procedures for funding external institutions, which will allow more scope for funding new provision, on the basis of the council's new funding formula. Despite last year's unsuccessful application, it is therefore open to Swale training centre to put in a request for funding once again, but it must be put in promptly.
    I repeat that the sponsoring college can make a formal application to the funding council only if it is convinced that there is no alternative provision or that alternative provision is inadequate. The centre may therefore be well advised to consider very carefully the nature of the provision available in alternative institutions in the area, and Canterbury and Mid-Kent colleges in particular, before making its request for funding.
    However, as I have also said, in the event that one of those colleges declines to sponsor the application, it is open to the centre to approach the funding council direct. The funding council would then be able to consider the request itself, and negotiate how best to deal with it with the sponsoring body.
    I was interested to hear my hon. Friend's remarks about the long-term plans for a Swale college of further education. He will know that I cannot comment on those

    563
    this evening. He may, however, like to know a little about the procedure for bringing an existing institution into the further education sector.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has powers under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 to establish, by order, a further education corporation to conduct an existing institution. Given the funding council's statutory duties with respect to securing the provision of further education, it is my right hon. Friend's view that any proposal for the establishment of a new FE corporation should fall to be considered by the council in the first instance.
    Where the council favours such a proposal, the institution would need to publish proposals for incorporation in accordance with certain regulations. My right hon. Friend would then take account of the council's recommendations before taking a decision whether to make the necessary order.
    564
    We have had an interesting debate, and I recognise the strength of feeling in the Swale community, which my hon. Friend has so convincingly and eloquently conveyed. However, I believe that the procedures in place for ensuring that the case for funding the Swale training centre is properly considered are adequate and have been properly followed. I have no doubt that they can work again in the coming year if the Swale centre makes another request.
    My hon. Friend will understand from what I have said that it is not a matter in which I or my right hon. Friend have any direct locus. We have set the framework; it is now for the Further Education Funding Council and for local institutions in the area to make it work.
    I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend for his contribution to the debate, and for opening up the topic. I express the hope that I shall be able to accept his kind invitation to visit Swale so that I can see the area for myself and the institution before too long.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the value of consultancy contracts awarded by his Departments each year since 1979, both in current prices and at constant 1994 prices.

  Mr. Nelson
  The table gives the value of committed expenditure, at current prices, for consultancy contracts awarded to Her Majesty's Treasury since August 1991. Information going back beyond August 1991 is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Year

  Value (excl. VAT)

  £

  11991

  210,310

  1992

  851,640

  1993

  1,004,407

  21994

  446,645

  1 August-December.

  2 To date.

  Similar information relating to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's other Departments is not held centrally.

  Insurance Premium Tax
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his plans for the rate of insurance premium tax, which is currently charged at 3 per cent.

  Sir John Cope
  The Government's proposals for the insurance premium tax are included in the Finance Bill currently in Committee. The rate chosen reflects careful consideration of a range of factors, particularly the revenue yield and the impact on the taxpayer.

  Utilities (Privatisation)
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table outlining privatisation receipts for(a) BT, (b) British Gas, (c) regional electricity companies and PowerGen and National Power and (d) regional water boards for each year following privatisation of each utility until 1993 and also including projections to 1994–95.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table shows the information requested. In addition to proceeds from the sale of shares, privatisation proceeds include the redemption of preference shares, loan stock and debentures.
  382

  Net privatisation proceeds

  £ billion

  BT

  British Gas

  Electricity (England and Wales)

  Water companies

  1984–85

  1.4

  —

  —

  —

  1985–86

  1.3

  —

  —

  —

  1986–87

  1.4

  2.6

  —

  —

  1987–88

  0.3

  1.8

  —

  —

  1988–89

  0.3

  1.8

  —

  —

  1989–90

  0.1

  0.8

  —

  0.5

  1990–91

  0.1

  0.5

  3.1

  1.5

  1991–92

  1.8

  —

  3.4

  1.5

  1992–93

  3.7

  0.4

  1.5

  —

  11993–94

  3.8

  —

  0.7

  —

  11994–95

  1.7

  —

  0.3

  —

  1 Estimated outturn.

  Subcontractors (Taxation)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he intends to take forward the proposals for the construction industry tax deduction scheme in the 1991 Inland Revenue consultative document, "Taxation of Subcontractors in the Construction Industry".

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is the Government's intention, subject to other priorities, to include measures in the next Finance Bill to implement some of the recommendations in the 1991 consultative document "Taxation of Subcontractors in the Construction Industry", together with the recommendations of a later efficiency scrutiny. These changes will come into effect after the introduction of the proposals for self-assessment and the simplification of personal tax in the current Finance Bill. The Inland Revenue will be consulting on how this will be done.

  Capital Allowances
  Mr. Burns
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the availability of capital allowances for enterprise zone buildings brought into use two years ago.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Under section 10B of the Capital Allowances Act 1990, capital allowances at the 100 peer cent. enterprise zone rate remain available for a period of two years after a building is brought into use, so long as the building was brought into use on or after 16 December 1991.

  As announced on 13 January, Official Report, column 249, the Government will be bringing forward legislation during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill to amend a defect in the capital allowances legislation as it affects long leases given in return for a capital sum. The. Government are conscious that, until the legislation is published, there will inevitably be some uncertainty for investors about the detailed conditions under which capital allowances will be available. In cases where entitlement to capital allowances under section 10B's two-year rule was shortly to expire at the time of the announcement, this uncertainty may have had the effect of preventing some investors from making a claim under the rule. That is clearly an unfair situation in which to place such investors.

  Accordingly, we propose to bring forward a provision in the Committee of the Finance Bill which will give until 31 August 1994 for qualifying expenditure to fall within

  383
  the section 10B rule. This will apply to cases where, under this section, the two-year period would have expired on or after 13 January 1994 and not later than 31 August 1994.

  Maintenance Payments (Taxation)
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the number of taxpayers who will be affected by the restriction of tax relief on the first £1,720 of maintenance payments to 20 per cent. in 1994–95 and 15 per cent. from 1995–96;

  (2) what will be the effect on revenues in 1994–95 and in a full year of (a) restricting tax relief on maintenance payments up to £1,720 to 20 per cent. and (b) the withdrawal of relief on payments made to or for the benefit of children when they reach 21 years;

  (3) what he estimates to be the effect on revenues in 1995–96 and in a full year of proposals to reduce tax relief on the first £1,720 of maintenance payments from 20 per cent. in 1994–95 to 15 per cent. in 1995–96.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: It is thought that some 400,000 people making maintenance payments may be affected, although payers who are liable to tax at the lower rate only will not be affected by the restriction of relief to 20 per cent. in 1994–95. Approximate estimates of the revenue effects of restricting the relief based on a projection of information from the 1991–92 survey of personal incomes are given below.

  £ million

  Revenue yield in

  1994–95

  A full year

  Restriction to 20 per cent.

  25

  30

  1995–96

  A full year

  Further restriction to 15 per cent.

  15

  20

  It is not possible to provide a precise estimate of the small yield from the withdrawal of relief on payments made to or for the benefit of children when they reach 21 years.

  Contraband
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what quantities and value of contraband(a) tobacco, (b) drugs, (c) alcohol and (d) other was seized by Customs and Excise in the last year for which statistics are available and in each of the five previous years;

  (2) what quantity of and value of contraband alcohol was seized by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in the last year for which statistics are available; how it was disposed of, and at what cost; and what are the comparable figures for any previous years for which statistics are available.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 8 February 1994]: The amounts and street level values of the main drug types seized by Customs and Excise for the past six calendar years are as below.

  Drug type

  Weight (kilogrammes)

  Total value (£ millions)

  1993

  Synthetics

  1,096

  518

  Cannabis

  53,157

  Cocaine

  748

  Heroin

  561

  384

  Drug type

  Weight (kilogrammes)

  Total value (£ millions)

  1992

  Synthetics

  348

  545

  Cannabis

  44,556

  Cocaine

  2,250

  Heroin

  449

  1991

  Synthetics

  473

  308

  Cannabis

  2,285

  Cocaine

  1,061

  Heroin

  409

  1990

  Synthetics

  89

  244

  Cannabis

  24,581

  Cocaine

  561

  Heroin

  588

  1989

  Synthetics

  23

  258

  Cannabis

  50,715

  Cocaine

  424

  Heroin

  331

  1988

  Synthetics

  18

  185

  Cannabis

  44,018

  Cocaine

  283

  Heroin

  230

  For single market excise-related offences the quantities of goods seized, and the amount of duties involved, for 1991 are follows:

  Duty £

  1,355,485 cigarettes and cigars

  132,059

  10,191 kg tobacco

  945,684

  753,012 litres alcoholic drinks

  590,025

  Methods of disposal of alcoholic drinks include pouring down the sewer and the use of land-fill sites. Further details of contraband seizures before 1993 and of methods and costs of disposal could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Consultancies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of consultancy contracts awarded by his Department and its predecessors each year since 1979, both in current prices and at constant 1994 prices.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is available for the period 1987 to 1993, and details are shown in the table. Other information can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Value of consultancy contracts, including amendments, awarded by the Department of Trade and Industry, 1987–93, current prices

  Calendar year

  Value £

  1987

  18,814,000

  1988

  15,831,000

  1989

  26,578,000

  385

  Calendar year

  Value £

  1990

  27,620,000

  1991

  38,491,000

  1992

  36,612,000

  1993

  29,369,000

  Value excludes consultancy contracts let independently by the Department's executive agencies.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the Standards, Quality and Measurement Advisory Committee.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Standards, Quality and Measurement Advisory Committée currently consists of 12 members and chairman:

  Professor P. Payne, Chairman

  Dr. L. Holt

  Professor W. Gelletly

  Professor K. Grattan

  Professor A. Olver

  Mr. H. Berridge

  Mr. R. Brook

  Mr. G. Matthews

  Professor J. Metcalfe

  Professor W. Stewart

  Dr. M. A. Ford

  Dr. E. Ellis

  Dr. T. Wilkins

  Year and month

  Market

  Minister

  Purpose

  1993

  January

  Indonesia

  The Minister for Trade

  Trade promotion

  June

  Indonesia

  The Minister for Trade

  Trade promotion

  September

  Indonesia

  The Minister for Energy

  Trade promotion

  September

  Malaysia

  The Minister for Trade

  Trade promotion

  September

  Malaysia

  The Minister for Trade

  Trade promotion

  November

  India

  The Minister for Trade

  Indo-British Bombay week/trade promotion

  November

  Malaysia

  The Minister for Trade

  Trade promotion

  December

  Indonesia

  The Minister for Trade

  Trade promotion

  1992

  September

  India

  The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh)

  Trade promotion

  1991

  February

  India

  The former Secretary of State

  Ninth Indian engineering trade fair/trade promotion

  November

  India

  Lord Reay

  British energy seminar/trade promotion

  Disqualification Unit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many cases have been reported to his Department's disqualification unit in each year since 1987; how many of these have been subject to full investigation; and how many have been successfully prosecuted.

  Reports of misconduct made to disqualification unit

  Cases identified as prima facie meeting envidential criteria

  Number of individual directors whom directions given

  Number of directors against who disqualification orders were made

  1987–88

  3,499

  n/a

  251

  130

  1988–89

  4,209

  n/a

  419

  293

  1989–90

  3,444

  n/a

  462

  288

  1990–91

  4,508

  n/a

  449

  251

  1991–92

  6,171

  906

  700

  326

  1992–93

  6,710

  877

  564

  446

  386
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Committee.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The current members of the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Committee are:

  Mr. J. Puttick, Chairman, Warwick Manufacturing Group

  Mr. A. B. M. Braithwaite OBE, The Welding Institute Professor A. de Pennington OBE, University of Leeds

  Dr. F. K. Garas, Taylor Woodrow Construction Holdings Limited

  Mr. P. W. Harrisson, Linread plc

  Mr. N. McArthur MBE, Thurnall plc

  Professor A. Muhlemann, University of Bradford

  Mr. J. K. Overstall, Kewill Group

  Dr. A. G. Parker, Lucas Automotive Limited

  Professor A. Pugh FEng, University of Hull

  Mr. D. Walker, Defence Research Agency

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what ministerial visits have been made by representatives of his Department, over each of the last three years to(a) Indonesia, (b) Jordan, (c) Oman, (d) Nigeria, (e) Ecuador, (f) Malaysia and (g) India; and what was their main purpose in each case.

  Mr. Needham
  There have been no visits by DTI Ministers in the last three years to Jordan, Oman, Nigeria or Ecuador. One is planned, however, by me to Oman in April this year for trade promotion purposes. Details of other visits are shown in the table.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Detailed information is not available in this form requested by the hon. Member. The following information is however available:
  387
  Notes:

  1. The figures quoted in the first two columns are for the number of companies reported on or identified.

  2. The number of directions given or disqualification orders made in a particular year do not necessarily relate to reports made or cases identified in that year.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the average length of time taken to investigate a case reported to his Department's disqualification unit in each year since 1987; and what was the median time taken to investigate such reports.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The information requested by the hon. Member for Newcastle Upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) is not maintained by my Department.

  Teaching Company Schemes
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing the distribution of live teaching company schemes as at 31 December 1993, by region; and which schemes started and terminated in 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Tables showing the requested information relating to teaching company scheme, TCS, programmes are as follows:

  1. TCS Programmes by region as at 31 December 1993

  Region

  Company sites

  Number

  Percentages

  East Midlands

  35

  7.2

  London

  22

  4.5

  North East

  87

  17.8

  Northern Ireland

  35

  7.2

  North West

  52

  10.7

  Scotland

  30

  6.1

  South East

  77

  15.8

  South West

  66

  13.5

  Wales

  23

  4.7

  West Midlands

  61

  12.5

  Totals

  488

  100

  2. TCS Programmes starting and ending in 1992 and 1993.

  Region

  Company sites

  1992

  1993

  Started

  Ended

  Started

  Ended

  East Midlands

  10

  8

  20

  14

  London

  6

  6

  14

  0

  North East

  45

  16

  33

  30

  Northern Ireland

  10

  6

  20

  14

  North West

  15

  23

  24

  20

  Scotland

  14

  14

  12

  10

  South East

  34

  25

  34

  16

  South West

  20

  26

  39

  9

  Wales

  15

  8

  6

  5

  West Midlands

  33

  21

  24

  18

  Totals

  202

  153

  226

  136

  Government Chemist
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions within the last five years the laboratory of the Government chemist has been asked to advise on export licence applications; and what internal transfers of resources are made to the laboratory in recognition of these services.
  388
  Mr. McLoughlin
  Between 1989 and 1994 the LGC has provided advice to the relevant parts of DTI on 312 occasions. The LGC has charged the DTI the full economic cost of providing this service.

  Expo '92
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the final accounts have now been settled for his Department's costs towards Expo '92 in Seville; what was his Department's total contribution; and whether this figure includes the costs of meeting the costs of Joanna Bickerton Associates.

  Mr. Needham
  The final accounts for DTI's contribution towards Expo '92 in Seville are nearing completion and should be finalised by the end of March. These accounts will include the costs of settlement with Joanna Bickerton Associates.

  Disqualification Unit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many cases were reported to his Department's disqualification unit for each year since 1987 which failed to come before the court because they had exceeded the statutory limitation period.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The precise details requested by the hon. Member are not maintained by the disqualification unit. However, expiry, actual or imminent, of the two-year period is the principal reason why cases which otherwise broadly meet the evidential requirements are not pursued. The number of such cases was as follows:

  Financial year

  Number

  1991–92

  369

  1992–93

  332

  11993

  551

  1 Nine months to 31 December 1993.

  Information on prior years is not available.

  Timeshare
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make representations to the European Commission for the inclusion in the draft directive on timeshare of payment of limited deposits by timeshare purchasers, as requested by the United Kingdom timeshare industry.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I am aware of the concerns expressed by the timeshare industry in this matter, but I regard the prohibition on the payment of deposits during the cooling-off period proposed in the draft timeshare directive as important for consumer protection. In any event, political agreement on the directive has been reached.

  New Businesses
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many new businesses were started in the past year; how many people they employ; and if he will make a statement.
  389
  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 9 February 1994]: Estimates of numbers of small business start-ups are produced by Barclays and NatWest. Their latest estimates indicate that there were around 400,000 new start-ups in 1993.

  Estimates of employment in new firms are not available.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those topics on which it is not his practice to answer parliamentary questions; and if he will list any recent changes in the practice of his Department.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 9 February 1994]: There has been no change from the practice of this and previous administrations, as described on page 292 of the current edition of "Erskine May".

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Indonesia
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Indonesians have been supported by Her Majesty's Government since 1975 to study in Britain.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since 1975 we have provided some 3,000 awards for Indonesians. Precise figures could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who are the members currently appointed to the Wilton Park International Advisory Council.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Wilton Park International Advisory Council consists of the ambassadors and high commissioners of all OECD embassies and high commissions in London. The countries currently represented are: Austria, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, NewZealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the USA.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the value of consultancy contracts awarded by his Department each year since 1979, both in current prices and at constant 1994 prices.

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

  Accounting Officers
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions since 1979 a Foreign Secretary has issued a direction to an accounting officer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Since 1979, there has been a ministerial direction to ODA' s accounting officer on one occasion, in 390
  1991 in respect of the Pergau hydro-electric project in Malaysia. No ministerial directions to the FCO's accounting officer have been issued since 1979.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the subjects on which his Department formerly answered parliamentary questions but which are now referred by him to an executive agency.

  The Attorney-General
  No parliamentary questions have to date been referred by me to the Government Property Lawyers, the only executive agency in the Departments for which I am responsible. The subjects which I would normally expect to refer are the day-to-day operational matters of the agency and the provision of conveyancing and lands advisory services by the agency, subjects for which the chief executive has delegated responsibility as set out in the agency's framework document.

  Prosecution Witnesses
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Attorney-General what proportion of prosecution witnesses in July 1993 had to wait more than two hours before being called to give evidence.

  The Attorney-General
  No figures are available for July 1993. A census of six CPS areas during the last two weeks of March 1993 showed that 42 per cent. of witnesses waited less than two hours and 58 per cent. had to wait more than two hours.

  A further pilot study in four Crown court centres between 1 September 1993 and 30 November 1993 showed that 48.5 per cent. of witnesses waited less than two hours and 51.5 per cent. more than two hours. A nation-wide monitoring survey will commence on 1 April 1994.

  The samples to date have been analysed to identify the principal reasons for extended waiting time for witnesses. The objective is to use such information in co-operation with other agencies to bring about reduced waiting times in future.

  Hizb ut Tahrir
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Attorney-General what action is being considered by the prosecution authorities over racist material issued by the Hizb ut Tahrir organisation; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service does not maintain a central record of cases referred to it. Inquiries have been made of CPS headquarters staff but no cases concerning the Hizb ut Tahrir organisation are presently being considered at headquarters. If the hon. Member will identify to me when and where any such material has been referred to the CPS I will make further inquiries.
  391

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security who are the members currently appointed to the disability living allowance advisory board.

  Mr. Scott
  The current membership of the disability living allowance advisory board is as follows:—

  Chairman—Professor R. Grahame, MB BS MD FRCP,

  Deputy Chair—Miss S. Knibbs, CQSW,

  Mrs. J. Allen-King, MBE, Mrs. J. Ashcroft MBE, Mrs. P. Case CBE BA,

  Dr. A. Clarke, BSc MB BS FRCP, Miss E. Fanshawe, OBE DipCOT,

  Mrs. J. Franklin, CQSW, Mr. S. Gallop OBE MA, Mrs. C. Henry RGN,

  Dr. J. Hunter BSc MB ChB, FRCP, Sir Peter Large CBE BSc,

  Mr. C. Laurenzi BSc CQSW, Dr. R. Lucas BSc MB BS MPhil FRCPsych,

  Dr. I. McKinlay, BSc MB ChB FRCP DCH,

  Dr. T. Phillips, MB BS FRFPS MRCP MFOM, Mrs. S. Philbrook BA MCSP,

  Dr. M. Piper MB BS FRCP, Dr. M. Richards BSc MB BChir FRCGP,

  Dr. S. Shorvon, MB BChir MD FRCP.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security who are the members currently appointed to the Social Security Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is as follows:

  Mr. M. Bett, CBE (Chairman)

  Mrs. J. Anelay, OBE JP

  Mr. A. Dilnot

  The Reverend G. H. Good, OBE

  Mr. D. Guereca

  Mr. N. Hardwick

  Mr. M. Hastings

  Professor A. Ogus

  The Hon. Mrs.R. H. Price CBE

  Esme Scott, CBE

  Professor O. Stevenson

  Dr. A. V. Stokes, OBE

  Mr. O. Tudor

  Mr. R. Wendt, DL

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security who are the members currently appointed to each of the war pensions committees.

  Mr. Hague
  In view of the considerable length of this reply, I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security who are the members currently appointed to the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions.

  Mr. Hague
  The members currently appointed to the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions, who all act in a voluntary capacity, are as follows:

  Membership of the Central Advisory Committee

  Mr. M. B. Day, MBE

  Councillor T. S. Deeming, MBE

  Mr. P. H. Dixon, OBE, MA

  Mr. I. Duncan-Smith, MP

  Mr. W. R. Dunn, MBE, JP

  Mr. C. G. Fox, FRSH, FCIArb

  Mr. I. Grainger

  Mr. D. B. Hilton

  Mr. R. R. Holland, MBE

  Lt. Col. R. W. E. House, MBE

  Col. J. Hughes, CBE

  Mr. E. R. Jobson, OBE

  County Councillor T. J. Jones, MBE, JP

  Captain O. C. S. Light, MBE

  392

  Lord Mackie of Benshie, CBE

  Mr. A. Meale, MP

  Mr. G. R. Miller

  Mrs. H. Murphy

  Mr. W. S. Mutimer, MBE, JP

  Mrs. M. F. K. Neale, MBE

  Mrs. P. L. Newnes, OBE

  Mr. F. E. Onyon, MBE

  Air Chief Marshall Sir Roger Palin, KCB

  Mr. H. L. Payne, OBE

  Mr. C. G. S. Pigott, MBE

  Mr. J. J. Ray, MBE

  Brigadier H. L. B. Salmon, OBE

  Major J. Paxman

  Child Support
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the regulations under the Child Support Act 1991 affecting the definition of a second family and on his proposals for phasing in of payments where there is another child in a second marriage.

  Mr. Burt
  The term "second family" is not used in the Child Support Act or associated regulations. The previous phasing in provisions have been extended to include absent parents whose new child support liability is over £60 a week. An absent parent can qualify for phasing if he is part of a family containing children, including step-children, or has care of a child for at least two nights a week, had an existing court order or written agreement for maintenance at 4 April 1993, and has his payments increased by more than £20 a week when maintenance is assessed under the Act.

  Under the original phasing arrangements, where the new assessment does not exceed £60 weekly, the increase is limited to £20 for the first 12 months. Under the new arrangements, where the assessment is over £60, the increase is phased in over an 18-month period, in six monthly steps of £20, or 25 per cent. of the difference between the old and new amounts if this is higher.

  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what definition he has accepted as a second family in the operation of the Child Support Act 1991.

  Mr. Burt
  The Child Support Act does not use the term "second family". It does, however, contain provisions which take account of the presence of a new partner or step-children in the household or new children of the absent parent.

  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the operation of the Child Support Agency where existing court arrangements are satisfactory to both parties concerned.

  Mr. Burt
  Parents are free to come to, or continue with, their own arrangements for child maintenance, where the parent with care is not receiving income support, family credit or disability working allowance.

  However, when one of these benefits is in payment then the taxpayer also has an interest, and it is right that the Child Support Agency should become involved to ensure that a realistic level of maintenance is paid.

  Mr. Renton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to propose further changes in child support maintenance in respect of partners who have remarried and are now bringing up a second family; and if he will make a statement.
  393
  Mr. Burt
  The changes to the child support scheme which were introduced from 7 February, particularly the extension to the provision for phasing in payments of maintenance and the significant increases in the protected income margins, will help many absent parents with second families. The Government intend to monitor the effects of these changes carefully, and will continue to keep the scheme under scrutiny.

  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the timing of changes announced to the operation of the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  The changes were introduced from 7 February. The formula changes will apply from that date; the new phasing provisions are being implemented over three months, with the phasing period running from the date of reassessment.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in the United Kingdom, under 21 years of age, are currently unemployed but not in receipt of unemployment benefit.

  Mr. Burt
  From the latest available information in the 1990 and 1991 family expenditure surveys, the number was 340,000.

  Notes:

  1. In the family expenditure survey people referred to as the economically active unemployed are those who are out of work, available for work, intending to work, and have either sought work within the last four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained.

  2. This estimate will include some people who have made a claim for unemployment benefit but have not yet received it.

  3. The family expenditure survey is based on a sample of households and therefore subject to sampling error.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many men in the United Kingdom are currently unemployed and economically active, but are not receiving unemployment benefit, or any other social security benefit;

  (2) how many women in the United Kingdom are currently unemployed and economically active but are not receiving unemployment benefit or any other social security benefit.

  Mr. Burt
  From the latest available information in the 1990 and 1991 family expenditure surveys, it is estimated there were 260,000 men and 130,000 women.

  Notes:

  1. In the family expenditure survey people referred to as the economically active unemployed are those who are out of work, available for work, intending to work, and have either sought work within the last four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained.

  2. This estimate will include some people who have made a claim for state benefits but have not yet received benefit.

  3. The family expenditure survey is based on a sample of households and therefore subject to sampling error.

  Sickness Benefit
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in the United Kingdom are unemployed and receiving sickness benefit to the latest available date.
  394
  Mr. Scott
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  In the period 1 April 1991 to 4 April 1992—the latest period for which information is available—802,000 spells of sickness benefit commenced. In 405,000 of the spells the person stated they had not been in employment prior to claiming.

  Notes:

  1. Figures based on a 1 per cent. sample of claims in Great Britain rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Sickness benefit will not have been paid in all spells.

  Supplementary Benefit
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children there were in families receiving supplementary benefit in(a) England and (b) the north-west region of England in 1979; and how many children there were in families receiving supplementary benefit/income support in (i) England and (ii) the north-west region of England at the latest available dale.

  Mr. Burt
  The available information is in the tables:

  Number of children in families receiving supplementary benefit in 1979

  Region

  Number of children

  North West England

  Not available

  England

  757,000

  Number of children in families receiving income support in 1993

  Region

  Number of children

  North West England

  426,000

  England

  2,550,000

  Notes:

  Sources Supplementary Benefit Statistics Annual Inquiry, November 1979.

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Inquiry, February 1993.

  2. The figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. Children are defined as being under 16 years of age.

  4. The North West Region is the North West Social Security Administrative Region as used by the Department prior to 1988. Information for this region is not available for 1979.

  5. Income support replaced supplementary benefit in April 1988.

  Industrial Injuries Advisory Council
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council to complete its inquiry into occupational rhinitis.

  Mr. Scott
  A report from the council is expected within the next few months.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when each current member was appointed to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council; what was their date of appointment and expected duration of service; and what are the companies, organisations or bodies they represent and their particular professional expertise or specialisation.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is in the table.
  395

  Member

  Date first appointed

  Profession

  Professor J. M. Harrington, CBE, chairman

  14 August 1981

  Professor of occupational health

  Mr. P. E. Arscott, OBE

  14 March 1991

  Health and safety consultant

  Dr. J. Asherson

  9 January 1990

  Head of health and safety, CBI

  Miss J. C. Brown

  1 October 1986

  Researcher in social policy

  Mrs. J. Carter

  1 March 1993

  Member of TUC General Council

  Professor M. J. Cinnamond

  1 January 1987

  Professor of otorhinolaryngology

  Dr. D. N. M. Coggon

  9 December 1987

  Reader in occupational and environmental medicine

  Professor A. D. Dayan

  17 May 1990

  Professor of toxicology

  Dr. C. P. Juniper

  5 May 1986

  Senior medical adviser in industry

  Mr. T. Mawer

  1 September 1992

  Lawyer

  Professor A. J. Newman Taylor, OBE

  1 December 1983

  Consultant physician

  Mr. R. Pickering

  12 February 1991

  National trade union president

  Dr. L. Rushton

  31 January 1994

  Senior lecturer in medical statistics

  Dr. C. Taylor

  10 May 1993

  Chief medical officer in industry

  Mr. O. D. Tudor

  12 February 1991

  Assistant secretary, TUC

  Mrs. M. Twomey

  1 May 1992

  Member of TUC

  Note:

  Chairman and members are normally appointed for a period of three years and can be reappointed for further three-year terms. Members are appointed for the expertise they bring to the council's deliberations, rather than to represent particular organisations, although the CBI and TUC each nominate four members.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last met the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Scott
  The last formal meeting took place on 21 November 1991 when I was invited by the council to attend one of its regular meetings. Informal meetings with the chairman are held about once a year to discuss matters of current interest. The last meeting took place on 23 December 1992.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when his Department last discussed occupational rhinitis with the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council.

  Mr. Scott
  There have been no formal discussions about occupational rhinitis between the Department and the council. Members of the Department attend council meetings on a regular basis as observers and provide information on request. The council last discussed occupational rhinitis at its meeting on 18 November 1993.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Renton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average time that it takes the Child Support Agency to answer letters from hon. Members; and if he will issue instructions that this time should be at least halved.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to my right hon. Friend.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Tim Renton, dated 10 February 1994:

  I have been asked to reply to your Question to the Secretary of State about the time it takes the Agency to respond to letters from honourable Members.

  All letters from Members of Parliament addressed to me are acknowledged and I aim to respond within an average of 20 working days. Press interest has stimulated a great deal of correspondence from constituents and although that target is not being met at the moment, the necessary steps are being taken to ensure that correspondence from Members will be answered as promptly as possible.

  I hope you will find this reply helpful.
  396
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington may expect a reply from the Child Support Agency to his detailed written representations on behalf of Mrs. Fiona Dennehy of Leamington Spa, made on 25 September 1993, 26 October 1993, 24 November 1993 and 5 January 1994.

  Mr. Burt
  I understand that Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive of the Child Support Agency replied to my hon. Friend about this case on 8 February 1994.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which benefit or benefits claimants of incapacity benefit will receive while their claims after 197 days are being assessed and in the 1994–95 financial year, what level of funding this will represent(a) for each individual per week and (b) in the full financial year per individual; what is the total spend nationally on such benefits in the financial year 1994–95; and what is his planned spend on incapacity benefit for the financial years 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98.

  Mr. Scott
  After 28 weeks of incapacity, incapacity benefit recipients will receive the higher rate short-term benefit. They will receive this rate of benefit while they are being assessed under the new objective medical incapacity test. As the new benefit will not be implemented until April 1995, there are no financial implications for the financial year 1994–95. The estimated total cost of incapacity benefit for the years 1995–96 and 1996–97 is £8,100 million and £7,550 million respectively. A figure for 1997–98 is not yet available.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list, by county area, those magistrates courts which have been closed since April 1992 and those magistrates courts which he expects to be closed by April 1995.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The provision of magistrates' courthouse accommodation is a matter for the courts'
  397
  committee for the area concerned in conjunction with the local paying authority; there is no requirement of notification to the Lord Chancellor. The Department has no central record of the number of magistrates' courthouses that have been closed or are scheduled to be closed. A local authority that is aggrieved by a decision of a magistrates court committee to close a courthouse has the right of appeal to the Lord Chancellor. In 1993 the Lord Chancellor dealt with six appeals. There are no appeals currently outstanding.

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received from representatives of outer London magistrates courts concerning the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill[Lords].

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has received 118 responses from representatives of the outer London magistrates courts service to the consultation documents issued by his Department. In addition to this he has received in the region of 80 letters from hon. Members for constituencies in the outer London area concerning the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill. There have been approximately 300 letters from members of the magistrates courts service overall and other interested bodies; it is not possible, however, to give an accurate figure of those from representatives of the outer London service since this information is not recorded. The Lord Chancellor and I have also met representatives of the outer London action group, and the Lord Chancellor will continue to correspond with them.

  Courts (Opinion Surveys)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what surveys to obtain the views of those using the courts system were carried out between 1 July 1992 to 30 June 1993; and what were the results of these surveys.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Between 1 July 1992 and 30 June 1993, local surveys of court users were conducted by 15 courts and a national survey of court users was conducted by the National Consumer Council. Generally, the surveys showed that the improved standard of customer service in the courts was well received, although areas for improvement were also highlighted.

  Crown Courts
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many Crown court centres(a) had and (b) had not established an information point by July 1993.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Eighty eight Crown court centres had established information points and four had not.

  Juveniles (Non-attendance at Court)
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, on how many occasions cases have had to be postponed because juveniles in the care of a local authority have failed to attend in the latest convenient period for which figures are available; and what is the average cost of each such case.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information is not available and could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.
  398

  Juries
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what proportion of jurors sat on trials on days when they attended a Crown court in 1993.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Of the total number of days attended by jurors in the Crown court during 1993, days or part-days spent sitting on trials accounted for just over 77 per cent.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when new versions of(a) the summons letter to jurors and (b) the explanatory leaflet for jurors were last issued.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  New versions of the jury summons and the explanatory leaflet for jurors were issued in April 1993. These were brought into immediate use except in London where, for technical reasons, introduction was deferred until November 1993.

  Witness Summonses
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures have been taken since July 1992 to make the order to witnesses to attend court clearer and less formal.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Since last May, recipients of witness orders have also been given an explanatory letter from the clerk to the justices which sets out in clear, easily understood terms, what the witness can expect to happen in the Crown court. We will be putting forward proposals to remove the requirement to serve witness orders, when the next legislative opportunity arises. Witnesses will continue to receive the explanatory letter as this contains all the relevant information about their attendance at court.

  Visa Applications's
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the current waiting time for appeals to be heard against refusal of settlement visa applications from spouses and fiances or fiancees in India.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The immigration appellate authorities do not differentiate between countries of origin in allocating hearing dates. The current average time between the IAA receiving a certificate of readiness from a party to the date of a long, three-hour, hearing in London and at the provincial centres are as follows:

  Weeks

  Thanet House

  14

  Hatton Cross

  12

  Birmingham

  10

  Manchester

  14

  Leeds

  8

  Glasgow

  11

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the current waiting time for appeals to be heard against refusal of settlement visa applications from spouses and fiances or fiancees in Pakistan.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The immigration appellate authorities do not differentiate between countries of origin
  399
  in allocating hearing dates. The current average time between the IAA receiving a certificate of readiness from a party to the date of a long, three-hour, hearing in London and at the provincial centres are as follows:

  Weeks

  Thanet House

  14

  Hatton Cross

  12

  Birmingham

  10

  Manchester

  14

  Leeds

  8

  Glasgow

  11

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the hon. Member for South Hams may expect an answer to his letter of 24 January concerning the matter of Miss Hale's court case proceedings with the central London county court and the legal aid system.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I aim to reply to hon. Members' letters within 20 working days of receipt, although of course I always attempt to deal with urgent matters well within that time. I expect to reply to the substantive issues raised in the letter referred to within the normal target period, but there are a number of issues which may require further investigation.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who are the members currently appointed to each of the advisory committees on legal education and conduct.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: The current membership of the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal education and conduct is set out below. The membership of sub-committees of the main committee is an internal matter for the main committee, which is independent of the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Membership of the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal education and conduct—at 3 February 1994

  Mrs. Liliana Archibald

  Professor Richard Card

  His Honour Judge John Gower QC

  Eric Hammond OBE

  Brian Harvey

  John Hosking CBE

  Patrick Lefevre

  Luke March

  The Reverend Dr. Colin Morris

  Dr. Claire Palley

  Ms Usha Prashar

  Nicholas Purnell QC

  Peter Scott QC

  Graham Smith CBE

  David Ward

  David Wilkins

  The Committee's current chairman is Lord Justice Steyn.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who are the members currently appointed to each of the advisory committees on general commissioners of income tax.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: This information can be provided only at
  400
  disproportionate cost. At 1 January 1994 there were 78 advisory committees with a total of 483 members. If the hon. Member wishes me to give the names of members of particular advisory committees I shall be pleased to do so.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who are the members currently appointed to each of the advisory committees on general commissioners of income tax for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: The names of the members currently appointed to the two advisory committees on general commissioners of income tax for Northern Ireland are as follows:

  Eastern advisory committee

  Chairman:

  Colonel J. E. Wilson

  Members:

  W. J. Hall, Esq

  M. W. S. MacLaran, Esq

  Miss C. MacMahon

  Mrs. J. Stewart

  Sir Myles Humphries

  J. J. Leslie, Esq, DL

  Western advisory committee

  Chairman:

  J. T. Eaton, Esq

  Members:

  G. Broderick, Esq

  D. F. Desmond, Esq

  J. Grew, Esq

  Mrs. M. I. G.Welsh

  R. W. Wilson, Esq

  C. A. J. Anderson, Esq

  W. D. Smyth, Esq

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who are the members currently appointed to each of the advisory committees on justices of the peace in England.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: The Lord Chancellor is responsible for the appointment of members of advisory committees in England and Wales with the exception of the Duchy of Lancaster where it is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy. Within the Lord Chancellor's area of responsibility there are 94 advisory committees with a total membership of 940. There is no secrecy about the membership of advisory committees but to provide the names of every member could only be achieved at disproportionate cost. If the hon. Member wishes to know the names of the members of a particular advisory committee, the Minister responsible will be pleased to oblige.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Royal Palaces
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 1 February, what is the total rent received from the accommodation of the occupied royal palaces listed in his answer; what is the range of rentals; and how many of the rented units have(a) four bedrooms and (b) five bedrooms.

  Mr. Sproat
  Of the 54 properties listed rent is paid by those occupying 11. The rent amounts in aggregate to
  401
  £22,704 per annum. The rent is set at 6 per cent. of the occupant's after-tax salary, which is equivalent to a deduction of 8.5 per cent. of pre-tax salary. Of the 11 apartments in respect of which rent is paid, five have four bedrooms, one has five bedrooms and one has six bedrooms. A further £46,000 per annum is paid in respect of other residential properties not included in the 54 referred to above, making a total rent deduction of £69,000 per annum. In addition to this the benefit of housing taken into account in determining wage and salary levels in the household's new grading structure amounts to approximately £480,000 per annum.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what records are kept of the official use of the official reception rooms at the accommodation for members of the royal family in the occupied royal palaces;

  (2) by what criteria residents are selected for the grace and favour accommodation at the occupied royal palaces.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: My Department has overall responsibility for the maintenance of the properties within the occupied royal palaces estate. How these properties should best be used, either by members of the royal family or by employees and pensioners, in fulfilling the requirements and functions of the head of state is however a matter for Her Majesty the Queen.

  Grace and favour accommodation is provided to members of the royal family in accordance with long-established practice. It is in keeping with the style and dignity of the monarchy and national prestige that the more immediate members of the royal family should be appropriately housed and a London residence is needed to entertain and undertake official duties on behalf of the Queen. How members of the royal family use the apartments allocated to them in fulfilling their duties in support of the Queen as head of state, including the use of official receptions rooms, are also matters for Her Majesty the Queen.

  The criteria adopted when allocating residential accommodation to employees and pensioners are summarised below.

  As regards employees, accommodation is provided to facilitate the better performance of the person's duties and recruitment and retention, in line with long-established practice. Apartments are allocated to employees by broad category of post and by location—for example, mews stable staff in London are housed in the flats above the London mews stables—or according to the post which they hold—for example, there are apartments in St. James's palace which have been occupied by successive masters of the household, marshals of the diplomatic corps and keepers of the privy purse—or according to need and availability, with available accommodation being allocated to staff whom the household most requires to be housed. There are approximately 500 official employees in the royal households and accommodation is not therefore available to all staff.

  Official staff may be provided with accommodation on retirement if they have been housed as employees for 20 years or more and if finding their own accommodation after such a long period would cause difficulties and be a poor reward for long and loyal service. It is accordingly generally only the more junior employees who are provided with pensioner accommodation.
  402
  There are in addition to the 23 pensioners who were previously official employees and who are provided with accommodation, four grace and favour pensioners, all of whom were provided with accommodation some time ago. There are unlikely to be grace and favour pensioners in the future. Grace and favour pension accommodation is provided at the Queen's discretion. The military knights are retired Army officers who have some ceremonial duties to perform at Windsor castle and are required to live there. Nominations are submitted by the Defence Secretary for approval by the Queen.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 3 February,Official Report, columns 846–47, to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West on the costs of refurbishment at occupied royal palaces, what information is available on refurbishment costs in 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 8 February 1994]: In 1990–91 information on recorded expenditure is not readily available. However, the following sums were included in budgets:

  £000s

  Kensington palace

  Apartment 1A (HRH The Princess Margaret)

  25

  Apartment 1 (TRH The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester)

  8

  Apartment 10 (TRH The Prince and Princess Michael of Kent)

  11

  St. James palace

  Clarence House

  Apartment in the occupation of Her Majesty

  Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother

  35

  Total

  79

  In 1989–90, the expenditure was:

  Kensington palace

  Apartment 1A

  19

  Apartment 1

  13

  Apartment 10

  23

  Total

  55

  St. James's palace

  No recorded expenditure

  National Lottery
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the percentage restriction on the commission of the national lottery pools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sproat
  None. The percentages will be proposed by the applicants within the competitive tendering process organised by the director general.

  Unicorn Heritage plc
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 621, on remission of debts on grants, (1) what alternatives were considered before writing off the loss of Unicorn Heritage plc on what grounds none of them were considered feasible; and what actions were taken to effect recovery of the sum loaned;

  (2) what appraisal was made of Unicorn Heritage plc before writing off its losses and the money loaned to it.
  403
  Mr. Sproat
  The alternative to writing off the debt owed by Unicorn Heritage plc would have been to ask the English tourist board to continue to seek recovery of the debt. This alternative was not considered feasible because it was clear there was no further practical action that the board would take, since the company's liquidators had stated categorically that there were no funds available to repay unsecured creditors.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible have(a) been abolished or (b) created since the establishment of his Department.

  Mr. Sproat
  Since the establishment of my Department, none of the non-departmental public bodies which it sponsors have been abolished and none have been created.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are his powers of direction in respect of chairmen of non-departmental public bodies funded by his Department.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not have powers of direction in respect of the chairman of non-departmental public bodies funded by my Department. It is the boards of such bodies which are subject to certain provisions as regards direction in legislation and the financial memoranda setting out the relationship between the Department and each body.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) which of the public appointments for which he is responsible require advance notice to and consultation with the Chief Whip's office; and which appointments have been so notified and consulted upon since the establishment of his Department;

  (2) which appointments since 1979 to public bodies or posts for which he is responsible have included candidates nominated by the Chief Whip's Office; if any nominees by this source have been appointed; and if he will give details.

  Mr. Sproat
  It is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to answer parliamentary questions about discussions and consultations between Departments and offices of Government relating to public appointments.

  Grants (Remission of Debts)
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 621, on remission of debts on grants, what is the delegated limit of a grant that can be written off by a sponsored body.

  Mr. Sproat
  Different conditions and levels of delegation have been agreed over time for each body sponsored by my Department. The levels are set in the bodies' financial memoranda and may be changed when the financial memoranda are reviewed or when new central guidance is issued. If the hon. Member would care to write to me separately saying which particular body or bodies he is interested in, I will provide him with the appropriate information.
  404

  Taiwanese Tourists
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many tourists are reported to have arrived in this country from Taiwan in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Sproat
  According to the international passenger survey, the number of Taiwanese residents visiting the United Kingdom was 32,000 in 1990, 34,000 in 1991 and 40,000 in 1992, the latest available year. All these estimates are subject to sampling error.

  Paper Shredders
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many paper shredding machines there are(a) in his private office and (b) in his Department.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: My Department has two paper shredding machines, one of which is in the Secretary of State's private office.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with Ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 February.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with Ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has had from professors of law in Scotland about the issue of precedent, and the possibility of holding a trial of the alleged Libyan suspects for the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received no such representations.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy at his forthcoming meeting with his Irish counterpart to discuss the Irish Government's view of THORP.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) of 2 February,Official Report, column 702, if he will raise with the Presidents of the European Commission and European Council of Ministers

  405
  the possibility of making an exception to the convention of confidentiality covering correspondence between the Commission and member states in the case of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will seek to establish from Lord Justice Scott whether he objects to the release by Government Departments of memoranda and other documents that they have submitted for consideration by his inquiry.

  The Prime Minister
  No. Lord Justice Scott has discretion, subject to consultation on sensitive and classified material, to publish evidence submitted to his inquiry in his final report. The Government do not intend to anticipate his decisions.

  Cabinet Committees
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish an updated list of the ministerial committees of the Cabinet.

  The Prime Minister
  An updated list of the ministerial committees of the Cabinet, giving their composition and terms of reference, is given below. Copies of this list are available in the Library of the House.

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND DOMESTIC POLICY (EDP)

  Composition

  Prime Minister (Chairman)

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  President of the Board of Trade

  Lord Privy Seal

  Lord President of the Council

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Employment

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Other Ministers will be invited to attend for items in which they have a departmental interest.

  Terms of Reference

  "To consider strategic issues relating to the Government's economic and domestic policies."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON DEFENCE AND OVERSEAS POLICY (OPD)

  Composition

  Prime Minister (Chairman)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Attorney-General

  The Chief of Defence Staff will attend as required, as will the Chiefs of Staff when necessary.

  Terms of Reference

  "To keep under review the Government's defence and overseas policy."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON THE GULF (OPDG)

  Composition

  Prime Minister (Chairman)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Attorney General

  406
  The Chief of the Defence Staff will be invited to attend meetings of the Committee, others will be invited to attend as appropriate.

  Terms of Reference

  "To keep under review developments in the Gulf region and to co-ordinate any necessary action."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR DEFENCE POLICY (OPDN)

  Composition

  Prime Minister (Chairman)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Terms of Reference

  "To keep under review the Government's policy on nuclear defence."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN SECURITY (OPDSE)

  Composition

  Prime Minister (Chairman)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Terms of Reference

  "To keep under review arrangements for defence and security in Europe."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON HONG KONG AND OTHER DEPENDENT TERRITORIES (OPDK)

  Composition

  Prime Minister (Chairman)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Lord President of the Council

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Others, including the Attorney General, the Governor of Hong Kong, and the British Ambassador in Peking may be invited. to attend as appropriate.

  Terms of Reference

  "To keep under review the implementation of the agreement with the Chinese on the future of Hong Kong and the implications of that agreement for the Government of Hong Kong and the wellbeing of its people; and to keep under review as necessary the Government's policy towards other Dependent Territories."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON NORTHERN IRELAND (NI)

  Composition

  Prime Minister (Chairman)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Attorney General

  Other Ministers will be invited to attend as the nature of the business requires.

  Terms of Reference

  "To oversee the Government's policy on Northern Ireland issues and relations with the Republic of Ireland on these matters."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (EDS)

  Composition

  Prime Minister (Chairman)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  407

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Education

  Secretary of State for Health

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  The Chief Scientific Adviser is in attendance

  Terms of Reference

  "To review science and technology policy"

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES (IS)

  Composition

  Prime Minister (Chairman)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  The Lord President of the Council and the Attorney General may be invited to attend as appropriate.

  Terms of Reference

  "To keep under review policy on the security and intelligence services."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS (EDI)

  Composition

  Lord Privy Seal (Chairman)

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Lord President of the Council

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Secretary of State for Employment

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Terms of reference

  'To consider industrial, commercial, and consumer issues including questions of competition and deregulation."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT (EDE)

  Composition

  Lord Privy Seal (Chairman)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Terms of Reference

  "To consider questions of environmental policy."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON HOME AND SOCIAL AFAIRS (EDH)

  Composition

  Lord Privy Seal (Chairman)

  Lord Chancellor

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Lord President of the Council

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  408

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Education

  Secretary of State for Health

  Secretary of State for Employment

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury

  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Attorney General, the Lord Advocate and the Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms also receive papers and are invited to attend as necessary.

  Terms of reference

  "To consider home and social policy issues."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EDL)

  Composition

  Lord Privy Seal (Chairman)

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Lord President of the Council

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Education

  Secretary of State for Health

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Minister for Local Government and Planning)

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Terms of Reference

  "To consider issues affecting local government, including the annual allocation of resources."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON REGENERATION (EDR)

  Composition

  Lord Privy Seal (Chairman)

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Secretary of State for Employment

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Secretary of State for Education

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction)

  The Secretaries of State for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales should be invited to attend as appropriate.

  Terms of Reference

  "To consider regeneration policies and their co-ordination."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC EXPENDITURE (EDX)

  Composition

  Chancellor of the Exchequer (Chairman)

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  President of the Board of Trade

  Lord Privy Seal

  Lord President of the Council

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Terms of Reference

  "To consider the allocation of the public expenditure control totals and make recommendations to the Cabinet."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON THE QUEEN'S SPEECHES AND FUTURE LEGISLATION (FLG)

  Composition

  Lord President of the Council (Chairman)

  409

  Lord Chancellor

  Lord Privy Seal

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Attorney General

  Lord Advocate

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury

  Financial Secretary, Treasury

  Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms

  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs should be invited to attend or be represented for discussion of the Queen's speeches.

  Terms of Reference

  "To prepare and submit to the Cabinet drafts of the Queen's Speeches to Parliament, and proposals for the Government's legislative programme for each Session of Parliament."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION (LG)

  Composition

  Lord President of the Council (Chairman)

  Lord Chancellor

  Lord Privy Seal

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Attorney General

  Lord Advocate

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Minister of State, Home Office

  Financial Secretary, Treasury

  Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms

  Terms of Reference

  'To examine all draft Bills; to consider the Parliamentary handling of Government Bills, European Community documents and Private Members' business, and such other related matters as may be necessary; and to keep under review the Government's policy in relation to issues of Parliamentary procedures."

  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON HEALTH STRATEGY (EDH(H))

  Composition

  Lord President of the Council (Chairman)

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Education

  Secretary of State for Health

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Paymaster General

  Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry

  Minister of State, Department of Employment

  Minister of State, Department of Health (Minister for Health)

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage

  The Chief Medical Officer is in attendance.

  Terms of reference

  "To oversee the development, implementation and monitoring of the Government's health strategy, to co-ordinate the Government's policies on United Kingdom-wide issues affecting health, and report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Home and Social Affairs."

  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SECTOR PAY (EDI(P))

  Composition

  Lord Privy Seal (Chairman)

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  410

  Secretary of State for Employment

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Education

  Secretary of State for Health

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Terms of reference

  "To co-ordinate the handling of pay issues in the public sector and report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Industrial, Commercial and Consumer Affairs."

  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN QUESTIONS (OPD(E))

  Composition

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Chairman)

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Lord President of the Council

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Secretary of State for Employment

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Attorney General

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Other Ministers will be invited to attend as the nature of the business requires

  The United Kingdom Permanent Representative to the European Communities is also in attendance.

  Terms of reference

  "To consider questions relating to the United Kingdom's membership of the European Community and to report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Defence and Overseas Policy."

  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON EASTERN EUROPE (OPD(AE))

  Composition

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Chairman)

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Secretary of State for Employment

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Minister for Overseas Development

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Other Ministers may be invited to attend as the nature of the business requires.

  Terms of Reference

  "To consider questions relating to Britain's policy of assisting change in the former Soviet republics and other former Communist countries in Europe and report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Defence and Overseas Policy."

  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON TERRORISM (OPD(T))

  Composition

  Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chairman)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Attorney General

  Terms of Reference

  "To keep under review the arrangements for countering terrorism

  411
  and for dealing with terrorist incidents and their consequences and to report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Defence and Overseas Policy."

  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON LONDON (EDL(L))

  Composition

  Secretary of State for the Environment (Chairman)

  Minister of State, Home Office

  Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Minister for Industry)

  Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction)

  Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Minister for Local Government and Planning)

  Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Minister for Social Security and Disabled People)

  Minister of State, Department for Education

  Minister of State, Department of Health (Minister for Health)

  Minister of State, Department of Employment

  Economic Secretary, Treasury

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Minister for Transport in London)

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage

  Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science

  Terms of Reference

  "To co-ordinate the Government's policies on London."

  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON DRUG MISUSE (EDH(D))

  Composition

  Lord President of the Council (Chairman)

  Solicitor General

  Paymaster General

  Minister of State, Home Office

  Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Ministry of Defence

  Minister of State, Scottish Office

  Minister of State, Department of Health (Minister for Health)

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Welsh Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools, Department for Education

  Others, including the Minister for Overseas Development and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State from the Departments of the Environment and Employment may be invited to attend as appropriate and should receive all papers.

  Terms of Reference

  "To co-ordinate the Government's national and international policies for tackling drugs misuse, and report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Home and Social Affairs."

  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON WOMEN'S ISSUES (EDH(W))

  Composition

  Secretary of State for Employment (Chairman)

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Paymaster General

  Minister of State, Department for Education

  Minister of State, Scottish Office

  Minister of State, Welsh Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Consumer Affairs and Small Finns, Department of Trade and Industry

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security

  Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment

  The Minister of State, Minister for the Armed Forces, Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office will also receive papers and be invited to attend as necessary.
  412
  Terms of Reference

  "To review and develop the Government's policy and strategy on issues of special concern to women: to oversee their implementation; and to report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Home and Social Affairs".

  MINISTERIAL GROUP ON REFUGEES FROM FORMER YUGOSLAVIA (GEN 24)

  Composition

  Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chairman)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  The Lord President of the Council

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Secretary of State for Employment

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Education

  Secretary of State for Health

  Secretary of State for Employment

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Attorney-General

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, (Minister for Overseas Development)

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office

  The Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will also receive papers and be invited to attend as necessary.

  Terms of Reference

  "To consider whether a visa regime should be instituted for citizens of former Yugoslavia in the context of the Government's overall policy towards that region and to review the practical arrangements for the reception and subsequent support of those arriving in the United Kingdom from this area taking account of the implications for the treatment of refugees from other parts of the world, and to report to Cabinet."

  MINISTERIAL GROUP ON SANCTIONS AGAINST THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA (GEN 27)

  Composition

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth office(Chairman)

  Paymaster General

  Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Minister for Trade)

  Minister of State for Aviation and Shipping, Department of Transport

  Minister of State for Defence Procurement, Ministry of Defence Economic Secretary, Treasury

  Terms of Reference

  "To keep under review the implementation of the sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia imposed under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 757, 787 and 820, and to report to the Ministerial Committee on Overseas and Defence Policy as necessary."

  Press Secretary's Office
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the salary, grading and scale attaching to the post of press secretary to the Prime Minister, the number of staff accountable to the press secretary and the total cost of the press secretary's office in the last financial year.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 9 February 1994]: My present press secretary holds a rank equivalent to home civil service grade 2, the salary range for which is £64,307 to £75,328. Nine members of staff are accountable to him. The total cost of the No. 10 press office for the financial year 1992–93 was £621,760.
  413

  Regional Airports
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 2 February,Official Report, column 702, if he will be replying direct to the representations made to him by the chief executive of Manchester Airport plc. in regard to liberalising access to regional airports; if a copy of the reply will be placed in the Library; and by when he expects the reply to have been sent.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 9 February 1994]: A reply will be sent shortly.

  Moscow (Visit)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise the issue of the slaughter of seal pups in Russia with Boris Yeltsin during his visit to Moscow.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 9 February 1994]: I do not expect to do so. However the Russian authorities are aware of the public concern in the United Kingdom, and our embassy will continue to raise this subject with the Russians whenever the opportunity arises.

EMPLOYMENT

  Manufacturing Earnings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the weekly United Kingdom earnings figures for manufacturing shown in the November issue of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development main economic indicators adjusted to the same base date as the corresponding figures in table 18.11 of the September issue of the "Monthly Digest of Statistics"; what is the figure in the latter table; and what factors lay behind the discrepancy.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The weekly manufacturing earnings figures for Great Britain, compiled by the OECD from published figures and shown in the November issue of OECD main economic indicators are incorrect. The figures in the latest, January 1994 edition, accurately reflect the manufacturing earnings figures published in the monthly digest of statistics converted to a base date of 1985.

  The earnings indices shown in table 18.11 of the monthly digest of statistics are the results of the monthly wages and salaries survey by the Employment Department.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who are the members currently appointed to the Women's National Commission.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As Government co-chairman, Baroness Denton of Wakefield, Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, is the only appointed member of the Women's National Commission, WNC. The 50-member organisations of the WNC chooses its own representatives to sit on the commission.
  414

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in the United Kingdom are currently unemployed, economically active, but not in receipt of unemployment benefit; and what were the equivalent figures for May 1979.

  Miss Widdecombe
  For the current data, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlisle) on 26 January 1994,Official Report, column 285–86. The equivalent information for 1979 is not available.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people would have been registered as unemployed in 1978 if the figures had been treated on the same basis as 1994.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Claimant unemployment figures based on the current coverage of the count are available from the Department's consistent seasonally adjusted series. This gives the average level of claimant unemployment in the United Kingdom in 1978 as 1,144,000.

  Consultancies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the value of consultancy contracts awarded by his Department each year since 1979, both in current prices and at constant 1994 prices.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information in the form requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Housing Co-operatives
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met representatives of organisations representing housing co-operatives to discuss funding and strategy; what is his policy regarding the development of housing co-operatives; what criteria he applies when determining financial assistance to housing co-operatives; what plans he has to encourage the development of housing co-operatives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  There is no housing co-operative movement in Northern Ireland. As there is no demand for housing co-operatives, there are no plans at present to encourage their development.

  General National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what plans he has to introduce general national vocational qualifications in Northern Ireland's schools and colleges; what representations he has received concerning GNVQs in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what study his Department has made of the provision of general national vocational qualifications in Northern Ireland's schools and colleges; what reports his Department has commissioned into their provision; if he will make the results of the reports available to both the House and the general public; and if he will make a statement.
  415
  Mr. Ancram
  General national vocational qualifications, GNVQs, were introduced into a small number of schools and further education colleges in Northern Ireland in September 1992. The Northern Ireland Department of Education inspectorate carried out a survey of this provision during the 1992–93 academic year, which concluded that a satisfactory start had been made. Indeed, first results indicate that the proportion of Northern Ireland students who achieved a full GNVQ at intermediate level at the end of 1992–93 was significantly higher than the national average. While I have no plans to publish that survey I intend to publish a report on the present, much larger, phase of GNVQs at the end of current academic year.

  Private Patient Facilities
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much income by region has been generated by private patient facilities in national health service hospitals in each year since 1987–88.

  Mr. Amcram
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  £

  1987–88

  1,551,399

  1988–89

  1,941,697

  1989–90

  1,954,145

  1990–91

  2,049,903

  1991–92

  2,429,774

  1992–93

  3,179,440

  NHS Redundancies
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of redundancies among national health service hospital staff(a) by grade and (b) by reason for each year since 1988–89.

  Mr. Ancram
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Date

  Country

  Purpose

  Lord Advocate

  16–17 May 1992

  France

  Franco-British Legal Conference

  19–22 May 1992

  Belgium

  Meeting of Presidents and Senior Prosecutors of the Supreme Courts of the Member States of the European Communities

  7–8 October 1992

  United States of America

  Meeting with Assistant Attorney General Mueller regarding Lockerbie investigation

  14 November 1992

  France

  Speech to Journées sur les Justices D'Europe

  26–27 March 1993

  Eire

  Address on Subsidiarity to Bar European Group Conference

  13–15 September 1993

  United States of America

  Meetings regarding Lockerbie with new Assistant Attorney General

  9 October 1993

  Austria

  Council of Europe Summit Meeting

  15–19 November 1993

  Mauritius

  Conference of Commonwealth Law Ministers

  Solicitor-General

  9–10 June 1992

  Cyprus

  18th European Ministers of Justice Conference

  3–7 August 1992

  Canada

  Reform of Criminal Evidence Conference

  8 December 1992

  France

  Representing Her Majesty's Government in case of McMichael v. United Kingdom

  3–8 May 1993

  Cyprus

  10th Commonwealth Law Conference

  22 June 1993

  Switzerland

  Informal meeting of European Ministers of Justice

  The cost of such travel is not recorded in a form which allows the amounts for each visit to be identified, and not
  416

  Consultancies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the value of consultancy contracts awarded by his Department each year since 1979, both in current prices and at constant 1994 prices.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The latest available information is for external consultancy contracts awarded in the 1992–93 financial year, which amounted to the value of £16,399,560. This, at constant 1994 prices, would be £16,932,545.

SCOTLAND

  Minor Surgery
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will increase the amount of minor surgical procedures which can be undertaken by each general practitioner in each quarter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 26 May 1993,Official Report, columns 498–99.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the(a) date, (b) country of destination, (c) purpose and (d) cost of each official visit abroad made by (i) the Lord Advocate and (ii) the Solicitor-General for Scotland since their appointments; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The details of the overseas visits by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland are as follows:

  all costs are necessarily borne by the Crown Office. Nevertheless, the total cost of Ministers' overseas visits is estimated to be in the order of £10,000.
  417

  Forestry Commission (Privatisation)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek the advice of the new advisory panel on sustainable development on the issue of the privatisation of the Forestry Commission.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The forestry review group has been asked to review the options for the ownership and management of Forestry Commission woodlands in which privatisation is only one of the options being considered by the group. Forestry Ministers will consider what advice, further to that to be offered shortly by the review group, we should seek in coming to decisions. A full process of consultation is planned.

  Cervical Smears
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the average time that patients currently wait for the results of cervical smear tests in each health board area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe),Official Report, 21 January column 759, 3 February, column 929 and 4 February, column 962.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a list of the equipment stolen or lost from his Department in the last five years for which information is available; and what was the approximate value of each item.

  Mr. Lang
  A variety of minor items are periodically reported missing. The following more substantial items have been formally recorded since 1988 as losses to the Scottish Office, including those attributable to theft.

  Year and Item

  Approximate value

  £

  1988

  Cash

  400

  1989

  Motor Car

  2,000

  Furniture/Machinery

  3,800

  1990

  Furniture

  1,595

  1991

  Video Equipment

  749

  1992

  Video Equipment

  359

  Motor Car

  2,650

  Computer Equipment

  3,500

  Scottish Grand Committee
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to implement the changes to the procedures of the Scottish Grand Committee set out in the White Paper, "Scotland in the Union: A Partnership for Good".
  418
  Mr. Lang
  I am today placing in the Library of the House proposed amendments to standing orders and an explanatory note. The amendments will implement our commitment in the White Paper to expand the role of the Scottish Grand Committee. They reflect discussions I have had with the Opposition parties. The amendments provide for the Grand Committee:

  to consider the principle of Bills relating exclusively to Scotland;

  to hold debates on subordinate legislation;

  to hold up to 12 general debates a year, with Opposition parties able to choose subjects for some of them;

  to put questions to Ministers, both from the House of Commons and the House of Lords;

  to receive oral statements from Ministers; and

  to hold adjournment debates.

  The amendments will be tabled in due course.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to each of the health boards in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 4 February 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, (Dr. Godman), Official Report, column 52.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to each of the national health services trusts in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 4 February 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), Official Report, column 53.

HEALTH

  GP Fundholders
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practices have received the preparatory management allowance for general practice fundholding in two or more years running; and in which family health service authority and regional health authority they are located.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is available from regional health authorities, which manage the general practitioner fundholding scheme.

  Patient Transport Service
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether she has received a copy of the arbitration decision in respect of the patient transport service contract for North Staffordshire;

  (2) who were the arbiters in respect of the appeal by the Staffordshire ambulance trust against the letting of the patient transport services contract in North Staffordshire by the North Staffordshire hospital trust in respect of services for the North Staffordshire trust and North Staffordshire health authority combined health care;

  (3) if she will place in the Library a copy of the arbitration procedure and decision in respect of patient transport services contract for North Staffordshire.

  Mr. Sackville
  The issue was the subject of conciliation, not arbitration. The conciliators were the
  419
  chief executive of West Midlands health and a representative of the National Health Service Management Executive. Copies of the letters sent to all parties following conciliation, along with guidance on the conciliation process used, EL(91)11 and EL(93)10, will be placed in the Library.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultation the North Staffordshire district health authority undertook with local authorities in respect of the comprehensiveness of their patient transport services specification in so far as it related to combined health care services in accordance with the commitments given in "Forward in Health: Health Strategy and the Authority's Business Plan in 1993–94 and 1994–95."

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for North Staffordshire health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman, Mr. M. J. Proctor, for details.

  NHS Management Costs
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the annual cost of national health service management in the parliamentary constituency of Dewsbury(a) in 1987–88 and (b) in 1992–93.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The pay costs for national health service managers within Dewsbury health authority, amounted to £97,529 in 1987–88 and £1,125,119 in 1992–93. The figures need to be treated with great caution. Managerial staff consists of general and senior managers who did not exist as a separate staff group prior to 1986.

  The number of managers in the NHS generally has been deliberately increased since the mid-1980s—not just since the reforms—as the service was previously under managed. Much of the increase arises from the re-classification of existing professional and administrative staff. Salaries and wage costs incurred by family health services authorities are excluded, as corresponding costs are not identified on the same basis.

  Source: Health authority accounts.

  NHS Private Facilities
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been treated in national health service hospitals private facilities in each year since 1987–88.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information is shown in the table. Data from the hospital episode statistics for earlier years are incomplete and do not provide sufficient coverage to make reliable estimates.

  England: Private Patients—1989–92

  Year

  Number

  1989–90

  83,478

  1990–91

  81,366

  11991–92

  89,863

  1Provisional estimates.

  Source:SD2A, Hospital Episode Statistics.
  420

  Chatham Dockyard
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to conduct a joint survey with the Ministry of Defence and the Medway community health doctor to monitor the health of the former work force of the nuclear division of Chatham dockyard.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has no immediate plans to undertake such a survey.

  Birth Defects
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment has been made of the proportion and number by which folic acid intake by mothers-to-be would reduce spinal and related developmental problems in babies;

  (2) what action is being taken with the Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus to make sure that mothers-to-be are aware of the importance of folic acid;

  (3) for how long before conception and for how long after mothers-to-be are recommended to consider folic acid intake; and what proportion of mothers-to-be know of the need to consume folic acid;

  (4) if she will promote in medical and general media issues of pre-conception and pre-birth maternal health as news and current affairs issues;

  (5) what assessment has been made by her Department as to whether folic acid reduces spinal and related development problems in babies.

  Mr. Sackville
  The report of the Medical Research Council study in July 1991 showed that women who had had a previous baby affected by neural tube defect, such as spina bifida, who increased their intake of folic acid prior to and during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy significantly reduced the risk of having a further affected baby by 72 per cent. The Government set up an expert advisory group at once and its report "Folic Acid and the Prevention of Neural Tube Defects" confirmed this advice. In addition all women who were planning a pregnancy were also advised to take folic acid but in a lower dose. A copy of this report is available in the Library.

  This advice was disseminated very widely to the health services. The Health Education Authority updated its publications to include the new guidance. The Department of Health has also publicised these findings in the press and media and this will continue. Posters and leaflets which complement those issued by the Association of Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus have been distributed widely within the national health service and to professional and voluntary bodies and continue to be available free of charge. The Government are also promoting advice to eat a healthy diet which includes more fresh fruit and vegetables. This will also increase folic acid intakes.

  Road Accidents
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who is responsible for liaison with the Department of Transport in respect of the implications of road traffic accidents on health policy; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  A task force, which comprises representatives of 11 Government Departments, including the Departments of Health and of Transport, has been
  421
  established to advise on the achievement of the targets for reductions in accidents set in the "Health of the Nation" White Paper. It has set two main objectives: the identification of outstanding research needs for the prevention of accidents and the improvement of the range and compatibility of information collected on the cause, severity and consequences of accidental injuries. A progress report will be issued later this year.

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to instigate a cancer screening programme for men over 50 years of age, for the detection of bowel of prostate gland cancer.

  Mr. Sackville
  The key aim of any screening programme must be to secure a demonstrable improvement in health by increasing length of life and enhancing quality of life. For neither of these cancers have effective screening methods yet been found, though with regard to bowel cancer especially, substantial research is underway into possible screeing methods and the identification of people at higher risk. Prostate cancer screening is a research priority for the Department of Health.

  Elderly People
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how may and what proportion of the total population was aged(a) over 60 and (b) over 65 years in 1978 and the most recent year for which statistics are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Estimated resident population of England and Wales

  (thousands)

  Mid-1978

  Mid-1992

  Total population

  49,443

  51,277

  Population aged 60 and over—

  9,865

  10,695

  Percentage of total population

  (20.0)

  (20.9)

  Population aged 65 and over—

  7,316

  8,162

  Percentage of total population

  (14.8)

  (15.9)

  EC Services Directive
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health with effect from what date she has applied the EC services directive to(a) the notification to existing contractors that the contract they currently hold is being let, (b) the timetable for the preparation of bids, (c) the timetable for the evaluation of bids, (d) the notification of the announcement of the successful bid and (e) the time-lapse between the start of the process and the announcement of the successful bidder.

  Mr. Sackville
  The European Community services directive has applied to all services market tested, if listed in the directive, since 1 July 1993.

  Psychiatric Facilities
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the total capital receipts from sale of psychiatric facilities in each year since 1979.
  422
  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is not separately identifiable in the information collected centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairmen of regional health authorities for details.

  Fertility Treatment
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients each English health authority has treated for subfertility for the last five years for which statistics are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is not available centrally. It is for district health authorities in consultation with the providers of health services to determine the level of provision of subfertility services locally. The hon. Member should write to the chairman of the relevant health authority requesting this information.

  NHS Supplies Authority
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) of 18 January,Official Report, column 528, if she will publish the independent, specialist consultancy advice on the future of the NHS Supplies Authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no plans to do so.

  Paediatric Nurses
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines she has on the minimum number of trained nurses on paediatric wards per patient.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 3 February,Official Report, column 851.

  AIDS
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which local authorities receive grants from central Government to offset work they do on AIDS.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 4 February,Official Report, columns 979–80.

  Sunderland City Hospitals Trust
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the names and salaries of the members of the Sunderland City hospitals trust.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The chairman of City Hospitals Sunderland national health service trust is Mr. D. Graham and the non-executive directors are Mrs. R. Blacklock, Mr. C. Storey, Mrs. M. Mason, Mr. E. Timmins and Mr. J. Sadlik. The chairman's remuneration is £19,285 per year: all non-executive directors receive £5,000 per year. The appointment and salaries of executive directors are matters for the trust itself.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she has given to local authorities regarding access to the contents of registration and inspection
  423
  officers' reports on residential care homes by local authority staff considering the placement of clients in the homes concerned.

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authority staff considering the placement of clients in residential care homes are covered by the Department's general guidance to local authorities that—subject to legal advice—there should be public access to inspection reports on individual homes.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current membership of the advisory panel on the importation of sexually explicit films for health purposes.

  Mr. Sackville
  The advisory panel was disbanded with effect from 1 February. I am grateful to the members who have served on it in the past 11 years.

  Care in the Community
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total funding of care in the community in 1993–94; and what the amount will be in 1994–95.

  Mr. Bowis
  In recognition of their new community care responsibilities we are making available to local authorities in England a special transitional grant of £565.4 million in 1993–94.

  For 1994–95 the cumulative total of new resources for community care will be £1,274.5 million. The figures are in addition to amounts already spent by health and local authorities on community care services from their baseline resources.

  Severalls Hospital, Colchester
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the annual cost of upkeep of a psycho-geriatric bed in Bartons ward, Severalls hospital, Colchester for the last available year.

  Mr. Bowis
  This is a matter for North East Essex mental health services national health service trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. David Holt, the chairman, for details.

  Year

  1991–92 £ million

  1992–93 £ million

  1993–94 £ million

  1994–95 £ million

  5–10 Sub-block

  183.498

  196.384

  203.468

  214.362

  11–15 Sub-block

  218.819

  232.814

  240.749

  246.484

  16 plus Sub-block

  90.652

  102.760

  34.788

  34.373

  Notes

  1. 1993–94 figure for the 16 plus sub-block reflects LEAs' loss of responsibility for most further education.

  2. 1994–95 figures reflect LEAs' loss of responsibility for the careers service and school inspections.

  Education standard spending assessments are not earmarked. Each authority is free to determine its spending priorities between the services for which it has responsibility.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many visits abroad the Minister of State made during 1993; and what was(a) the cost to public funds and (b) the purpose of each visit.
  424

EDUCATION

  Consultancies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the value of consultancy contracts awarded by his Department each year since 1979, both in current prices and at constant 1994 prices.

  Mr. Boswell
  The value of consultancy contracts awarded by the Department each year since 1987 was as follows:

  Value of Consultancy Contracts (£,000)

  Year

  Actual Prices

  At 1994 Prices

  1987

  364

  532

  1988

  438

  600

  1989

  555

  711

  1990

  974

  1,155

  1991

  1,517

  1,691

  1992

  1,994

  2,141

  1993

  1,629

  1,694

  Information for the years before 1987 is not available in the form requested.

  Expenditure (Essex)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much money has been made available for spending on primary and secondary education in Essex in each of the last three financial years; what is the figure for 1994–95; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  For the purpose of calculating authorities' standard spending assessments, education standard spending is divided into five sub-blocks—under-fives, five to 10, 11 to 15, 16 plus, and "other education". The table below sets out the changes in five to 10, 11 to 15 and 16 plus sub-blocks for Essex for 1994–95. Expenditure on under-fives at primary schools is notionally supported through the under-fives sub-block.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has made one visit abroad on official business during 1993, to attend and address a conference organised by the Organisation for the Development of Freedom of Education. The total cost to public funds was £728.

  Surplus Places
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate he has made of the number of surplus places in(a) primary, (b) secondary and (c) special schools in the London boroughs.
  425
  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) on 31 January 1994,Official Report, columns 517–21.

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

  Mr. Forth
  Remission of tuition fees under the assisted places scheme is dependent on the level of fees at participating schools and the amount parents can afford to contribute. Subject to parliamentary approval, the parental contribution scales will be adjusted upwards for the school year 1994–95 as set out in the table below. Where the relevant income for the appropriate financial year does not exceed £9,352 the tuition fees will be wholly remitted.

  Part of relevant income to which percentage applies

  One assisted pupil

  Each of two assisted pupils

  Each of three assisted pupils

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  That part which exceeds £9,186 but does not exceed £9,988

  9

  6.75

  5.25

  That part if any, which exceeds £9,988 but does not exceed £10,804

  12

  9

  7

  That part, if any, which exceeds £10,804 but does not exceed £12,422

  15

  11.25

  8.75

  That part, if any, which exceeds £12,422 but does not exceed £14,913

  21

  15.75

  12.25

  (over)

  That part, if any, which exceeds £14,913 but does not exceed £18,163

  24

  18

  14

  That part, if any, which exceeds £18,163

  33

  24.75

  19.25

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to the Advisory Committee on Pesticides.

  Mr. Soames
  The members currently appointed to the Advisory Committee on Pesticides are:

  Chairman:

  Professor Sir Colin Berry, DSc, MD, PhD, FRCPath, FFPM

  Members:

  Dr. Andrée Carter BSc, MISoilSci, MIWEM

  Professor Nicola Cherry BSc, MSc, MPhil, PhD, MD

  Professor Michael Claridge, MA, DPhil, FIBiol,FLS, FRES

  Professor Anthony Dayan, BSc, MD, FRCP, FRCPath, FFPM,

  FIBiol

  Mr. John Leahy MA(Oxon), CChem, MRSC

  Professor Donald Lee BSc, PhD, FIBiol, FRSA

  Dr. Alex Proud foot BSC(Hons), MB, ChB, FRCPE

  Dr. Eve Roman BSc, PhD

  Professor Geoffrey Sagar CBE, BA, MA, DPhil(Oxon)

  Mr. Roger Taylor BSc(Agric), Postgrad Dip Agric, NDA, CBiol, MIBiol

  Professor J. Paul Webster BSc, PhD, FBIM, FRSA

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture,426
  Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to the Salmon Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Jack
  Present membership of the Salmon Advisory Committee are listed:

  Chairman:

  Professor G. M. Dunnet, CBE OBE, Emeritus Regius Professor of Natural History, Aberdeen University.

  Members:

  Mr. G. H. Bielby

  Mr. C. G. Carnie

  Mr. R. M. Clerk

  Mr. J. H. Ferguson

  Mr. D. Heselton MBE

  Dr. L. Laird

  Mr. I. Mitchell

  Mr. M. Owens

  Mr. D. R. Paton

  Dr. D. J. Solomon

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to the board of the royal botanic gardens, Kew.

  Mr. Jack
  They are:

  Mr. Robin Herbert (Chairman)

  Mr. Robert Bauman

  The Viscount Blakenham

  Mr. Christopher Brickell

  Professor William Chaloner

  Sir Phillip Dowson

  Mrs. Arabella Lennox-Boyd

  Professor Robert May

  Mr. Julian Pettifer

  Lady Renfrew

  The Earl of Selborne

  Mrs. Victoria Wakefield

  Tobacco
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current subsidy for tobacco growers in the European Community; what is the projected cost for the next financial year; what levels of intervention stocks of tobacco are held; and what amount of tobacco stock has been destroyed over the last five years.

  Mr. Jack
  The provisional outturn for Community expenditure in 1993 is 1,165 mecu—£917 million—compared to a budget provision of 1,401 mecu. The 1994 budget for tobacco has been set at 1,235 mecu—£933 million. Following substantive reform of the tobacco regime in 1992, from the 1993 harvest onwards, intervention arrangements no longer exist. The European Commission's most recent figures show 10,344 tonnes of tobacco from harvests prior to 1993 remain in intervention stores. No figures are available for tobacco which may have been destroyed, but the tobacco regime does not provide for destruction of stocks which have received EC support. Tobacco eligible for EC support must be of sound and fair merchantable quality and free of characteristics which would otherwise pevent normal marketing.

  The effect on expenditure on tobacco resulting from the reform of the regime agreed in 1992 will not begin to show in expenditure figures until at least 1994 and the regime is to be reviewed again in 1996. Nevertheless tobacco is still the most heavily subsidised common agricultural policy crop per hectare and we will continue to press for greater reforms.
  427
  Budgetary ecu rates; 1993 £1=1.2700 ecu; 1994 £.1=1.3234 ecu.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what response she has given to the letter from the president of the Nuclear Control Institute in regard to the economic viability of reprocessing at THORP; and when he received this letter.

  Mr. Jack
  The Ministry received a letter from the Nuclear Control Institute dated 28 January. This appears to raise issues which fall outside the areas for which this Department is responsible. I shall be replying in due course.

  EC-Canada Fisheries Agreement
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has made to the Commission of the European Communities regarding the proportion of the Canadian catch that United Kingdom vessels may be expected to fish as a result of the European Communities-Canada fisheries agreement.

  Mr. Jack
  Throughout the negotiations with Canada, the United Kingdom has stressed the traditional importance of these waters to our distant water fleet.

  Once the agreement has been ratified by Canada, the United Kingdom will press for an appropriate share of any opportunities which become available.

  Coarse Fishing
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to alter the current coarse fishing close season.

  Mr. Jack
  Responsibility for fixing annual close seasons for fishing for coarse fish rests primarily with the National Rivers Authority. It is currently reviewing the various coarse fishing close seasons which apply in different parts of England and Wales. If it concludes that changes are required, these will have to be introduced by way of new byelaws which would be subject to statutory advertisement and ministerial confirmation. In dedciding whether or not to confirm any byelaws, Ministers would take account of any objections they received.

  British Columbia
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether she or officials from her Department met the Premier of British Columbia on his recent visit to the United Kingdom to discuss British Columbia's new forest practices code.

  Mr. Jack
  The Premier of British Columbia was on a private visit and did not meet Government Ministers or their officials.

  Sample Management System
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what information has been made public by her Department or by agencies of her Department concerning the commissioning, costs and subsequent cancellation of the project to establish a sample management system;
  428
  (2) if she will set out all provisions requiring her Department to make public details of the setting up, costs and progress of all computer projects undertaken or commissioned by her Department or by agencies of her Department;

  (3) how much money was spent by (a) the Central Veterinary Laboratory and (b) her Department and other agencies of her Department on the sample management system;

  (4) what sum was received by the Central Veterinary Laboratory in respect of the legal settlement with ACT over the failure by ACT to carry out the development of the sample management system.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  A contract for the development of a sample management system, funded by the Ministry's information technology directorate was awarded to ACT Medisys in November 1990. On completion of the development of the project, its ownership was to have been taken over by the Central Veterinary Laboratory. Serious development delays were however identified early in the project, which was then suspended in August 1991. Following a review and subsequent negotiations, there was a mutual agreement to cease the contract in December 1992.

  The terms of the contractual arrangements for this project, including those covering the termination, are commercially confidential, although the figures are open to scrutiny by the Comptroller and Auditor General in the usual way. Under the terms of the settlement secured by the Ministry, compensation—in the form of computer hardware, software and a cash sum—fully recompensed the Ministry for the costs involved. As the value of the compensation covered the relevant expenditure, there was no loss to report in the Ministry's appropriation accounts. Those accounts were duly audited by the National Audit Office.

  The Ministry's requirement to provide, publicly, details of computer projects is generally limited to the advertising of major projects—as required in accordance with the EC's supplies and services directives and appropriate General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade regulations—in the Official Journal of the European Communities. Details of any subsequent award of contract are similarly advertised. Additionally, agency accounts, audited by the National Audit Office, will be prepared in accordance with commercial style accrual accounting principles and include information at appropriate levels of detail.

  Consultancies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the value of consultancy contracts awarded by her Department each year since 1979, both in current prices and at constant 1994 prices.

  Mr. Jack
  The annual costs of external consultants employed by the Department—excluding agencies—since 1984–85 are set out. Data for earlier years can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Financial year

  Expenditure (£)

  Constant 1994 prices (£)

  1984–85

  27,110

  143,617

  1985–86

  174,724

  1266,339

  1986–87

  135,279

  1200,346

  1987–88

  44,105

  161,887

  1988–89

  1,174,114

  1,547,016

  429

  Financial year

  Expenditure (£)

  Constant 1994 prices (£)

  1989–90

  2,972,150

  3,661,506

  1990–91

  4,495,793

  5,123,327

  1991–92

  5,374,284

  5,761,968

  1992–93

  7,010,814

  7,238,665

  1 Excludes computer consultants.

  Animal Feeding Stuffs
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the number of processing plants producing animal protein for incorporation into animal feeding stuffs, in each year since 1981; and how many such plants were inspected by her officials in each of those years.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The number of plants varied from year to year as plants opened or closed or in some cases did not operate on any continual basis. All plants when actually producing animal protein for incorporation into animal feeding stuffs have been subject to official inspection during the year. Their numbers are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1981

  Not available

  1982

  107

  1983

  108

  1984

  107

  1985

  106

  1986

  99

  1987

  84

  1988

  75

  1989

  85

  1990

  79

  Region

  Headquaters

  South West

  Wessex

  South East

  Anglia

  South Mercia

  North Mercia

  East Midlands

  North East

  Northern

  Bird species

  Issued

  Killed

  Issued

  Killed

  Issued

  Killed

  Issued

  Killed

  Issued

  Killed

  Issued

  Killed

  Issued

  Killed

  Issued

  Killed

  Issued

  Killed

  Issued

  Killed

  Bullfinch

  1

  587

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Brent Goose

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  38

  772

  160

  1,944

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16

  81

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cormorant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  0

  —

  —

  1

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  0

  Robin

  5

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Blackbird

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Heron

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Thrush

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Blue Tit

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pied Wagtail

  1

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wren

  1

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Canada Goose1, 2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  17

  14

  218

  10

  240

  11

  145

  21

  520

  27

  1,153

  5

  39

  3

  405

  Greylag Goose1, 2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  0

  4

  22

  —

  —

  1

  0

  2

  0

  4

  15

  —

  —

  Pink-footed Goose2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  0

  Mallard2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Moorhen and Coot2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  30

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wigeon2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Feral Pigeons and House Sparrow3

  22

  4—

  2

  0

  32

  504

  16

  587

  7

  321

  34

  183

  59

  3,400

  115

  607

  38

  885

  8

  96

  Herring Gull3, 5

  1

  1,546

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Includes the pricking of eggs.

  2 These birds have an open season when they may be killed without a licence. The licences shown are to kill during the close season.

  3 A general licence has been issued to kill these birds throughout the year. The licences shown are to use methods otherwise prohibited under the act

  4 These licences were issued on behalf of the regions and the number of birds shot are included in the regional returns.

  5 Including the taking of eggs and nests.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Ministery of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assurances were given to the farmers who appeared in the video on sheep dipping, produced by the agricultural health and safety information centre of the Health and Safety Executive; what is the purpose of this project; to whom it is available; and on what terms.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have been asked to reply.
  430

  Year

  Number

  1991

  53

  1992

  47

  1993

  45

  Bovine Immunodeficiency Virus
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will review the need for withdrawal from sale of cows and calves potentially affected by bovine immunodeficiency virus, and milk from affected herds, and for appropriate compensation; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  There is no evidence that the bovine immunodeficiency virus will affect humans, whether through contact with animals, or through drinking milk or eating meat. Experimental studies indicate that the virus has little effect on cattle: the only symptom being a transient rise in temperature which soon passes. Against that background, we have no plans for the type of review mentioned by the hon. Member.

  Protected Birds
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list each licence her Department has issued for the killing of protected birds under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1991 in 1993 and 1994 to date by(a) location and (b) the species involved.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 9 February 1994]: The latest figures available are for 1992 and this information is given in the table.

  The video on sheep dipping was produced by the Health and Safety Executive by an independent producer. It describes symptoms of ill-health alleged to be associated with dipping, alternative ways of controlling sheep parasites, guidance on good and poor sheep dipping facilities and practical ways to comply with the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988.

  The video is primarily to assist in training and is in a format which makes it suitable as guidance to sheep farmers. Participants were given the assurance that they would each receive a copy of the finished video.
  431
  Approximately 200 copies of the video have been sent to various individuals, agricultural training organisations and other bodies with an interest in this subject. The video is also available for anyone to purchase—£45 including VAT—or hire—from £11.49 plus VAT—from CFL Vision, PO Box 35, Wetherby, West Yorkshire LS23 7EX.

WALES

  NHS Staff
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of total National Health Service expenditure has been spent on the employment of managers, advisers, administrators and clerical staff within the whole of the NHS in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The proportion of total NHS expenditure that was spent on the employment of managers, advisers, administrators and clerical staff within the whole of the NHS in Wales in each of the last three years for which figures are available was as follows:

  Per cent.

  1990–91

  5.6

  1991–92

  6.0

  1992–93

  5.9

  Sources:

  Health Authorities Annual Accounts/Financial Returns.

  Pembrokeshire NHS Trust Financial Returns.

  Welsh Office Public Expenditure Records.

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure spent on the employment of managers, advisers, adminstrators and clerical staff is taken to be that covering salaries and wages. Expenditure in respect of advisers relates to Family Health Service Authorities only.

  2. Figures include expenditure by Health Authorities, the Welsh Health Common Services Authority, Family Health Service Authorities, Pembrokeshire NHS Trust (1992–93 only), and the Health Promotion Authority for Wales.

  3. It should be noted that since 1989 senior managers' terms and conditions of service have been extended to second and third level managers and some senior nurses and other professional staff have also transferred to senior management grades.

  Labour Statistics
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total cost of employing managers, advisers, administrators and clerical staff in the NHS in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Comparison of 1992–93 expenditure with 1993–94 budgets

  TEC

  1992–93

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Percentage change in real terms from 1992–93 to 1993–94

  Actual

  Real terms

  Budget

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Youth training and credits

  Gwent

  7.11

  7.34

  7.07

  -3.67

  Mid Glamorgan

  7.90

  8.15

  9.20

  12.78

  North East Wales

  4.95

  5.11

  5.24

  2.54

  Targed

  5.01

  5.17

  5.63

  8.88

  Powys

  1.62

  1.67

  1.65

  -1.35

  South Glamorgan

  4.12

  4.26

  4.54

  6.75

  West Wales

  10.66

  11.01

  11.74

  6.66

  432
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The total cost of employing managers, advisers, administrators and clerical staff in the NHS in Wales in each of the last three years for which figures are available was as follows:

  £000s

  1990–91

  86,599

  1991–92

  106,742

  1992–93

  117,386

  Source:

  Health Authorities Annual Accounts/Financial Returns Pembrokeshire NHS Trust Financial Returns.

  Notes:

  1. The total cost of employing managers, advisers, administrators and clerical staff is taken to be that covering salaries and wages. Costs in respect of advisers relates to Family Health Service Authorities only.

  2. Figures include expenditure by Health Authorities, the Welsh Health Common Services Authority, Family Health Service Authorities, Pembrokeshire NHS Trust (1992–93 only), and the Health Promotion Authority for Wales.

  3. It should be noted that since 1989 senior managers' terms and conditions of service have been extended to second and third level managers and some senior nurses and other professional staff have also transferred to senior management grades.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much funding has been made available to each TEC in(a)1992–93 and (b) 1993–94, expressed in cash terms and real terms and (c) giving a real terms percentage change from the previous year, for (i) youth training and credits, (ii) training for work and the programmes it replaced and (iii) business start up allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The figures requested are provided in the following tables.

  These show a real terms increase in provision in 1993–94 for both the youth training and business start-up programmes. The reduction in provision for training for work is the result of targeting this programme on training for the longer-term unemployed.

  I am advised that the funding to be made available in 1994–95 for training in Wales will enable the youth training "guarantee" to be met and, on the basis of TEC assessments, training places will be available for all eligible adults who wish to train.
  433

  TEC

  1992–93

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Percentage change in real terms from 1992–93 to 1993–94

  Actual

  Real terms

  Budget

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Training for work

  Gwent

  5.94

  6.14

  4.85

  -20.90

  Mid Glamorgan

  6.76

  6.98

  5.00

  -28.40

  North East Wales

  2.10

  2.17

  2.08

  -4.03

  Targed

  3.45

  3.56

  3.06

  -14.02

  Powys

  1.03

  1.06

  0.93

  -12.03

  South Glamorgan

  4.17

  4.30

  3.22

  -25.21

  West Wales

  7.96

  8.22

  6.54

  -20.47

  TEC

  1992–93

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Percentage change in real terms from 1992–93 to 1993–94

  Actual

  Real terms

  Budget

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Business start-up

  Gwent

  0.80

  0.82

  0.95

  15.43

  Mid Glamorgan

  0.83

  0.86

  0.51

  -40.00

  North East Wales

  0.34

  0.35

  0.45

  26.65

  Targed

  0.73

  0.75

  0.78

  4.19

  Powys

  0.26

  0.27

  0.29

  7.92

  South Glamorgan

  0.41

  0.42

  0.61

  42.76

  West Wales

  1.62

  1.68

  1.74

  3.91

  Private Patient Facilities
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much income has been generated by private patient facilities in national health service hospitals in each year since 1987–88.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The amount of income generated by private patient facilities in national health service hospitals in each year since 1987–88 was as follows:

  £000s

  1987–88

  1,213

  1988–89

  1,388

  1989–90

  1,638

  1990–91

  1,855

  1991–92

  2,173

  1992–93

  2,099

  Source:

  Health Authorities' Annual Accounts.

  Pembrokeshire NHS Trust Accounts.

  Notes:

  1 Consists of money received from NHS patients paying for accommodation in single rooms or small wards (Section 63 NHS Act), private in-patients (Section 65), private non-resident patients (Section 66) and accommodation and services provided under Section 58 of the NHS Act 1977.

  2 Overseas visitors (Section 121) not eligible for free treatment have been excluded.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients have been treated in national health service hospitals private facilities in each year since 1987–88.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information available, which relates to private patient attendances at national health service hospitals, is given in the following table. The figures do not relate to the number of people treated because an individual person may be treated more than once.
  434

  In-patient cases

  Out-patient attendances

  Day case attendances

  Regular day attendances

  1987–88

  1,717

  11,210

  1,221

  —

  1988–89

  1,775

  10,737

  1,396

  —

  1989–90

  1,994

  8,956

  1,851

  —

  1990–91

  1,760

  9,712

  1,225

  —

  1991–92

  1,558

  9,015

  1,147

  5

  1992–93

  1,257

  7,948

  1,024

  —

  National Curriculum Review
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list those organisations and individuals who have made representations orally or in writing to him personally or to the Welsh Office regarding the review of the national curriculum and its assessment in Wales;

  (2) if he will place in the Library copies of the minutes of the four conferences of teachers held by the Curriculum Council of Wales during its review of the national curriculum and assessment in Wales, together with details and an analysis of evidence provided to these conferences;

  (3) if he will place in the Library copies of the written responses to the Curriculum Council of Wales in its review of the national curriculum and its assessment framework in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Since 5 January when the final reports by Sir Ron Dearing and the Curriculum Council for Wales and the Government's response were published, the Department has received representations from over 70 individuals and organisations regarding the impact of the review of the national curriculum and its assessment in Wales. Those who made representations have a right to assume that their views have been submitted in confidence and I am not therefore in a position to identify the individuals or organisations concerned.
  435

  Quangos (Membership)
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to establish a register of interests of all members of the boards of Welsh quangos, which is open to inspection by members of the public, giving details of party political membership, other positions held and paid employment in the private sector.

  Mr. Redwood
  It is good practice for executive non-departmental public bodies—like other public bodies—to keep a register of the interests of members of their boards and I encourage them to do so.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many county councils wrote to the Curriculum Council for Wales during its review of the national curriculum and assessment in Wales, expressing the view that the teaching of Welsh as a foundation subject of key stage 4 should not remain part of the national curriculum;

  (2) how many secondary schools in Wales wrote to the Curriculum Council for Wales expressing an opinion against including the Welsh language as a foundation subject at key stage 4 as part of the national curriculum; and how many of those schools had already been the subject of a deferment order regarding the teaching of Welsh at key stage three or four;

  (3) how many secondary schools reported to the Curriculum Council for Wales or his Office that they had encountered difficulties recruiting an adequate number of teachers qualified to teach the Welsh language in their response to the review of the curriculum and assessment in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Curriculum Council for Wales conducted extensive consultations on changes to the national curriculum at key stage 4 as part of the review of the national curriculum and assessment which I commissioned last year. The consultations included conferences and the invitation to submit written representations. In its final report which it submitted to me in December, the council summarised the views expressed during this consultation exercise, and made recommendations in the light of them. Copies of the report have been sent to all Welsh Members of the House and further copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Details of the conduct of the consultations are described in the report. Individual responses to the council cannot be made available for public inspection as individuals who wrote to the council are entitled to consider that their submissions have been made in confidence.

  In response to the review I have received two reports from secondary schools about the recruitment of teachers qualified to teach Welsh.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date the Welsh Language Board was first consulted regarding impending changes to the national curriculum in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There were no formal consultations with the Welsh Language Board on changes to the national curriculum in Wales since the review by the Curriculum Council for Wales and Sir Ron Dearing was conducted prior to the establishment of the board on 21 December 1993.
  436
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many schools requested exemption, as opposed to deferment, of the requirement to provide Welsh in the national curriculum at key stage 3 or 4 in response to the invitation in his consultation document issued on 7 May 1991.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Schools were not directly invited to respond to this consultation exercise which was carried out under the terms of section 21 of the Education Reform Act 1988. However, copies of the consultation document were sent for school governors to information. In response, 17 schools made direct representations to the Welsh Office.

  Of these, 16 requested exemption from the national curriculum requirements for Welsh at key stages 4 and 2 also requested exemption from the key stage 3 requirements. One school also sought deferment of the key stage 3 requirements.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will consult with the Welsh Language Board on the implications of the Welsh Language Act 1993 for treating Welsh and English on a basis of equality in the national curriculum.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Welsh Language Board is responsible for taking a broad overview of Welsh medium and Welsh second-language education. The Government and the new Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales will be consulting the language board regularly on Welsh language issues which impact on the national curriculum.

  Consultancies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the value of consultancy contracts awarded by his Department and its predecessors each year since 1979, both in current prices and at constant 1994 prices.

  Mr. Redwood
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

ENVIRONMENT

  New Towns
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the transfer of properties from the Commission for New Towns to British housing associations and Basildon council.

  Sir George Young
  In accordance with the results of the tenants' ballot, 85 per cent. of the rented housing stock held by the Commission for the New Towns at Basildon was transferred to Basildon district council on 31 January 1994. Responsibility for the management of the remaining 15 per cent. was taken over by the Basildon Community housing association on the same day, with a view the freehold being transferred as soon as the housing association is able to complete the necessary arrangements.

  Playgrounds
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice his Department has issued to local authorities concerning the siting of playgrounds and other leisure facilities near to electricity sub-stations; and if he will make a statement.
  437
  Mr. Baldry
  Planning advice is not issued by the Department on such sites. Electricity companies are required by the Electricity Supply Regulations 1988, as amended, to take note of the nature and use of land adjacent to their installations, and to take appropriate measures to protect and warn the public of the associated dangers.

  North Peckham Task Force
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which projects have been and currrently are funded by the North Peckham task force.

  Mr. Baldry
  Since the North Peckham task force opened in April 1986, it has funded well over 300 projects, of which 30 are still being funded. In some of these, funding will extend up to two years after the task force formally closes on 31 March 1994. I will write to the hon. Member with a full list.

  Tarmac Ltd.
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if Tarmac Ltd. may award itself contracts paid for by public money following its acquisition of PSA projects.

  Mr. Baldry
  No.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has made to the changed proposals put forward by the Greek Presidency of the EU regarding the phase-out period for the co-disposal of hazardous and domestic waste.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Greek Presidency has suggested that the landfill directive should provide for the co-disposal of hazardous waste with municipal waste to be phased out over a period of 10 years rather than five years proposed by the European Commission. The United Kingdom reiterated its view in working group discussions on the Greek proposal that the directive should recognise that properly controlled co-disposal is an environmentally sound waste management option, and provide for it to continue to be practised by those member states which wish to do so. The Government agree that the directive should place a ban on the uncontrolled mixing of hazardous waste with municipal waste.

  Groundwork Foundation
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the efficiency of the Groundwork Foundation in terms of the percentage of the grant-in-aid from his Department which is passed on to Groundwork trusts; and what alternative arrangements he has considered to ensure value for money.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Groundwork Foundation administers its grant-in-aid in accordance with the provisions of a grant memorandum, the terms of which are kept under review by my Department. All payments made by the foundation towards the approved running costs of Groundwork trusts are subject to the prior approval of the Department. The forecast funding requirement of existing and planned trusts is an element of the foundation's corporate strategy considered by the Department in the annual public expenditure round.
  438
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effects of the funding arrangements of the Groundwork Foundation on existing environmental trusts.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Groundwork Foundation is funded to support and develop the Groundwork trust network. Groundwork trusts are formed and managed by local people. The trusts are encouraged to complement the work of existing environmental bodies and collaborate with them. The trusts stimulate increased expenditure on environmental improvements, from which the other bodies can benefit.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 28 January,Official Report, column 443, what consideration he has given to enabling existing environmental charities to bid for the grant-in-aid paid to the Groundwork Foundation.

  Mr. Atkins
  None. Grant-in-aid is allocated to the Groundwork Foundation specifically for the purposes of developing, managing and supporting the network of Groundwork trusts.

  Privatisation
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the conditions under which architectural services and other specialised agencies of county councils can be offered for privatisation; and how many offers constitute the level of competition he requires.

  Mr. Baldry
  If an authority chooses to invite private contractors to carry out these services, then the basis on which they do so is a matter for them, subject only to the requirements of the EC public procurement directives and their general fiduciary duty. The Government intend to require authorities to seek competitive tenders before their own staff are allowed to undertake this work and will be consulting on detailed proposals shortly.

  Biodiversity Action Plan
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which recent policy commitments and initiatives in the United Kingdom biodiversity action plan were(a) not previously announced and (b) do not result from the Government's legal obligations under the European Union habitats directive.

  Mr. Atkins
  The goal, principles and objectives contained in the plan are in themselves a significant re-definition of policies. The most important new initiative is to establish a biodiversity action plan steering group, which will be a partnership between central and local government, the conservation agencies, scientific and academic institutions and voluntary bodies. The group will have four specific remits in overseeing:the development of range of specific costed targets for key species and habitats for the years 2000 and 2010 to be published in European Nature Conservation Year 1995;
  a working group already established following the May Seminar designed to improve the accessibility and co-ordination of existing biological datasets, to provide common standards for future recording and to examine the feasibility in due course cif a single UK Biota Database;
  the preparation and implementation of a public strategy which could:

  support initiatives that enhance people's understanding of what is special about their local environment;

  439

  encourage the creation of a network of community wardens;

  support initiatives that promote local action to conserve and improve local biodiversity;

  the establishment of a review process for the delivery of the commitments contained in the plan.

  In addition, the plan contains 59 action points and broad targets which take forward, accelerate and extend existing policies and programmes. A number of these are new commitments or initiatives, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman with details of these.

  Barnoldswick Sewage Treatment Works
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to inform the National Rivers Authority if phosphate removal will be required at Barnoldswick sewage treatment works.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make an announcement in due course about those areas to be identified as sensitive under the EC's urban waste water treatment directive and which of the sewage treatment works discharging into them will be required to install phosphate removal equipment.

  Nitrates Directive
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which are(a) the vulnerable zones designated under EC nitrates directive 91/676/EC and (b) the sensitive and less sensitive areas designated under EC urban waste water treatment directive 91/271/EC.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Food will shortly be consulting about the areas proposed to be designated as vulnerable zones under the nitrates directive.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will make an announcement in due course about the areas to be identified as sensitive and less sensitive under the urban waste water treatment directive.

  Land Contamination
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what future meetings he plans to hold with representatives of Barnet council in connection with contamination of land at Coppetts wood, Finchley.

  Mr. Atkins
  This is a matter for resolution between the Department of Transport and the London borough of Barnet.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 18 January,Official Report, column 565, (a) on what date and by whom his Department was first made aware of contamination of land to be given in exchange for land required for the trunk road improvement east of Fallowden way and east of high road, Finchley, (b) on what date and to whom his Department first notified Barnet council that testing of the site would take place, (c) on what dates and by whom testing of the site took place, (d) on what date and by whom his Department was first notified of the results of the test, (e) on what date and to whom his Department notified Barnet council of the results of the test, (f) by what date his Department told Barnet council that it would require the council's response and (g) if he has now received the council's response; and if he will make a statement.
  440
  Mr. Atkins
  The contamination to which the hon. Member refers became apparent only after the exchange land certificate for this site had been issued. In these circumstances, the problem was a matter for the Department of Transport as the acquiring authority and the London borough of Barnet as the owner of the land. My Department has not been involved in any ensuing correspondence.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment his Department undertakes, or what information his Department requires from local councils, regarding condition, and possible contamination, of land when considering options for possible sites to be subject to exchange land certificates.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department has to be satisfied that there has been compliance with the appropriate procedures and requirements under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 before exchange land certificates are issued. It relies on the Department of Transport, as the acquiring authority, and the local authority to supply information about the condition and possible contamination of potential exchange land sites. Where trunk road proposals are the subject of a public inquiry and an exchange land certificate is sought, the Secretary of State will rely on evidence presented at the time about the condition and possible contamination of exchange land, as reported on by the inspector, in considering options for potential sites.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what instructions or advice of recommended procedure his Department issues to councils regarding allowing access by elected councillors to information provided by his Department to the council in relation to possible contamination of land within their wards; if he will make representations to Barnet council regarding council officers' refusal to allow access to such information to councillors in connection with contamination of land at Coppetts wood, Finchley; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department has not issued instructions to local authorities on this. Authorities are independent, but must, of course, comply with the relevant law including the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. We understand that the Department of Transport has sent a report of the tests on the Coppetts wood site to council officers to enable them to prepare their report to council members. The DOT said that council officers could show the report to Members.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a list of all correspondence since January 1988 between his Department and the London borough of Barnet relating to(a) issuing of exchange land certificates in connection with the widening of the north circular road, east of Falloden way and (b) condition and possible contamination of land at Coppetts wood in Finchley; what was the date of each piece of correspondence; who was the sender and recipient in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  This is a matter for the Department of Transport. My Department has not been in correspondence with the London borough of Barnet on the subjects raised.
  441

  Canadian Rain Forest
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he or officials from his Department met the Premier of British Columbia on his recent visit to the United Kingdom to discuss British Columbia's new forest practices code.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Premier of British Columbia was on a private visit and did not meet Government Ministers or their officials.

  Rural Housing Associations
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of state for the Environment (1) what representations he has received urging the encouragement of a proliferation of smaller, more local, rural housing associations; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representation he has received from the Association of National Parks, regarding the occupation of rural housing association homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  The Association of National Parks met recently to consider a report on housing in national parks and has written to me to draw a number of points to my attention, including the role of rural housing associations and the occupation of the homes they provide.

  Eighteen rural housing associations are registered with the Housing Corporation, including one which registered during the past year. Despite the reduction that was necessary in the Housing Corporation's development budget for 1994–95, the corporation expects to maintain the target of 1,850 allocations for the rural programme next year. For the four years from 1989–90 over 6,000 units were approved—some 800 above target.

  Rhinoceros Horn
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he intends to take to persuade the Governments of China and Taiwan to fulfil their obligations under CITES resolutions to enforce the ban on trade in rhinoceros horn.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have been asked to reply.

  The United Kingdom together with our European partners, fully supports the decision of the CITES standing committee to send technical and high-level delegations to rhino horn-consuming countries to assess the effectiveness of their efforts to combat illegal trade in rhino horn and to offer advice and assistance. We have contributed £5,000 towards the costs of the high-level delegation which has recently visited China and Taiwan. The Government will be represented at the standing committee meeting next month which will consider what further action should be taken in the light of the delegations' reports. We shall also continue our bilateral contracts with the relevant authorities.

  The United Kingdom Government have taken a leading role in encouraging greater efforts to conserve rhinos. On 3 February my Department announced a grant of £60,000 towards a project co-funded by the European Commission and the Worldwide Fund for Nature to appoint a scientific officer to co-ordinate rhino conservation activities throughout Africa.
  442

  Associated Octel (Fire)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the environmental pollution consequences of the fire at Associated Octel's plant in Cheshire on 2 February.

  Mr. Atkins
  On the basis of their preliminary assessments, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has concluded that it is unlikely there are any significant environmental effects of the fire.

  HMIP will continue to keep the situation under review.

  Municipal Homes
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to undertake a feasibility study into the re-introduction of a municipal homes construction programme, with particular reference to the Greater London area and other large conurbations.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 9 February 1994]: The Government's policy is that housing associations should be the main providers of new social housing, while local authorities concentrate on their enabling role and on managing their existing housing stock. This diversifies the tenure of the social housing stock and helps to attract private finance to supplement public expenditure, so providing more homes.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Special Constables
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives he is planning to encourage the recruitment of special constables.

  Mr. Howard
  Our police reform White Paper announced the Government's commitment to increase the number of special constables by 10,000 by the end of 1996. As a start, I am about to launch a new advertising campaign to recruit specials. The first phase of the campaign will begin in the north-west this April.

  Night Club Licensing
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the workings of the night club licence, pursuant to section 68 of the Licensing Act 1964.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We have no present plans to review the operation of that particular section of the Licensing Act.

  Prison Security
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on security and public safety issues affecting the prison service.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Prison Service aims to hold in secure custody those committed to it by the courts. A massive prison building programme has contributed to this in recent years. Six new prisons are planned. All will be built to modern security standards to ensure the safety of the public.
  443

  Private Sector Prisons
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet the Director General of the Prison Service Agency to discuss the management of private sector prisons.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no specific plans to do so. He and I have regular meetings with the director general at which any issue relating to the operation of the Prison Service, including private sector involvement, may be discussed.

  Bail Offenders
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences were committed while on bail; and how many offenders committed offences while on bail in each of the last five years and in each quarter of 1993 to date.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not, at present, available. Research evidence suggests that the proportion of persons granted bail by the courts who were later found guilty of offences committed on bail has remained at between 10 and 12 per cent. over the last few years. It seems likely, therefore, that at least 50,000 offences each year are committed by people on bail.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has undertaken into the effectiveness of the Government's policies for combating juvenile offending.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Home Office has commissioned more than 47 research projects on various aspects of juvenile crime since 1979. A report of research specifically into persistent juvenile offending will be published shortly.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young people have been re-classified from young offender to adult who are at present in(a) Her Majesty's prison Frankland, (b) Her Majesty's prison Acklington, (c) Her Majesty's prison Holme House, (d) Her Majesty's prison Kirklevington, (e) Her Majesty's prison Full Sutton, (f) Her Majesty's prison Everthorpe, (g) Her Majesty's prison Durham and (h) Her Majesty's prison Haverigg.

  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.

  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take to ensure that local authorities deal responsibly with young offenders in their care.

  Mr. Maclean
  As my right hon. and learned Friend announced in Blackpool on 6 October 1993, the national standards for the supervision of offenders in the community will be reviewed to ensure that these sentences provide a proper punishment for offenders who receive them. These national standards cover supervision provided by local authority social services departments as well as by the Probation Service.
  444

  War Crimes Act
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the planned expenditure for his Department for 1994–95 and 1995–96 on police work resulting from the War Crimes Act 1991.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Provision for police specific grant will include £500,000 to support the Metropolitan police for their work in 1994–95 on the investigation of war crimes. I anticipate this work will be completed by the end of the next financial year.

  Retail Crime
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money has been donated by Whitbread to his retail crime document and initiative.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Current Home Office initiatives on business crime do not include a retail crime document. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has however provided a forward to the shopfront security report published by the British Retail Consortium. I understand that Whitebread plc made a contribution to the cost of that document but the details are a matter for the company and the BRC.

  Right to Silence
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about his proposals for abolishing the right to silence.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer to my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier today to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates)

  Recorded Crimes
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest figures for recorded crimes.

  Mr. Maclean
  The latest available figures for recorded crime were published on 3 November 1993 in a home office statistical bulletin issue 31/1993, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received encouraging him to reduce the prison population.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have received a number of such representations.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration is being given to the introduction of identity cards as a means of curbing illegal immigration.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The question of a national identity card scheme is kept under review. It is a matter of balancing potential benefits against costs.
  445

  Home Dependent Territories
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to visit Jersey to discuss matters within his responsibility for home dependent territories.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no immediate plans to visit Jersey, or otherwise for discussions with the Jersey authorities, although he hopes in due course to be able to visit the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, in the same way as have a number of previous Home Secretaries.

  Police Administration
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding administrative burdens on the police; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In the light of Government concern and representations from the police and members of the public at the excessive paperwork faced by the police, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) commissioned a study by consultants to identify ways of reducing the burden. My right hon. and learned Friend the present Home Secretary announced the Government's acceptance of all 16 of the report's recommendations on 6 October 1993. The police are keen to see these recommendations implemented and are making a valuable contribution to taking forward this work in conjunction with the other criminal justice agencies.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has had to reduce administrative burdens on the police; and what legislative proposals he has on the subject.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In the light of Government concern and representations from the police and members of the public at the excessive paperwork faced by the police, in June 1993 the then Home Secretary commissioned a study by consultants to identify ways of reducing the burden. My right hon. and learned Friend announced the Government's acceptance of all 16 of the report's recommendations on 6 October 1993. Work is under way on their implementation. I have no plans to introduce any legislation on the subject.

  Racial Incidents
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prosecutions there were in(a) 1992 and (b) 1993 for incitement to racial hatred under sections 17 to 23 of the Public Order Act 1986; and how many of these prosecutions were successful;

  (2) what penalties have been imposed upon conviction for people successfully prosecuted for incitement to racial hatred under sections 17 to 23 of the Public Order Act 1986 for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Maclean
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will report on proceedings taken under section 57 of the Race Relations Act 1976; and if he will make a statement.
  446
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Police Manpower
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the pay of the average police officer; how many police officers are curently in post; what were the comparable figures for 10 and 15 years ago in real terms in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is given in the table. It should be noted that the data exclude officers on central service.

  1978–79

  1983–84

  1993–94

  £

  £

  £

  Average pay costs of police officer

  5,881

  13,387

  30,142

  Average real terms pay costs of police officer1

  16,870

  22,621

  30,142

  Number of officers2

  111,792

  120,595

  127,294

  1 Average pay costs brought up to 1993–94 prices.

  2 As at 31 March 1979, 31 March 1984 and 31 October 1993 (which is the latest date for which figures are available).

  Gambian Visitors
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the guidelines relating to persons from the Gambia wishing admittance to the United Kingdom for purposes of holiday.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Instructions are not issued on the basis of nationality.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the value of consultancy contracts awarded by his Department each year since 1979, both in current prices and at constant 1994 prices.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Sentence Discounts
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what decision he has reached on the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice about sentence discounts.

  Mr. Howard
  I have decided to accept the Royal Commission's recommendation that the courts' existing practice of giving credit for early guilty pleas in the form of discounts on sentence should be more clearly articulated, by putting it on to a statutory basis. I therefore intend to table an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, requiring those passing sentence to take account of the timing and other circumstances of a plea of guilty, and, where a discount is given, to indicate the fact. In so doing I have taken into account that early pleas of guilty not only save valuable court time, but also spare the victims of crime the anxiety which many feel at the prospect of describing their ordeal in evidence.
  447

  Christmas Parole
  Mr. Hawksley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners were given Christmas parole;

  (2) how many prisoners given Christmas parole failed to return at the arranged time.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Warren Hawksley, dated February 1994:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the number of prisoners who were given Christmas parole, and how many of them failed to return at the arranged time.

  Christmas parole has been taken to be any form of home leave or temporary release granted specifically to cover the period including Christmas Day and Boxing Day, 1993. The figures are as follows:

  Release granted

  Failed to return on time

  1,395

  39

  Parents and Guardians (Recognisance)
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in 1992 the courts used their powers under section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to order a parent or guardian to enter into a recognisance.

  Mr. Maclean
  The power in section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 came into effect on 1 October 1992. It was used on 95 occasions during 1992.

  Bewsey Street Hostel, Cheshire
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were remanded in Bewsey street hostel; and how many are(a) black males and (b) black females, at the latest date available.

  Mr. Maclean
  In the three months to 30 November 1993,72 residents were admitted to the hostel. I understand from inquiries of the hostel that, in this period, one black male and no black females were resident there.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the occupancy rate of the Bewsey street hostel for each of the last 10 quarters.

  Mr. Maclean
  Occupancy figures for the period April 1991 to March 1992 are not readily available on a quarterly basis. The occupancy figures for the most recent six quarters, and for December 1993, are as follows:

  Per cent.

  April—June 1992

  56

  July—September 1992

  62

  October—December 1992

  72

  January—March 1993

  75

  April—June 1993

  76

  July—September 1993

  85

  December 1993

  85

  448
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what advice will be given to the magistrates courts regarding any future bail hostel remands following the closure of Bewsey street hostel;

  (2) what provision will be made to enable courts in Cheshire to make probation orders with conditions of residence.

  Mr. Maclean
  It will be for the Cheshire probation service to bring to the attention of the courts which it serves the facilities offered by other approved hostels.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was(a) the average cost of a weekly place in the Bewsey street hostel, (b) the average length of stay and (c) the average cost of a prison remand place in the Cheshire area.

  Mr. Maclean
  (a) The current weekly cost is £221.

  (b) This information is not readily available in the form requested.

  (c) In 1992–93, the average weekly net operating cost per prisoner at Her Majesty's prison Risley, in Warrington, was £304. Costs for remand prisoners are not kept separately.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who will be consulted about the proposed closure of the Bewsey street hostel in Cheshire.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Cheshire probation service was notified on 1 December of our closure proposals and given the opportunity to comment.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many residents of Bewsey street hostel were, on the latest date available,(a) under 17, (b) between 17 and 21 and (c) 21 years and over.

  Mr. Maclean
  There were 19 residents at the hostel on 30 November 1993. The breakdown requested is(a) 0; (b) 7; (c)

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were either re-arrested and charged or breached for failure to comply with requirements at the Bewsey street hostel for the latest period for which statistics are available.

  Mr. Maclean
  In the three months to 30 November 1993, one resident was re-arrested and charged, and seven residents were breached for failure to comply with requirements.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has of the numbers of people who might be remanded into custody per annum as a result of the closure of Bewsey street hostel in Cheshire.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is for the courts to decide who should be remanded in custody. There are approved hostel facilities available to them in Cheshire and neighbouring probation areas.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff are likely to be made redundant in the event of the closure of the Bewsey street hostel; and what would be the financial costs.

  Mr. Maclean
  It will be for the Cheshire probation committee, as employer, to decide how to manage the
  449
  consequences of closure, in terms of redeployment or redundancies; we have not yet received a full account of its conclusions.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what will be the annual saving as a result of the closure of the Bewsey street hostel in Cheshire.

  Mr. Maclean
  We expect the saving to be in the order of £100,000 in 1994–95 and £200,000 in 1995–96.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what capital and revenue expenditure will be available for hostel provision in the Cheshire probation area for 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Mr. Maclean
  Revenue grant for 1994–95 and 1995–96 will be about £400,000 a year. The level of capital grant will depend on the scrutiny of spending proposals submitted by all probation areas.

  Police Recruits
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has had suggesting that the published numbers of established police officers should not include recruits undergoing basic training; and if he will give the total number of recruits undergoing training for the most recent date.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No such representations have been received.

  On 31 December 1992 there were 10,692 police constables in England and Wales who were going through their two-year probationary period. About one third of these were still undergoing their foundation training.

  Figures for 31 December 1993 are not yet available.

  Animal Experimentation
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if any designated breeders of dogs registered under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to supply animals to laboratories have bred greyhounds since 1991;

  (2) if any exemptions to allow non-purpose-bred greyhounds to be used in research in 1992 were granted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Purpose-bred greyhounds were available from a designated breeder for about 12 months from July 1991. Breeding ceased in June 1992.

  No exemptions to allow the use of non-purpose-bred greyhounds were granted in 1992. This would not have precluded the use of such animals under pre-existing authorities.

  Blakenhurst Prison
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the key problems which have compromised security at Her Majesty's prison Blakenhurst; and what action has been taken to minimise these faults.

  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.
  450
  Letter from Mr. A. J. Pearson to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated February 1994:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about key problems that have compromised security at HMP Blakenhurst.

  An article about Blakenhurst in the "Birmingham Post" of 17 June 1993 was accompanied by photographs, one of which showed a hand holding a bunch of prison keys. The management contractor at Blakenhurst, United Kingdom Detention Services, took the view that the photograph could enable an expert locksmith to copy the keys. They agreed to change the locks believed to have been at risk at no cost to the Prison Service.

  United Kingdom Detention Services have used this experience to reinforce to all staff the importance of constant vigilance in keeping keys out of sight of people not authorised to see or use them.

  Special Parish Constables
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress made in developing the experiment of special parish constables, giving numbers appointed, their terms and conditions and geographical areas covered.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There are 20 schemes involving parish special constables already in operation around the country with more in development. The number of special constables involved varies from scheme to scheme. In most schemes existing special constables have volunteered to be redeployed for the purpose, although some forces have started a recruitment programme to persuade volunteers to train specifically for such work.

  Parish special constables are appointed under the same terms and conditions as other special constables and as such are under the operational control of their chief constable. However, the local parish council, or councils, is consulted about some of the duties that the parish special constable might perform, and about particular local concerns.

  The size of the geographical area covered by parish special constables will vary from community to community. In general we have recommended that the schemes stay closely linked to parish boundaries. However, this is a matter for chief constables to decide after consultation with the communities involved.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has had about the value of special parish constables from(a) the Police Federation, (b) chairmen and members of police authorities, (c) hon. Members and (d) members of the public in the areas currently affected by the experiment.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No such representations have been received.

  Remand
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the latest year available, how many people were remanded in the west midlands area; and how many were(a) black males and (b) black females.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Reliable information on the total numbers of defendants remanded in the west midlands is not available centrally. Neither is any regular information collected regularly on the ethnic origin of those proceeded against in court. Some information on the ethnic origin of
  451
  those remanded in custody in the west midlands was given in my reply to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) on 25 January, Official Report, column 155.

  Prison Education
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what sum of money has been allocated to education in prisons over each of the past five years.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Sir Ivan Lawrence, dated February 1994:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the sum of money allocated to education in prisons over the past five years.

  The total expenditure on education services in prisons in England and Wales in the past five years was as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1988–89

  19.5

  1989–90

  22.9

  1990–91

  25.5

  1991–92

  29.5

  1992–93

  31.5

  Moorlands Prison
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide details of the cell of the month bonus scheme at Her Majesty's prison Moorlands.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated February 1994:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about Moorland prison and young offender institution.

  An incentive scheme to raise standards of cleanliness in cells has been introduced at Moorland prison. A weekly bonus of £2 is paid to the prisoner(s) whose cell is judged to be the cleanest. This practice is consistent with the rules governing the prisoners' earnings scheme. It is an example of a system of rewards to maintain standards within a prison. The governor will keep the scheme under review in order to evaluate its effectiveness.

  Youth Custody
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each year since 1989 the total number of young people serving youth custody sentences who have been reclassified from young offender to adult status before reaching 21 years of age.

  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.
  452
  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Bill Etherington, dated February 1994:

  AVERAGE AGE AND AVERAGE SENTENCE LENGTH

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking if he will list for each year since 1989, (a) the average age and (b) the average length of sentence of the total number of young people serving youth custody sentences, who have been reclassified from young offender to adult status prior to reaching 21 years of age.

  The readily available information is for prisoners held in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 30 June 1993. On that date the average age of all young offenders who had previously been reclassified to adult status prior to reaching 21 years of age is provisionally estimated as 20.3 years. The average sentence length (excluding those sentenced to life imprisonment and those for whom a sentence length was not recorded) was nearly five years.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each year since 1989,(a) the average age and (b) the average length of sentence of the total number of young people serving youth custody sentences.

  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 A. J. Pearson to Mr. Bill Etherington, dated 10 February 1994:

  Average Age and average sentence length of young offenders

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking if he will list for each year since 1989, (a) the average age and (b) the average length of sentence of the total number of young people serving youth custody sentences.

  The information requested is given in the attached table. Information on the average length of sentence of young offenders received into Prison Service establishments is published annually in Chapter 3 of "Prison statistics, England and Wales".

  Average age and average sentence length of young offenders in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 30 June, 1989–1993

  Dated (30 June each year)

  Average Age (Years)

  Average sentence length (months)1

  1989

  19.4

  23.3

  1990

  18.8

  22.9

  1991

  19.1

  22.5

  21992

  19.0

  25.2

  21993

  18.9

  25.6

  1 Excludes those sentenced to life and those for whom a sentence length is not recorded.

  2 Provisional figures.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each year since 1989, the total number of young people serving youth custody sentences, who had been reclassified from young offender to adult before reaching 21 years of age and subsequently has the reclassification cancelled before the end of their sentence.

  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.
  453
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Bill Etherington, dated 10 February 1994:

  RECLASSIFICATION OF YOUNG OFFENDERS

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking if he will list for each year since 1989 the total number of young people serving youth custody sentences, who had been reclassified from young offender to adult before reaching 21 years of age and subsequently has the reclassification cancelled before the end of their sentence.

  The information you have requested is not recorded.

  Child Custody
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of time a child spends in custody, broken down by offence.

  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 A.J.Pearson to Mrs.Llin Golding,dated 10 February 1994:

  AVERAGE SENTENCE LENGTH OF 15–17 YEAR OLDS

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what is the average length of time a child spends in custody, broken down by offence.

  The information you have requested is given in the attached table for persons aged 15 to 17 on sentence who were discharged from Prison Service establishments in 1991.

  Average time served in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales under sentence1 by prisoners aged 15to17 at sentence discharged from determinate sentences on completion of sentence by offence,1991

  Offence

  Average time served under sentence (months)2 3

  Violence against the person

  6.6

  Sexual offences

  15.6

  Burglary

  4.3

  Robbery

  10.1

  Theft and handling

  3.0

  Fraud and forgery

  n/a4

  Drugs offences

  n/a4

  Other offences

  4.3

  Offence not recorded

  3.3

  All offences

  4.7

  1 Excludes any time served on remand awaiting trial or sentence, those detained for an indeterminate period at Her Majesty's pleasure, and those for whom a sentence length is not recorded.

  2 Provisional figures.

  3 Excludes discharges following recall after release on licence, non-criminals, persons committed to custody for non-payment of a fine, persons reclassified as adult prisoners, prisoners who died or were discharged for other reasons such as transfers to other establishments or successful appeals.

  4 Number of discharges less than 15 in 1991.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children are currently being held in youth custody, broken down by offence.

  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.
  454
  Letter from A.J.Pearson to Mrs.Llin Golding, dated 10 February 1994:

  15–17 year olds in custody

  The Home Secretary has asked me,in the absence of the Director General from the office,to reply to your recent Question asking how many children are currently being held in youth custody, broken down by offence.

  The information you have requested is given in the attached table for persons aged 15 to 17 in Prison Service establishments on 31 December 1993.

  Population aged 15–17 under sentence 1in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 31 December 1993.

  Offence

  Number of persons2

  Violence against the person

  89

  Sexual offences

  16

  Burglary

  287

  Robbery

  142

  Theft and handling

  158

  Fraud and forgery

  —

  Other offences

  104

  Offence not recorded

  51

  All Offences

  847

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 Excludes those committed for non payment of a fine.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Population Control, China
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet representatives of the Chinese Government to discuss the draft law on the use of mass abortion and sterilisation to prevent the birth of disabled babies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Her Majesty's Government believe that discussion with the Chinese authorities on the details of their draft "natal and health care law" can be conducted most effectively by United Nations bodies, including the United Nations Fund for Population Activities.

  Ecuador
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list each project funded by the Overseas Development Administration in Ecuador over the last five years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The list of projects and the value of the ODA contribution to them are as follows:

  £

  1. Cocoa Research

  239,000

  2. Awa Forest Management

  447,000

  3. Zamora Agro-Forestry

  225,000

  4. Fisheries Management

  1,550,000

  5. Fisheries Management (Institutional Link)

  486,000

  6. Geological Survey

  1,300,000

  7. Road Transport, Training and Research

  485,000

  8. Computer-aided Engineering design and management

  235,000

  9. English Language Curriculum Reform

  438,000

  10. Advice to Ecuador Government on privatisation

  45,000

  455

  Poorest 20 Countries
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which are the poorest 20 countries in the world; and what has happened to their bilateral aid allocations since 1979.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom's gross bilateral aid to the 20 countries with the lowest gross national product per capita in 1992, on the basis of figures just issued by the World bank, are given. This list excludes countries for which incomes data are not available. The United Kingdom's gross bilateral aid to each of these countries in 1979 and in 1992–93 includes financial and technical assistance, food aid and disaster relief, debt relief and loans and equity investment by the Commonwealth Development Corporation.

  £000's

  1979

  1992–93

  Mozambique

  6,369

  34,141

  Ethiopia

  2,877

  18,022

  Tanzania

  23,559

  62,370

  Uganda

  2,212

  34,521

  Sierra Leone

  1,829

  6,382

  Nepal

  11,054

  13,841

  Bhutan

  24

  680

  Cambodia

  703

  2,066

  Guinea-Bissau

  173

  9

  Burundi

  17

  205

  Malawi

  23,314

  26,823

  Bangladesh

  33,687

  65,717

  Chad

  45

  291

  Madagascar

  100

  936

  Rwanda

  2

  312

  Laos

  29

  94

  Zambia

  29,159

  47,974

  Burkina Faso

  24

  345

  Mali

  489

  1,223

  Niger

  912

  373

  Thailand (Biwater Group)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the water projects funded by the Overseas Development Administration in Thailand for which the Biwater Group has won the contract.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Overseas Development Administration has not funded any water projects in Thailand for which the Biwater Group has won the contract.

  Tied Aid
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a list, by project, of the major contractors who have benefited from tied aid on Overseas Development Administration projects over £5 million in value.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Details of projects supported under the aid and trade provision since its inception in 1977 are available in the Library of the House. As regards projects funded by the bilateral country programmes, the information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  456

  Indonesia
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what projects and programmes constitute the police management training project funded by the Overseas Development Administration in Indonesia; and what steps are taken to ensure that such projects and programmes do not support the operation of the Indonesian police in East Timor.

  Mr Lennox-Boyd
  The Indonesian national police project is concerned with the provision of public service management advice and training within the INP and with the development of a more community-based approach to policing. The United Kingdom has not recognised the annexation of East Timor by Indonesia, and we do not therefore fund Government-to-Government aid projects in East Timor. However, some Indonesian public officials trained under our aid programme may subsequently serve in East Timor. It is our hope that the assistance we provide will influence all those receiving it and help develop respect for human rights in Indonesia and East Timor.

  Bilateral Aid
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of British bilateral aid is tied to the purchase of British goods; and how this percentage has changed in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In 1992, 66.7 per cent. of our commitments of bilateral overseas development assistance were tied. Comparable figures since 1979 were as follows:

  Per cent.

  1979

  84.5

  1980

  73.2

  1981

  79.5

  1982

  78.0

  1983

  74.4

  1984

  74.3

  1985

  73.5

  1986

  77.9

  1987

  76.4

  1988

  82.5

  1989

  76.0

  1990

  1n/a

  1991

  73.5

  1 The tying status of United Kingdom official development assistance was not reported to the Development Assistance Committee for 1990.

  Kenya
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the level of food aid the ODA proposes to allocate to Kenya for 1994–95.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We allocated 5,000 tonnes of white maize from our 1993–94 national food aid programme as an immediate response to the findings of the Food and Agriculture Organisation—World Food Programme mission last October. We will consider a further allocation from our 1994–95 programme in the light of the forthcoming SEPHA appeal, and the plans of other donors including the EC.
  457

  Malaysia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what explicit commitments were given by the previous Prime Minister, which required him to give consent to the Pergau dam project in Malaysia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. and noble Friend the former Prime Minister informed the Malaysian Prime Minister at a meeting on 15 March 1989 that Her Majesty's Government had taken the decision to make aid and trade provision support available for the offshore element of the Pergau project.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes there have been to the contract value of Biwater's Malaysian rural water supply scheme contracts; and what implications these changes have had for Overseas Development Administration support for the projects involved.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 8 February 1994]: The original 1986 contract between the Malaysia Public Works Department and Biwater was for £425 million. This included an offshore element of £194 million in respect of which the Overseas Development Administration provided an aid and trade provision grant of £59.4 million. In 1991 the Malaysian client and Biwater negotiated an extension to the contract. This did not affect the level of support already agreed by the Overseas Development Administration.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the tendering process involved in the Malaysian water supply project undertaken by Biwater which has received Overseas Development Administration assistance.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 8 February 1994]: The Malaysian client negotiated a contract directly with Biwater.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representation the Overseas Development Administration has received regarding links between Biwater Group and the Malaysian royal family.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 8 February 1994]: None.

  Population Programmes
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which are the priority countries for bilateral population assistance within the United Kingdom overseas aid budget.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Tanzania and Uganda are currently designated as priority countries for bilateral population assistance within the United Kingdom overseas aid budget.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are Her Majesty's Government's guiding principles in respect of population activities in developing countries.
  458
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As explained in the ODA booklet "Children By Choice, Not Chance", our guiding principles in respect of population activities in developing countries are:All men and women should be able to chose when to have children. Women in particular, should be in a position to exercise this choice of their own free will, without pressure or coercion.
  If women are enabled to exercise this choice, fertility levels and birth rates in most countries can be expected to fall. Countries whose Governments establish a climate within which couples can exercise reproductive choice should eventually attain population growth rates that are in balance with their economic and natural resources.
  All men and women need information, advice and services to enable them to choose when to have children.
  Aid for population activities will be provided in accordance with each developing country Government's national strategies.
  Donor agencies should work together and co-ordinate their aid for population activities. They should, where appropriate, reinforce the leading role of international agencies such as the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, the World bank and the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on each of the activities funded by his Department relating to the clearance of land mines in Mozambique; which of these activities are being carried out on(a) a bilateral or (b) a multilateral basis; and whether any further aid will be given for medical attention of casualties of land mines.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Under our bilateral humanitarian assistance programme for Mozambique we are providing a grant of £710,000 to the Halo Trust to train, equip and supervise three local de-mining teams in Zambezia province. This programme is closely co-ordinated with British non-governmental organisations active in the province.

  De-mining in Mozambique is co-ordinated by the United Nations. It has commissioned the Halo Trust to undertake a comprehensive mines survey. The United Nations and EC are both funding de-mining programmes to which we are contributing multilaterally.

  Our assistance to de-mining is designed to reduce the number of casualties. We have not provided any direct medical assistance for land mine casualties. Other agencies are working with the victims of mines.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of the Overseas Development Administration on providing aid to clear land mines in Angola.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Once a formal ceasefire has been established between the Government of Angola and UNITA and implementation of a permanent peace settlement started, we will consider assistance for demining. We expect this to be part of a United Nations co-ordinated effort.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) of 1 December,Official Report, column 572, if he will make a statement on each of the activities funded by his Department relating to the clearance of land mines in Cambodia; which of these activities are being carried out

  459
  on (a) a bilateral or (b) a multilateral basis; and whether any further aid will be given for medical attention of casualties of land mines.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since October 1991 our bilateral aid has included three grants to the Halo Trust, a British voluntary agency, for its mine clearance operations. These were for £60,000, £199,886 and £232,520. We have also provided £6,415 for a mine awareness radio programme. Two further project proposals from the Halo Trust at a proposed cost of £330,000 are under consideration.

  Until the end of October 1993, our multilateral support consisted of the United Kingdom contribution to the costs of the United Nations Transitional Authority for Cambodia—UNTAC—which financed mine clearance operations undertaken by the Cambodian mine action centre—CMAC. Since the end of UNTAC's mandate, we have provided £133,000 through the United Nations Development Programme—UNDP—to support the continuance of CMAC's operations. A UNDP proposal for support to CMAC for two years is under consideration by donors. Our aid is aimed at reducing casualties caused by mines.

  Additionally, we have provided £470,140 over the past three years to set up and run a limb-fitting unit at Calmette hospital in Phnom Penh. The project includes the training of Cambodian technicians in limb-fitting techniques. We have also begun funding a similar project in Kompong Som in southern Cambodia and have agreed funding of £249,741 for this over three financial years.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on each of the activities funded by his Department relating to the clearance of land mines in Somalia; which of these activities are being carried out on(a) a bilateral or (b) a multilateral basis; and whether any further aid will be given for medical attention of casualties of land mines.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  From November 1991 until May 1993 we co-funded, bilaterally, the training and supervision of over 220 members of the local "humanitarian mine clearance pioneer corps" in a major mine clearance programme in and around Hargeisa in the heavily mined north-west of the country. Over this period we contributed £673,540 to the work undertaken by the British company Rimfire International. Our aid has been aimed at reducing casualties caused by mines. The work is continuing as a programme of the United Nations operations in Somalia.

  We have not received any proposals to provide medical assistance specifically for casualties of land mines, but remain willing to help in this area if requested.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on each of the activities funded by his Department relating to the clearance of land mines in Afghanistan; which of these activities are being carried out on(a) a bilateral or (b) a multilateral basis; and whether any further aid will be given for medical attention of casualties of land mines.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since April 1992 we have funded, bilaterally, the training and supervision of two teams of Afghan mine clearers. The programme operates in the Shomali valley with the aim of facilitating the safe return of refugees and displaced people to the area. We have so 460
  far contributed £479,531 for this work undertaken by the British non-governmental organisation the Halo Trust. Our aid has been aimed at reducing casualties caused by mines.

  The mine clearance programme in Afghanistan is co-ordinated by the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Assistance to Afghanistan—UNOCHA. Britain is one of the main contributors to the programme. In 1992 we provided £500,000 to UNOCHA for this purpose, and a further £1 million in 1993.

  The European Community also finances mine clearance by contributing to European and local non-governmental organisations including those operating under the UNOCHA programme in and around Herat. Part of the funding for this is attributable to the United Kingdom.

  We are currently considering proposals which could provide medical assistance specifically for casualties of land mines, but the current insecurity in the country precludes an early start to any such operations.

  Development Assistance
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the annual official development assistance through aid and trade provision for each calendar year from its inception to the latest year for which data are available.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The data requested are available only by financial year and are as follows:

  £ million

  1979–80

  29

  1980–81

  26

  1981–82

  53

  1982–83

  47

  1983–84

  28

  1984–85

  59

  1985–86

  36

  1986–87

  81

  1987–88

  49

  1988–89

  58

  1989–90

  62

  1990–91

  94

  1991–92

  101

  1992–93

  93

  Somalia
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest developments in the war in Somalia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 8 February 1994]: In recent months inter-clan tensions and outbreaks of fighting have increased in central and southern Somalia. Reports indicate that some clans are re-arming. The international community has continued to urge the Somalis to take forward the political reconciliation process and have been encouraged by recent local agreements.

TRANSPORT

  Traffic Director, London
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who is the traffic director for London.

  Mr. Norris
  Mr. Derek Turner.
  461

  Overseas Travel
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the(a) budgeted and (b) actual expenditure by his Department on (1) internal and (2) overseas travel by the Secretary of State since 27 May 1993.

  Mr. MacGregor
  (a) The travel budget is not broken down between individual Ministers.

  (b) Since 27 May 1993 the actual expenditure by my department on

  (1) My internal travel is £286.00

  (2) My overseas travel is £5,512.62

  These figures do not include the cost of my official car.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the(a) budgeted and (b) actual expenditure by his Department on (1) internal and (2) overseas travel by the Secretary of State in 1992–93 after 11 April 1992 and so far in 1993–94.

  Mr. MacGregor
  (a) The travel budget is not broken down between individual Ministers.

  (b) Actual expenditure by my Department on my travel was

  (1) Internal—£1,317.00 in 1992–93 after 11 April 1992 and £584.00 so far in 1993–94

  (2) Overseas—£13,294.72 in 1992–93 after 11 April 1992 and £6,078.62 so far in 1993–94

  These figures do not include the cost of my official car.

  London Buses
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many buses owned by London Buses Ltd have been(a) leased to and (b) sold to private companies operating services on behalf of London Transport since

  London Underground Limited: Quality of service targets and performance since May1 2

  Customer satisfaction targets

  Cleanliness of trains

  Cleanliness of stations

  Staff helpfulness and availability

  Information on trains

  Information on stations

  Targets set for 1992–93

  76

  85

  83

  78

  76

  4 weeks ending 23 May 1992

  75

  89

  83

  82

  75

  4 weeks ending 20 June 1992

  75

  88

  83

  83

  75

  4 weeks ending 18 July 1992

  73

  88

  84

  86

  78

  4 weeks ending 18 August 1992

  73

  88

  85

  86

  80

  4 weeks ending 12 September 1992

  74

  87

  87

  87

  82

  4 weeks ending 10 October 1992

  76

  88

  88

  86

  82

  4 weeks ending 7 November 1992

  76

  88

  88

  86

  79

  4 weeks ending 5 December 1992

  76

  88

  86

  85

  79

  4 weeks ending 2 January 1993

  77

  88

  86

  85

  79

  4 weeks ending 30 January 1993

  80

  89

  87

  87

  83

  4 weeks ending 27 February 1993

  81

  89

  87

  88

  83

  4 weeks ending 31 March 1993

  81

  89

  86

  88

  83

  Overall3 for 1992–93

  85

  79

  76

  88

  85

  Service performance targets

  Trains in customer service

  Escalators in customer service

  Lifts in customer service

  4Train service headways

  5Station closures

  6Ticket purchasing

  Other targets violent crime

  Targets set for 1992–93

  97.5

  87.0

  85.0

  91.0

  50

  99.90

  To reduce

  4 weeks ending 23 May 1992

  97.3

  90.2

  91.1

  95.4

  44

  99.97

  1.12

  4 weeks ending 20 June 1992

  98.0

  90.6

  91.5

  95.9

  47

  99.95

  1.36

  462
  1985; how many in each case were (i) less than four years old, (ii) between four and seven years old (iii) between eight and 11 years old, (iv) between 12 and 15 years old, and (v) more than 15 years old; and on which routes such leases or sales applied.

  Mr. Norris
  I understand that LBL has not sold any of its surplus buses to private companies operating LT bus routes. LBL has leased 46 Routemaster vehicles to London Transport's tendered bus division, which has in turn leased them to private operators to run routes 13 and 19. Both routes have been run under contract by private operators since 1993. The 46 Routemasters are more than 15 years old.

  London Underground
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many London Underground customers have received compensation due to delays in their service since January 1993; and how much compensation in total has been paid to those customers.

  Mr. Norris
  Since 1 January 1993 compensation totalling £180,357 has been paid in response to 59,251 individual claims. There is currently a large number of outstanding claims relating to incidents in the past two months of 1993, particularly the power failure on the Central line.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what quality of service targets were published by London Underground in May 1992; and how it has performed in relation to them.

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  463

  Service performance targets

  Trains in customer service

  Escalators in customer service

  Lifts in customer service

  4Train service headways

  5Station closures

  6Ticket purchasing

  Other targets violent crime

  4 weeks ending 18 July 1992

  98.4

  90.0

  92.2

  95.9

  45

  99.94

  1.12

  4 weeks ending 18 August 1992

  98.2

  89.5

  91.9

  96.5

  39

  99.87

  1.36

  4 weeks ending 12 September 1992

  98.4

  88.3

  92.4

  95.9

  32

  99.95

  1.02

  4 weeks ending 10 October 1992

  98.3

  89.1

  94.0

  96.6

  31

  99.92

  1.19

  4 weeks ending 7 November 1992

  97.7

  89.6

  92.1

  95.0

  46

  99.92

  1.53

  4 weeks ending 5 December 1992

  97.9

  90.0

  91.7

  95.0

  42

  99.95

  1.59

  4 weeks ending 2 January 1993

  97.8

  88.5

  89.5

  94.4

  38

  99.93

  1.41

  4 weeks ending 30 January 1993

  97.6

  88.3

  90.2

  95.0

  34

  99.93

  1.29

  4 weeks ending 27 February 1993

  97.0

  87.3

  91.6

  93.5

  26

  99.89

  1.38

  4 weeks ending 31 March 1993

  97.2

  89.4

  90.9

  94.8

  56

  99.91

  1.12

  Overall3 for 1992–93

  98.0

  89.0

  91.0

  95.2

  40

  99.93

  1.29

  Customer satisfaction targets

  Cleanliness of trains

  Cleanliness of stations

  Staff helpfulness and availability

  Information on trains

  Information on stations

  Ticket purchasing7

  Targets set for 1993–948

  81

  89

  86

  86

  81

  92

  4 weeks ending 24 April 1993

  82

  89

  85

  89

  81

  90

  4 weeks ending 22 May 1993

  83

  89

  85

  90

  83

  89

  4 weeks ending 19 June 1993

  84

  88

  86

  92

  82

  90

  4 weeks ending 17 July 1993

  84

  89

  87

  93

  83

  91

  4 weeks ending 14 August 1993

  84

  89

  87

  93

  82

  92

  4 weeks ending 11 September 1993

  86

  90

  88

  94

  83

  93

  4 weeks ending 9 October 1993

  87

  91

  90

  94

  83

  93

  4 weeks ending 6 November 1993

  87

  91

  90

  95

  84

  93

  4 weeks ending 4 December 1993

  86

  91

  89

  95

  84

  92

  Overall to date 1993–94

  85

  89

  87

  93

  83

  91

  Service performance targets

  Trains in customer service

  Escalators in customer service

  Lifts in customer service

  4Train service headways

  5Station closures

  Other targets Violent crime

  Targets8 set for 1993–94

  98.0

  89.0

  92.0

  95.0

  30

  To reduce

  4 weeks ending 24 April 1993

  97.7

  88.9

  93.1

  95.3

  37

  1.38

  4 weeks ending 22 May 1993

  97.8

  90.9

  95.3

  95.5

  24

  1.47

  4 weeks ending 19 June 1993

  98.0

  87.4

  90.9

  95.4

  40

  1.20

  4 weeks ending 17 July 1993

  98.1

  88.1

  89.6

  95.7

  43

  1.29

  4 weeks ending 14 August 1993

  98.2

  89.6

  92.4

  95.6

  30

  1.40

  4 weeks ending 11 September 1993

  98.1

  90.5

  94.0

  96.4

  32

  1.56

  4 weeks ending 9 October 1993

  97.9

  91.5

  91.3

  96.3

  26

  1.21

  4 weeks ending 6 November 1993

  97.9

  91.5

  93.2

  94.5

  23

  1.06

  4 weeks ending 4 December 1993

  97.6

  92.4

  95.0

  94.9

  72

  1.06

  Overall to date 1993–94

  97.8

  90.2

  92.3

  95.5

  36

  1.30

  Notes:

  1Source: London Underground Limited.

  2 All figures are percentages apart from Station closures.

  3 Includes figures for 4 weeks to 25 May 1992 which are not included in the table.

  4 Timed interval between trains.
  464 465
  5 Stations closures within LUL's control.

  6 Percentage of stations with at least one way of buying a ticket.

  7 New target for 1993–94.

  8Targets set in May 1992 for 1993–94 were reviewed and amended where necessary.

  Pollution
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what initiatives his Department is planning to increase the attractiveness of the use of non-polluting modes of transport.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The only non-polluting modes of transport are cycling and walking; all other modes give rise to pollution to some extent.

  My Department carries out research and issues advice on ways to improve conditions on the roads for cyclists and pedestrians; the transport policy and programme circular encourages local authorities to develop strategies that make better provision for these groups; and the draft Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 on transport provides guidance on how land use planning and complementary transport measures can make walking and cycling more attractive.

  Heathrow Express
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the annual track fee to be paid to Railtrack for the Heathrow Express service to and from Paddington station has been agreed.

  Mr. Norris
  Yes. The terms of payment for access to the western main line and Paddington station were agreed with British Rail last year and the agreement will be inherited by Railtrack. Details of the agreement are commercially confidential.

  Date

  Sender

  Recipient

  Topic

  12 October 1988

  London Borough of Barnet

  Department of Transport

  Conditional agreement to use Friern Barnet site as exchange land

  14 October 1988

  London Borough of Barnet

  Department of Transport

  Council approval of Friern Barnet site

  19 October 1988

  London Borough of Barnet

  Department of Transport

  Purchase method of part of Friern Barnet site

  10 January 1989

  Department of Transport

  London Borough of Barnet

  Request for information regarding open space reply to 10 January 1989

  28 February 1989

  Department of Transport

  London Borough of Barnet

  Reduction in area of Friern Barnet site required

  5 April 1989

  London Borough of Barnet

  Department of Transport

  Plan of Friern Barnet exchange land

  14 April 1989

  Department of Transport

  London Borough of Barnet

  Department of Transport plan of exchange land

  24 April 1989

  London Borough of Barnet

  Department of Transport

  Friern Barnet proposals to go to Council Committee

  12 May 1989

  London Borough of Barnet

  Department of Transport

  Council approve part of Friem Barnet site for exchange land

  20 May 1989

  London Borough of Barnet

  Department of Transport

  Committee report

  19 July 1989

  London Borough of Barnet

  Department of Transport

  Sale of whole of Friern Barnet site

  21 August 1989

  Department of Transport

  London Borough of Barnet

  Reply to 19 July

  14 November 1990

  Certificates issued

  466

  Land Contamination
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recomendations his Department has made to Barnet council for dealing with contamination of land at Coppetts wood, Finchley; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  My Department has sent to the council a report of the testing of Coppett's wood site. The report includes recommendations for the treatment of the land and the Department at present awaits the council's response.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what future meetings he plans to hold with representatives of Barnet council in connection with contamination of land at Coppett's wood, Finchley.

  Mr. Norris
  None is presently planned. The Department awaits the council's response to the report of the soil test.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a list of all correspondence since January 1988 between his Department and the London borough of Barnet relating to(a) issuing of exchange land certificates in connection with the widening of the North Circular Road, east of Falloden way and (b) condition and possible contamination of land at Coppetts wood in Finchley; what was the date of each piece of correspondence; who was the sender and recipient in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The following is a list of correspondence between the Department of Transport and the London borough of Barnet since 1988 on(a) issues relating to the issuing of exchange land certificates for the east of Falloden way scheme.
  467
  (b) List of correspondence between the Department of Transport and the London borough of Barnet in connection with discovery of contaminated soil on exchange land (Coppetts wood) for East of Falloden way scheme.

  Date

  Sender

  Recipient

  Topic

  13 October 1992

  Department of Transport Consultants

  London Borough of Barnet

  Comment on letter from Dr. Natelson

  21 October 1992

  London Borough of Barnet

  Department of Transport Consultants

  Confirms preliminary soil tests carried out; awaiting results

  11 January 1993

  London Borough of Barnet

  Department of Transport

  Preliminary tests and evidence of contamination

  27 January 1993

  Department of Transport

  London Borough of Barnet

  Agree to more extensive soil tests

  26 February 1993

  Department of Transport Consultants

  London Borough of Barnet

  Confirmation immediate remedial measures in hand

  14 April 1993

  Department of Transport

  London Borough of Barnet

  Confirmation remedial measures nearing completion

  26 April 1993

  Department of Transport

  London Borough of Barnet

  Details of soil investigations to be undertaken by Frank Graham and Partners and Foundation and Exploration Services Ltd. in June 1993

  8 November 1993

  London Borough of Barnet

  Department of Transport

  Enquiry of progress on draft August soil report

  23 November 1993

  Department of Transport

  London Borough of Barnet

  Copies of report forwarded for comment on recommended remedial treatment

  The position regarding the treatment of contamination remains as stated in the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in January, except that, regrettably, the date of discovery of contamination supplied by my Department and quoted by him should have been October 1992 and not June 1993. Research into the correspondence has produced a reference to a report dated 1988, a copy of which was sent to my Department's consultants after the contamination was reported in 1992.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received on the route of the CTRL since 22 March 1993 from(a) the parliamentary constituency of Mid-Kent, (b) the borough of Maidstone, (c) the city of Rochester upon Medway and (d) Kent; and how many he has received specifically on the proposal to route the railway through the Boxley valley.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is not readily available in the form requested, but in response to an invitation for formal comments on the refined route proposals the following responses have been received by my Department since 22 March 1993: 67 representations from local authorities, action groups and other organisations in Kent; 96 letters from individuals at Kent addresses, and 12 from Kent Members of Parliament and Members of the European Parliament; 138 public comment forms were also completed and returned to Union Railways. The representations included 194 from the Maidstone area, four from the Rochester area; 160 were in favour of the Mid-Kent long tunnel option under the Boxley valley.
  468

  Sea Traffic (Radar)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will extend radar coverage for traffic at sea to all parts of the United Kingdom sea areas including the Shetlands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  While there are no plans to extend radar surveillance of maritime traffic, this is an issue being considered by the inquiry announced by the Secretary of State to the House on 11 January 1993 under the chairmanship of Lord Donaldson of Lymington.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what parts of the English Channel are covered by radar coverage for traffic at sea.

  Mr. Norris
  Radar coverage of shipping in the channel is covered by the channel navigation information service, operated by Her Majesty's Coastguard within an area bounded by the Greenwich meridian in the west to 002° to 20.0° east. However, it does not include all that area. The extent of radar surveillance is shown on Admiralty Chart 5500. I will send a photocopy of the relevant part of that chart to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North.

  Coastguard
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to enhance enforcement measures for Her Majesty's Coastguard; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Lord Donaldson is likely to be considering such measures as part of his inquiry. Careful consideration will be given to any recommendations which arise from the subsequent report.
  469

  British Rail
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many British Rail employees were based in York on 1 January of each year from 1979 to 1994.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 14 January 1994, c.291. Information for the previous years is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how the proposed channel tunnel fastlink will be connected to the east coast main line; whether the costs of this connection are included in the fastlink scheme; what estimates he can give of handling east coast main line trains through the St. Pancras reversing movement to the fastlink; and whether the east coast main line will be upgraded to VIC B+ loading gauge for freight traffic.

  Mr. Freeman
  A direct connection from St. Pancras to the east coast main line will be provided by means of a new link across the King's Cross railway lands, the cost of which is included in the estimates for the rail link. Use of St. Pancras will have no adverse effect on journey times. All trains will have to stop to allow officials undertaking on-train border controls to join or depart and for train crews to be changed. Trains leaving the station in the same direction as they arrive will not affect the length of the pause. BR does not propose upgrades to the loading gauges of existing railways, although private investors are free to do so.

  Lancashire (Pollution)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer of 19 January,Official Report, columns 663–4, what further information he has now received on the Lancashire pollution incident from the Laboratory of the Government Chemist.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer to my answer to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) of 26 January, col.245.

  Noise Insulation
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring the west London line for rail freight within the scope of the draft noise insulation regulations.

  Mr. Freeman
  Ministers will consider all responses to the current consultation exercise before deciding whether the draft regulations should be amended prior to their submission to Parliament. Meanwhile, British Rail remains willing to discuss with the local authorities concerned the possibility of jointly funded noise mitigation schemes for appropriate locations on the west London line.

  Taxis, London
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received in response to his consultation on the future of taxi services in London.

  Mr. Norris
  I have received over 150 representations in response to the consultation paper on the future of taxi and private hire services in England and Wales issued by my Department. Many of these have referred to London. The consultation period ends on 1 March 1994.
  470

  Public Service Obligation Grant
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what will be the cash ceiling for public service obligation grant to British Rail for 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The original cash ceiling of £850 million has been increased to £930 million in the light of revised forecasts. British Rail's external financing limit for 1993–94 is not affected.

  Consultancies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the value of consultancy contracts awarded by his Department each year since 1979, both in current prices and at constant 1994 prices.

  Mr. Norris
  I regret that this question could be answered only at disproprotionate cost.

  Waste Dumping
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will raise the maximum fine for illegal dumping of waste from shipping on to beaches; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 8 February 1994]: The maximum fine on conviction by indictment for causing pollution of United Kingdom waters by the illegal discharge of wastes from ships is unlimited.

  Oil Discharges
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he will introduce into partnership with other North sea Ministers to designate the North sea as a special area under the marine pollution convention in relation to oil discharges.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 8 February 1994]: An intermediate meeting of North sea conference Ministers in December 1993 considered actions taken within the International Maritime Organisation on annexes I and Il of MARPOL. They agreed upon steps for further evaluation of reception facilities and the enforceability and impact of current regulations as a basis for considering at the 1995 North sea conference any need for designation of the North sea as a special area under these annexes. Officials are now taking the evaluation process forward for the United Kingdom in conjunction with representative ports and shipping organisations.

  A copy of the Minister's statement of conclusions has been placed in the Library.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the volume of oil which is intentionally discharged by shipping vessels into the North sea each year.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 8 February 1994]: It is estimated that legal operational discharges of oil from shipping traversing the North sea is between 1,000 and 2,000 tonnes per annum.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether there is any requirement for ships entering British ports to use reception facilities for the dispersing of oily wastes and garbage; and where such facilities are available.
  471
  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer Tuesday 8 February]: Harbour authorities and terminal operators are required to provide reception facilities for ships carrying oily wastes and garbage. There is no legal requirement for ships to use such facilities. Information on oil reception facilities in United Kingdom ports collected by the Department of Transport is contained in the International Maritime Organisation circular MEPC/Circ.234 copies of which have been placed in the Library. Indications are that all ports have arrangements for the reception of garbage.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many incidents of oil discharged into the North sea were reported in 1993–94; how many incidents were investigated; and how many resulted in prosecutions under the marine pollution convention for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 8 February 1994]: From January 1993 to January 1994, the Department's marine pollution control unit received reports of 397 pollution incidents in the United Kingdom sector of the North sea. Of these, 95 were related to ships, the rest were related to offshore installations. All of these incidents were investigated and as a result, 21 vessels were inspected at their next port of call, resulting in four cases being passed on for further investigation and possible prosecution—three to a foreign flag state and one to the Treasury Solicitor. All cases are still under investigation.

  In the past five years, 25 shipping cases have been sent for further investigation by the relevant competent flag state authorities, including seven to our own Treasury Solicitor. Out of these 25 investigations, successful prosecutions have been obtained on seven occasions—see table—and 10 cases are still under investigation:

  Number

  1989

  2

  1990

  2

  1991

  2

  1992

  1

  1993

  1—

  1 (Three referred to Flag States).

  Manchester Airport
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what estimate his Department has made of the economic benefits that accrue to Amsterdam and other European hubs from failure to allow direct services from Manchester airport and the diversion of passengers to airports on the continent; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the evidence given on behalf of Manchester Airport plc to the Select Committee on Transport in regard to the cost to regional airports of failing to liberalise access to them; what action he will take; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what estimate his Department has made of the loss to Manchester Airport plc of preventing the airport from meeting airline demand for additional services to and from Manchester; and if he will make a statement on the airport's call for the liberalising of access to regional airports.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 9 February]: There is no reliable information available on the effects of the United
  472
  Kingdom's aviation policy on airports in other countries. We have not yet been able to examine in detail the evidence given by Manchester airport to the Select Committee, but we have asked the CAA to examine in detail the economic impact of air services on regional airports, in consultation with United Kingdom airports, including Manchester, airlines and other Government Departments.

  It has long been the Government's policy to seek the maximum degree of liberalisation of our air services agreements in order to maximise the benefits to consumers, the airline industry and the United Kingdom economy generally. At the same time the Government have aimed to increase opportunities to regional airports. Individual proposals are considered on their merits and the Government have in the past given expanded opportunities to regional airports. For instance, as a result of the deal negotiated in 1990 three extra services to Manchester from the United States and a service from Birmingham to the United States have commenced. In addition the United Kingdom gave special permission outside the terms of the United States/United Kingdom Air Services Agreement last April for a service from New York to Belfast. As a continuation of our policy to liberalise services to regional airports the United Kingdom has put a proposal to the United States Government which offers immediate open access to United Kingdom regional airports from all United States cities.

  Road Pricing
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in which year the Government first began to examine the issue of road pricing; and what are his current proposals.

  Mr. Key
  In May last year we published a Green Paper "Paying for Better Motorways" (Cm 2200) on the principle of direct charging for the use of inter-urban roads. The intention to publish this consultation document had been announced in the autumn statement in November 1992. On 2 December 1993, column 650, my right hon. Friend announced the Government's intention to introduce electronic charging on motorways when the technology was ready and subject to Parliament's approval of the necessary legislation.

  The Government's research programme on the possible role of congestion charging in London was announced in 1991, and the Government have subsequently been co-operating with local authorities outside London which wish to examine the possibility of city congestion charging for their area. The Government are not committed to the introduction of city congestion charging, whether in London or elsewhere.

  Road Safety
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which posts are currently designated, within the Department of Transport, to have responsibility for road safety; and if he will list the grade level and title of each post.

  Mr. Key
  The improvement of road safety is one of our key objectives. In addition to members of the Department's road and vehicle safety directorate, this involves staff working on the planning, construction and maintenance of roads, and the testing and licensing of vehicles and drivers. Many other areas of the Department's work also contribute
  473
  to improving road safety. It is therefore not possible to provide the information requested, except at disproportionate cost.

  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what amount of transport supplementary grant was awarded for 1994–95 to each highways authority; and in each case what amount and percentage was allocated for road safety.

  Mr. Key
  The amount of transport supplementary grant awarded for 1994–95 to each highway authority was given in the Official Report for 15 December 1993, column 699. Resources for local safety schemes were given as supplementary credit approvals. Allocations under this category, and the proportion they represent of the total resources allocated under the transport supplementary grant system are as follows:

  Authority

  Allocations for Local Safety Schemes—1994–95

  £000

  Per cent.

  City of London

  0

  0.0

  Barking

  315

  27.8

  Barnet

  430

  16.5

  Bexley

  330

  4.1

  Brent

  425

  15.5

  Bromley

  160

  8.4

  Camden

  440

  10.8

  Croydon

  513

  10.2

  Ealing

  320

  9.8

  Enfield

  302

  5.5

  Greenwich

  220

  8.4

  Hackney

  287

  8.6

  Hammersmith

  550

  10.0

  Haringey

  327

  10.4

  Harrow

  140

  1.6

  Havering

  240

  27.6

  Hillingdon

  750

  14.6

  Hounslow

  270

  4.8

  Islington

  480

  15.4

  Kensington

  220

  19.1

  Kingston

  235

  6.7

  Lambeth

  104

  6.0

  Lewisham

  425

  4.3

  Merton

  280

  16.2

  Newham

  385

  3.4

  Redbridge

  213

  12.6

  Richmond

  250

  12.9

  Southwark

  400

  10.4

  Sutton

  322

  13.9

  Tower Hamlets

  400

  7.4

  Waltham Forest

  429

  17.1

  Wandsworth

  801

  12.5

  Westminster

  420

  11.3

  Bolton

  188

  5.1

  Bury

  220

  9.7

  Manchester

  720

  2.9

  Oldham

  400

  7.8

  Rochdale

  235

  9.7

  Salford

  595

  20.2

  Stockport

  190

  3.9

  Tameside

  270

  14.0

  Trafford

  210

  1.8

  Wigan

  145

  10.3

  Knowsley

  280

  1.4

  Liverpool

  368

  6.1

  St. Helens

  70

  9.7

  Sefton

  266

  23.7

  Wirral

  485

  15.7

  Barnsley

  340

  5.1

  Doncasler

  357

  5.7

  Rotherham

  207

  4.3

  474

  Authority

  Allocations for Local Safety Schemes—1994–95

  £000

  Per cent.

  Sheffield

  340

  1.7

  Gateshead

  250

  18.5

  Newcastle

  250

  2.7

  North Tyneside

  206

  12.2

  South Tyneside

  360

  27.3

  Sunderland

  399

  10.7

  Birmingham

  1,017

  2.8

  Coventry

  307

  2.1

  Dudley

  313

  3.2

  Sandwell

  296

  5.8

  Solihull

  203

  6.3

  Walsall

  265

  1.6

  Wolverhampton

  249

  1.3

  Bradford

  650

  9.0

  Calderdale

  325

  9.5

  Kirklees

  570

  8.1

  Leeds

  670

  3.6

  Wakefield

  400

  11.7

  Avon

  542

  2.9

  Bedfordshire

  485

  9.6

  Berkshire

  650

  6.4

  Buckinghamshire

  538

  16.5

  Cambridgeshire

  1,275

  19.0

  Cheshire

  545

  2.5

  Cleveland

  393

  3.1

  Cornwall

  369

  3.3

  Cumbria

  390

  7.9

  Derbyshire

  602

  11.6

  Devon

  763

  7.7

  Dorset

  588

  9.9

  Durham

  250

  2.2

  East Sussex

  540

  6.5

  Essex

  1,517

  7.9

  Gloucestershire

  438

  5.3

  Hampshire

  1,200

  4.2

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  563

  15.4

  Hertfordshire

  1,070

  8.9

  Humberside

  690

  4.0

  Isle of Wight

  230

  7.7

  Kent

  1,050

  1.1

  Lancashire

  1,195

  4.5

  Leicestershire

  609

  8.0

  Lincolnshire

  440

  5.9

  Norfolk

  811

  5.7

  Northamptonshire

  756

  12.3

  Northumberland

  425

  5.5

  North Yorkshire

  700

  4.5

  Nottinghamshire

  823

  7.7

  Oxfordshire

  545

  10.5

  Shropshire

  322

  7.2

  Somerset

  284

  2.7

  Staffordshire

  520

  3.6

  Suffolk

  755

  8.1

  Surrey

  1,184

  4.5

  Warwickshire

  896

  19.9

  West Sussex

  565

  8.1

  Wiltshire

  483

  12.1

  Road Repairs
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the state of disrepair of principal roads;

  (2) what procedure he uses for assessing the state of repair of principal roads.

  Mr. Key
  The condition of roads in England and Wales is monitored by means of the national road maintenance condition survey. Each year a random sample of some 11,000 100m sites is inspected for the presence of certain pre-defined defects visible at the surface. Results for each
  475
  road class are expressed as index numbers which allow trends in condition to be monitored. They are published in an annual report, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Motor Cycles
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what factors were taken into account in deciding to accept the stage II noise limits of motor cycles; and what representations he received on the issue.

  Mr. Key
  The stage I and stage II noise limits for motorcycles were initially proposed in a draft directive (9148/84) in 1984 and were the subject of a report of the House of Lords "Select Committee on the European Communities"—Session 1984–85, 9th Report, "Motorcycle Noise". Evidence was provided to the Committee by the National Society for Clean Air, the Motorcycle Association of Great Britain Ltd., the Noise Abatement Society, the British Motorcyclists Federation, the Greater London Council, the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, now the Transport Research Laboratory, as well as the Department of Transport. The Committee welcomed the initiative taken by the Commission in proposing a new directive which was subsequently adopted, with minor amendments, as Council directive 87/56/EEC of 18 December 1987.

  The directive is currently the subject of a revised proposal as part of the introduction of motorcycle whole vehicle type approval. The stage II limits contained within Council directive 87/56/EEC are retained, but the implementation date is deferred until 1 January 1997.

  Brookethorpe and Whaddon Service Area
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when a decision will be announced about the proposed motorway service area at Brookethorpe and Whaddon; and what representations he has received about it.

  Office

  Total

  1993–94

  1992–93

  1991–92

  Prior 1991

  Aberdeen

  6

  3

  1

  1

  1

  Bangor

  8

  —

  4

  2

  2

  Birmingham

  42

  16

  16

  3

  7

  Bournemouth

  13

  2

  1

  2

  8

  Brighton

  24

  —

  9

  —

  15

  Bristol

  14

  —

  3

  2

  9

  Cardiff

  21

  4

  6

  2

  9

  Carlisle

  6

  3

  1

  —

  2

  Chelmsford

  26

  9

  5

  1

  11

  Chester

  8

  —

  4

  —

  4

  Coventry

  15

  4

  3

  —

  8

  Croydon

  6

  —

  3

  1

  2

  Dundee

  9

  3

  3

  2

  1

  Edinburgh

  15

  2

  8

  1

  4

  Exeter

  12

  —

  4

  1

  7

  Glasgow

  35

  8

  13

  1

  13

  Gloucester

  16

  —

  5

  3

  8

  Guildford

  22

  3

  10

  —

  9

  Haverfordwest

  6

  —

  1

  —

  5

  Huddersfield

  9

  2

  2

  —

  5

  Hull

  6

  —

  2

  —

  4

  Ilford

  10

  —

  2

  —

  8

  Inverness

  6

  2

  1

  —

  3

  Ipswich

  15

  5

  3

  1

  6

  Leeds

  15

  2

  4

  —

  9

  Leicester

  13

  3

  2

  —

  8

  Lincoln

  9

  1

  1

  1

  6

  Liverpool

  12

  —

  1

  —

  11

  London Central

  6

  —

  2

  —

  4

  476
  Mr. Key
  Since August 1992 it has been for the private sector rather than my Department to identify sites for new motorway service areas, seek planning permission and acquire the land. I understand that a planning application has been submitted for a motorway service area at Ongers farm, near Brookthorpe, and that this is to be the subject of a public inquiry in May. It will then be for the inspector appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to decide whether planning permission should be granted.

  My Department has received one letter expressing opposition to the proposal.

  Visual Display Units
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by office and by year since the introduction of the Local Office Business system the number of replacement visual display units, as distinct from new visual display units, supplied to the local office network.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 9 February 1994]: No details are kept by DVLA on the replacement of VDUs. Responsibility for this was subject to contract between IBM and the Driver, Vehicle Operators Information Technology Agency. The latter was acquired by Electronic Data Services when DVOIT was privatised in December 1993 and details could now be made available only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by year and by office the number of visual display units that have been introduced into the DVLA local office network under the local office business system.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 9 February 1994]: The information requested is as follows:
  477

  Office

  Total

  1993–94

  1992–93

  1991–92

  Prior 1991

  Luton

  27

  11

  1

  1

  14

  Maidstone

  22

  —

  8

  —

  14

  Manchester

  33

  —

  19

  1

  13

  Middlesbrough

  8

  6

  1

  —

  1

  Newcastle

  15

  3

  2

  1

  9

  Northampton

  15

  2

  5

  2

  6

  Norwich

  15

  5

  2

  1

  7

  Nottingham

  16

  6

  4

  2

  4

  Oxford

  10

  —

  2

  1

  7

  Peterborough

  11

  1

  2

  1

  7

  Portsmouth

  15

  1

  2

  2

  10

  Preston

  13

  —

  5

  2

  6

  Reading

  22

  —

  10

  1

  11

  Sheffield

  19

  —

  11

  —

  8

  Shrewsbury

  6

  3

  2

  —

  1

  Stanmore

  8

  —

  2

  —

  6

  Stoke

  9

  —

  3

  —

  6

  Swansea

  10

  —

  3

  —

  7

  Swindon

  14

  —

  6

  —

  8

  Taunton

  12

  3

  4

  —

  5

  Truro

  7

  —

  1

  —

  6

  Worcester

  11

  —

  1

  —

  10

  Leo

  97

  2

  —

  —

  95

  GMS

  22

  —

  —

  —

  22

  842

  115

  216

  39

  472

  Fines
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by year and office how much additional revenue has been generated by the prosecution of regulation 12 cases; and if he will estimate the revenue which will be gained over the next three years.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 9 February 1994]: The information requested for 1991–92 and 1992–93 is as follows:

  Office

  Revenue 1992–93

  Revenue 1991–92

  Birmingham

  116,272

  17,954

  Dudley

  45,989

  22,671

  Lincoln

  16,815

  n/a

  Northampton

  47,283

  29,379

  Nottingham

  56,525

  n/a

  Peterborough

  22,939

  40,971

  Leicester

  11,106

  n/a

  Bournemouth

  755

  120

  Guildford

  8,299

  n/a

  Maidstone

  10,583

  n/a

  Portsmouth

  1,457

  n/a

  Huddersfield

  6,751

  1,305

  Manchester

  6,625

  n/a

  Preston

  3,158

  2,419

  Sheffield

  6,007

  n/a

  Hull

  4,326

  n/a

  Leeds

  3,269

  n/a

  Bristol

  33,750

  16,749

  Gloucester

  10,960

  2,010

  Taunton

  2,558

  n/a

  Truro

  310

  n/a

  Worcester

  4,288

  525

  Middles borough

  1,240

  n/a

  Newcastle

  2,331

  n/a

  Oxford

  13,676

  n/a

  Ipswich

  10,228

  3,660

  Luton

  21,697

  3,691

  London

  117,221

  n/a

  Enforcement office

  Total

  646,454

  141,454

  478
  The revenue targets for regulation 12 prosecutions for the years 1994–95 to 1996–97 have not yet been agreed betwen the agency and the Department of Transport.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the average fine, costs and back duty awarded by the courts for a successful prosecution of section 8 cases and section 12 cases.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 9 February 1994]: The information requested for the period April-December 1993 is:

  Section 8

  Regulation 12

  £

  £

  Average Fine

  85.96

  59.47

  Average Costs

  21.52

  7.23

  Average Section 9

  47.48

  —

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by year and office how much additional revenue has been generated by DVLA staff undertaking their own prosecutions.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 9 February 1994]: It is not possible to list how much additional revenue was recovered by each local office.

  The amount of revenue recovered in respect of cases prosecuted by DVLA only for 1992–93 is £25.6 million. This is a 15 per cent. increase over the £22.4 million recovered through both DVLA and the Crown Prosecution Service during 1991–92.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of successful cases prosecuted by DVLA staff since they undertook their own prosecution work.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 9 February 1994]: The information requested since April 1992 is:

  479

  Cases

  April 1992–93

  178,731

  April 1993–December 1993

  158,175

DEFENCE

  Senior Officers
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will produce a table showing the number of generals, admirals and air marshals in active service; and what are the salary levels for each of those ranks.

  Mr. Hanley
  Information on the number of officers at each rank level of the armed forces is contained in table 1 of the Defence Analytical Services quarterly publication TSP9, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Table 2.23 of the "UK Defence Statistics" publication provides illustrative data on military salaries. On this basis, the 1993–94 rates for senior officers are as follows:

  £

  Field Marshal (and equivalents)

  112,084

  General (and equivalents)

  90,148

  Lieutenant General (and equivalents)

  64,842

  Major General (and equivalents)

  56,710

  Ships
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ships are on active service.

  Mr. Hanley
  On 8 February there were 124 commissioned surface vessels and submarines in service with the Royal Navy, including those in refit. There are, however, also 21 vessels in service with the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, whose supporting role is essential to the provision of the Royal Navy's overall capability.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the subjects on which his Department formerly answered parliamentary questions but which are now refered by him to an executive agency.

  Mr. Aitken
  Next steps agency chief executives are usually asked to reply to parliamentary questions about the day-to-day operational matters of their agency and on subjects for which they have delegated responsibility, as set out in the agency's framework document.

  Polaris
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to maintain the existing maximum warhead ceiling for each Polaris submarine for the remainder of their operational deployment;

  (2) what is his policy regarding the maximum warhead ceiling on the United Kingdom's ballistic missile-carrying submarines during the transitional phase from Polaris to Trident.

  Mr. Hanley
  We have no plans to alter the number of warheads deployed on our Polaris submarines while they 480
  remain in service. Each Trident submarine will deploy with no more than 96 warheads, and may carry significantly fewer.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the explosive power of the planned strategic warhead for the Trident missile will be similar to that of the existing Polaris warhead.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is not our practice to discuss the details of nuclear weapon design.

  Joint Analysis Centre, Molesworth
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence from what sources military information is processed and analysed at the joint analysis centre at Molesworth; and if he will give details of the modification work undertaken at the joint analysis centre at Molesworth.

  Mr. Hanley
  The role of the joint analysis centre is to process and analyse military information from a variety of sources. Modification of work undertaken for the JAC has involved the refurbishment of existing buildings at RAF Molesworth mostly to provide improved office accommodation for JAC support staff.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who operates the joint analysis centre at Molesworth; what is the strategic relationship between the joint analysis centre at Molesworth and Menwith Hill station in Yorkshire; how much the expansion of the joint analysis centre at Molesworth has cost: who has met the cost of the joint analysis centre at Molesworth; and how the costs have been attributed.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 11 January 1994,Official Report, column 171. The joint analysis centre at RAF Molesworth is operated by the United States European Command. The cost of the JAC has been borne by the United States Government.

  Sea King Helicopter, Mauchline Cross
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason a Royal Navy Sea King helicopter landed in Mauchline Cross on the evening of 1 February; if he will carry out an investigation into the incident with particular reference to the safety of local people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  During the evening of Tuesday 1 February 1994, a Royal Navy Sea King helicopter from Royal Naval Air Station Prestwick carried out a forced landing on the village green at Mauchline, due to severe weather conditions. An internal investigation has confirmed that the crew took the correct action, by seeking to land as soon as possible. A safe landing was conducted on the village green, clear of the surrounding buildings. Once on the ground, the crew took action to prevent members of the public from approaching the helicopter. The emergency services arrived shortly afterwards. The aircraft waited until the severe weather conditions had passed and then departed for Royal Naval Air Station Prestwick.

  Consultancies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the value of consultancy contracts awarded by his Department each year since 1979, both in current prices and at constant 1994 prices.
  481
  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) on 31 January 1994,Official Report, column 551.

  Service Personnel (Ethnic Origins)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to publish a breakdown of the ethnic origins of serving personnel by regiment or unit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  We intend to publish in "Defence Statistics" a breakdown of the ethnic origins of members of the armed forces by service and rank. The publication of statistics by regiment or unit will be subject to further consideration.

  United Nations Standby Forces
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has provided to the United Nations standby forces planning team; and what requests have been made by the planning team.

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Nations standby forces planning team has asked United Nations member states to consider proposals for identifying forces capable of deployment at short notice that would potentially be available to take part in the initial stages of United Nations peacekeeping operations. A formal response will be made shortly.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts regarding the work of the United Nations standby forces planning team.

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has had no such discussions.

  Operation Grapple
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the 2 Battalion, Royal Anglian Regiment will begin its formal Operation Grapple training.

  Mr. Hanley
  As a matter of sensible contingency arrangements, the 2nd Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment will, on present plans, commence extra training on 27 February to ensure it is fully prepared for a deployment to Bosnia to relieve 1st Battalion Coldstream Guards in April-May, if such a decision is taken.

  Defence Estate (Repairs)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total maintenance backlog of(a) unavoidable and essential repairs and (b) urgent repairs on the defence estate at 1 April in each year from 1980 to 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  This information is not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  United Nations Forces
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to identify those combat engineering units and military lawyers that could be made available to the United Nations; and if he will make a statement.
  482
  Mr. Hanley
  We conduct a regular dialogue with the United Nations secretariat to ensure that it has a clear picture of all the capabilities the United Kingdom has to offer. We are willing to consider requests from the United Nations for any of these, case by case, in the light of other commitments and priorities.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 14 January,Official Report, column 344, what are the names, ranks, and functions of the five military personnel attached to the United Nations secretariat; and if the two officers that were in principle made available to the United Nations are currently attached to the United Nations.

  Mr. Hanley
  The personnel currently attached to the United Nations secretariat, and their functions, are:

  Lieutenant Commander Highett—Logistics

  Major Clifford—Situation Centre

  Major Goddard—Field Finance

  Major Hunter—Department of Peacekeeping Operations

  Staff Sergeant Butcher—Situation Centre

  The two additional officers made available in principle have not yet taken up posts at the United Nations.

  Ceremonial Uniforms
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any non-Ministry of Defence sources have been used to finance the purchase of items of ceremonial uniforms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Some non-Ministry of Defence sources such as regimental funds and band funds have been used to purchase special items of ceremonial uniforms.

  Desert Storm Syndrome
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will seek information from his French counterparts concerning Desert Storm syndrome.

  Mr. Hanley
  My officials continue the exchange of information with the French authorities on the alleged Desert Storm syndrome which began last summer.

  Peace Support Operations
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department received a copy of the United States Army document entitled "FM 100–23 Peace Operations"; and what assessment he has made of it.

  Mr. Hanley
  We are aware that the United States Army has in preparation a manual concerning the conduct of peace support operations. This document remains in draft form and it would in any case be inappropriate to comment.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to produce and publish a doctrine manual on peace support operations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The British Army produced in 1988 a document on doctrine entitled "Peacekeeping Operations". A new, complementary manual, taking account of recent developments in peacekeeping, is at an advanced stage of preparation.
  483

  Bosnia
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has drawn up to implement the proposed safe areas in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The plan to implement the concept of safe areas is a matter for the UN and the UN Secretary General's report S/25939 of 14 June 1993 detailed how this might be done. The Secretary General's report was endorsed and authorised in the UN Security Council by the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 844 of 19 June 1993.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his French and Spanish counterparts about the implementation of the proposed safe areas in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is in regular contact with his French and Spanish counterparts about all aspects of our military deployments in former Yugoslavia.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates the three batches of information collated from interviews with refugees from Bosnia were sent to the United Nations War Crimes Commission.

  Mr. Hanley
  The three batches of information were dispatched to the United Nations War Crimes Commission by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 30 September 1993; 19 October 1993; and 21 January 1994.

  Married Quarters
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 14 January,Official Report, column 343, what arrangements will be made to ensure that the proposed housing trust will have an adequate level of finance for capital expenditure on the married quarters estate.

  Mr. Hanley
  An independent survey of the married quarters estate has been carried out and the proposed housing trust will draw up its business plan taking into account the findings of the survey. This will form a key element in the trust's funding requirement when it approaches the market.

  Royal Regiment of Fusiliers
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the attendance of the band of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers at a Conservative party function at Ayton, Berwickshire in January; and what was the cost to public funds of the band performance.

  Mr. Hanley
  Members of the Fusiliers' Band (Volunteers) carried out an engagement at Ayton castle on 28 January 1994. The additional costs were met by the organisers of the function.
  484

  Military Hospitals
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will show for each military hospital disposed of since 1988(a) the purchaser, (b) the new use of the site, (c) the estimated value of the site before sale and (d) the sale price.

  Mr. Hanley
  One military hospital—the former Princess of Wales RAF hospital at Ely—has been disposed of since 1988.

  About half the former hospital comprising 7.26 acres of the total 63 ace site has been sold to the Cambridge health authority, now Lifespan Health Care Trust, and is currently in use as a community hospital. Approximately 23 acres have been transferred to the United States Air Force and the balance of the site, some 32 acres, is currently for sale on the open market.

  Details of the site value prior to sale and the sale price are commercial in confidence.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has for selling military hospitals to other health care providers.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department is required to obtain the best possible price for all sales of surplus MOD property; in the case of military hospitals, this may be achieved by sale to another healthcare provider. Discussions are well under way on the terms of sale of Queen Elizabeth Military hospital in Woolwich to the Greenwich healthcare trust.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Intestate Estate
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what arrangements are made to trace surviving relatives of those dying intestate in the Duchy.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The procedures followed by the Duchy solicitor in tracing surviving relatives of those dying intestate in the county Palatine are the same as those followed by the Treasury solicitor.

  Extensive inquiries are made of the local authority, of neighbours and of any other likely source. If these fail to identify kin, advertisements are placed in the press.

  When there is reason to believe that the deceased might have surviving relatives in a foreign country, inquiries are made through that country's accredited representative in the United Kingdom and, if recommended, advertisements placed in the newspapers of that country.

  Following inaccurate accounts of this procedure in the media, the Duchy solicitor wrote to the secretaries of all law societies within the county Palatine. He set out the procedure in detail, and reminded them of the policy of the Duchy authorities sympathetically to consider applications for ex-gratia payments on stated grounds to those who did not qualify for benefit under the law.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many estates under the intestacy provisions in the County Palatine passed to the Duchy in each of the last five years; and how many devolved, after investigation, to surviving blood relatives.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The number of estates administered during the last five years by the Duchy solicitor under the
  485
  Administration of Estates Act 1925 and whose assets devolved to the Duchy—no qualifying kin having been traced—are as follows:

  Number

  1988–89

  437

  1989–90

  455

  1990–91

  488

  1991–92

  380

  1992–93

  357

  During the same period, the number of estates which were reported to the solicitor but for whom qualifying kin were identified and to whom the assets devolved were as follows:

  Number

  1988–89

  24

  1989–90

  31

  1990–91

  22

  1991–92

  34

  1992–93

  34

  It should be noted that in many cases of intestacy, qualifying relatives were identified prior to the matter being reported to the Duchy solicitor and are dealt with accordingly. The tables therefore do not reflect the proportion of estates within the county Palatine which devolve to the Duchy on the one hand or to qualifying kin on the other.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for each of the past five years, how much was spent on legal fees in attempts to trace surviving relatives of those who had died intestate in the Duchy.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There is no breakdown of costs available for the execution of the Duchy solicitor's duties under the Administration of Estates Act 1925 and the Companies Act 1985. However, the costs of placing advertisements for kin in newspapers over the last five years totalled £114,576–8.

  Citizens Charter Reports
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the date of publication of the citizens charter first annual report; what will be the date of publication of the citizens charter second annual report; and what periods of time he plans to cover in future annual reports.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The first report on progress in implementing the citizens charter was published on 25 November 1992; the second will be published during March 1994. No decision has been taken on the date of future reports. There is no commitment to report annually.

  Complaints
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he intends to set up a task force to advise on setting up and improving complaints systems in the public services.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I set up the citizens charter complaints task force in June 1993, for a two-year period.
  486
  Its role is to review public services' complaints systems; and to advise on their effectiveness, and on any further measures necessary to improve the ways in which public services respond to complaints. The task force is chaired by Lady Wilcox, chairman of the National Consumer Council, with six other members drawn from the public and private sectors.

  In October 1993, the task force published its booklet, "Effective Complaints Systems: Principles and Checklist", which offers all public service organisations an opportunity to test the effectiveness of their own complaints systems. The booklet is available from the House of Commons Library.

  The task force will shortly publish an interim report to Ministers, which will also be distributed widely to public services and other interested organisations.

  Christmas Cards
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report, column 697, how many Christmas cards he and his Ministers sent out in 1993; and at what cost.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Approximately 400 Christmas cards were sent by myself and the Parliamentary Secretary on behalf of the Department. The cost of purchase and postage was approximately £240.

  Charterline
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answers of 2 February,Official Report, column 789, what is the value of the contract to run the Charterline pilot scheme; if the service contract to operate the Charterline pilot scheme was awarded to the lowest bidder; how many calls have been dealt with by Charterline pilot scheme in its first nine months of operation; how much has been spent, in total, on the operation and promotion of the Charterline pilot scheme: if the provision of uniforms worn by staff answering telephones at the Charterline offices at Havant was a condition of the contract; and what is the cost per telephone call dealt with by Charterline.

  Mr. David Davis
  The service contract to operate Charterline pilot scheme is of no fixed value. The cost is dependent on the number of Charterline calls made. The service was awarded to the bidder that was judged to offer a high quality value for money service.

  Over 5,300 calls have been received to date. Total set-up costs amount to £1,251,000. These include initial research, project planning and management, system design, contractual advice and data collection, which are all one-off costs. On-going costs to date amount to £1,033,136. These include paid advertising, research during the pilot study, set up and use of ACORN data—to provide public service organisations with information about callers' backgrounds—operational costs, and set up and operation of the Charterline language service, which is available in Gujarati, Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu.

  The provision of uniforms worn by staff answering Charterline telephone calls was not a condition of the contract.

  The cost per call to date is £70, if calculated on the basis of operational costs. The set-up and operational costs of a pilot study are always relatively high. If call volumes were higher, significant economies of scale could be achieved.
  487
  In the event that the project is extended to a national or other basis, the cost per call figures would be greatly reduced.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who are the members currently appointed to the Civil Service Appeal Board.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  At 25 January 1994 the members of the Civil Service Appeal Board were:

  Mr. P. Adams OBE; Mr. A. Bennett; Mr. M. S. Buckley; Mrs. C. Coltman; Mr. K. Crowley; Miss P. Downs (Chairman); Mr. W. J. Edmunds BEM; Miss B. Findlay; Mr. M. T. Foulkes; Mr. W. M. Francis BEM; Mr. J. H. Gracey CB; Mr. T. W. Hall; Mr. G. Harpin; Mr. R. M. Hastie-Smith CB; Mr. P. D. Jones (Deputy Chairman); Miss J. Kelley CB; Mr. R. W. King BEM; Mr. N. F. Ledsome CB; Mrs. S. P. Maunsell; Mr. N. E. A. Moore; Mr. R. W. Morgan; Mrs. M. Morrison OBE;
  488
  Mr. J. Nicholson; Mr. P. Palmer; Mr. J. Pennington; Ms E. A. Rees; Mr. J. Renton; Mr. M. Ridout; Mr. J. Roberts CB; Mrs. M. B. Sloman; Mr. A. Smith; Mr. A. Stem; Mr. J. W. Stevens CB (Deputy Chairman); Mr. N. Tout BEM.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who are the members currently appointed to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The members of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments are:

  The right hon. the Lord Carlisle of Bucklow QC—Chairman

  The right hon. Sir Patrick Naime GCB MC—Deputy Chairman

  The Lord Bridges GCMG

  Sir Trevor Holdsworth

  Sir Charles Huxtable KCB CBE

  Sir Robin Ibbs KBE

  The right hon. the Lord Merlyn-Rees

  The right hon. the Lord Thomson of Monifieth KT

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chester.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Azerbaijan: Arms Allegations
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they can confirm, as reported in the Independent on 24th January 1994, that British mercenaries are fighting for Azerbaijan against the Armenians and that British firms are supplying Azerbaijan with weapons despite a British arms embargo.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, officials are continuing to investigate the allegations published in the Independent. We have no evidence that British mercenaries are fighting for Azerbaijan or that British arms have been supplied to that country. We continue to support the CSCE arms embargo and in no way condone the supply of arms or mercenaries to either side.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. It is encouraging that the investigation is continuing because there is still anxiety about allegations of British involvement in that tragic conflict. Is my noble friend aware that this is a particularly sensitive issue as many Armenians believe that Britain has been favouring Azerbaijan, having, for example, an embassy in Baku but not in Yerevan? Is she also aware of the distress caused to the Armenians by the appalling effects of five-year long blockades imposed by Azerbaijan and Turkey and a recent escalation of military offences by Azerbaijan against the Armenians of Karabakh, involving many Mujahedin mercenaries? Can my noble friend therefore reassure the House that Britain is doing everything it can, and may even step up its initiatives through the CSCE and other channels, to prevail upon Azerbaijan that it should desist from its long-standing violation of human rights against the Armenian people?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend, as I sought to do in our debate on 28th October last, that the United Kingdom adopts a totally even-handed approach to the terrible conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. We are aware of the problems caused by the effective blockade of economic routes via some neighbouring countries. Humanitarian aid is getting through, and a British NGO—MERLIN—has been active in support of my noble friend's efforts through Christian Solidarity International. A resolution of the dispute is urgent; otherwise we cannot ease the problems of the blockade. Little progress has been made in the CSCE talks, the next round of which has still to be scheduled. I understand that diplomatic efforts are continuing behind the scenes and that the new Swedish
1690
negotiator, Jan Eliasson, hopes to be able to start work very quickly. We hope that there will then be a peace plan to which everyone can sign up.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, do the directors of a United Kingdom company have a duty to ensure that overseas subsidiaries of that company observe the embargo? Do British people or organisations have a duty to refrain from assisting in the supply of mercenaries or arms by a foreign organisation?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that I am right in saying that it depends upon the law of the land in which the subsidiary operates. I believe that there is a moral duty on a British company. We sincerely hope that no one will supply either arms or mercenaries to either side of this conflict, or to any other.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, am I right or wrong in thinking that the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 would render the conduct of these mercenaries, if any, an offence? If so, should not the fact be widely known?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we hope that all persons who may have been tempted to involve themselves in such activities will desist from doing so. I am not certain of the legal point which my noble and learned friend raises, but if there is any evidence of illegal activity, which I believe this to be, it should be passed to the police authorities for further investigation.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, bearing in mind that some of us on both sides of this House belong to the British-Armenian Parliamentary Group and to a larger outside group and that we meet people from Armenia often, and bearing in mind also that there are many Armenian people in London, will the Government do everything they can—I am sure they will—to prevent further affliction being imposed on the people of Armenia? The Government have a good record on these issues and I hope that they will maintain it. I shall be happy if the noble Baroness can tell the House that the Government will do anything they can to help the Armenian people.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we have been discussing these very matters this week with President Ter-Petrossian who is visiting this country as a guest of the Government. The President has held meetings with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. He has had an audience with Her Majesty the Queen, and I gave him dinner on Tuesday when we had a long and fruitful discussion about further Armenian support.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is it not the case that both Iran and Turkey have refused requests for military help from Azerbaijan? Does that not speak well of the CSCE embargo, and should it not be made much more widely known?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that it should be made much more widely known. I hope that he is right in what he says about both Turkey and Iran.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, did the discussions this week to which my noble friend referred include the question of British representation in Armenia? Secondly, are Her Majesty's Government inclined to try to persuade the Russians to put forward a similar peace plan to the CSCE because, as I understand it, the fact that two such peace plans are in circulation is an excuse for postponing a settlement?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, to answer my noble friend's second question first, I believe that the Russian Government can play a positive role in mediating a solution. However, all efforts must be in close liaison with CSCE efforts. In that way there will not be competing peace plans which might ditch both of them. In answer to my noble friend's question about representation, the President of Armenia did not raise the matter with me. I cannot answer for my colleagues. However, I know that our ambassador in Moscow, who is accredited to Armenia and Georgia, undertakes regular trips to the region. Great appreciation of his efforts was expressed to me on Tuesday.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does the noble Baroness appreciate that, rightly or wrongly, the question mark relates to the Government's impartiality since there is United Kingdom representation in Azerbaijan? What is the distinction between that situation and the situation in Armenia?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, when the decision was taken it was thought that the connection between Moscow and Yerevan would be a good deal easier to manage than that with Baku. I understand the anxiety expressed by the noble Lord. It may seem a one-sided matter, but I can assure him that that is certainly not intended. I know that the matter is being kept under review.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, while I congratulate my noble friend on the even-handed approach which the Government attempt to take in a tragic conflict, does she agree that Armenia's principal mistake in this terrible story is that it has not discovered oil?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the situation in the Transcaucasus might be even more vexed if more oil were found. However, since oil represents wealth to these nations which so badly need to build up their economies, we have to hope that they will find oil one day.

Development Board for Rural Wales
3.10 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they have taken regarding allegations of improper conduct by the Development Board for Rural Wales concerning their house allocation procedures and other matters.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Public Accounts Committee, at a hearing on 24th January, examined the
1692
Permanent Secretary of the Welsh Office and the Chief Executive of the Development Board for Rural Wales about matters raised in the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General on the board's 1992–93 annual accounts. The Public Accounts Committee will be reporting in due course on the results of their inquiry. We would not wish to anticipate or pre-empt that report.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply. Does he agree that at the meeting of the Public Accounts Committee to which he has referred, the Permanent Secretary of the Welsh Office stated that the behaviour of that organisation had been wholly unsatisfactory and wholly indefensible? In the light of that statement, in the light of the impropriety that it indicates so far as concerns the work of the Welsh Development Agency, and the fact that police inquiries are now taking place into Health Promotion Wales, what action is the Secretary of State for Wales taking to deal with this constant flow of evidence that there has been impropriety in quangos in Wales?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales is preparing a compliance review which has been commissioned from consultants, and an efficiency scrutiny by the Welsh Office, which are currently being reported on. Those reports are expected to make recommendations to ensure that adequate monitoring systems and effective controls exist over the board's procedures, management, administration and financial control.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, during the past couple of years we have had a series of critical reports about that quango and the Welsh Development Agency. In the reports the deficiencies strongly suggest that the quango and the Welsh Development Agency have been operating as though they were above the law. Does the Welsh Office accept that there has been any failure on its part to ensure that those quangos are accountable to the Welsh Office and to the public; or is the Welsh Office above criticism?
Turning to the future, being a small territorial department, does the Welsh Office lack the necessary expertise to devise ways and means to ensure that the quangos are properly accountable to it and the Welsh public?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, it is to ensure such accountability that my right honourable friend has commissioned the two reports to which I have already referred. While I am sure that we all deplore fraud and the misuse of public funds, we should also remember the great benefit that has been brought to the Principality by the two boards.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, on a purely technical point, will the noble Viscount be kind enough to explain to the House what the appointment of outside consultants has to do with the Question on the Order Paper? That relates to improper conduct.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, in answer to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, I stated that my right honourable friend

1693
the Secretary of State for Wales has appointed a firm of consultants to report on those matters in order to ensure that such malpractice does not occur again.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that what is involved is the position of the accounting officers of the organisations? Is it not wholly unsatisfactory that with regard to those quangos it has been established in one case after another that there has been total impropriety in the running of the organisations?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, it is the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales to ensure that such things do not occur. I am quite sure that once the compliance review has been reported on and the efficiency scrutiny acted upon, these matters can be brought to an end.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is this not a matter of efficiency but of decency?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, before making any further comments, I believe that we should await the PAC report.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, will the noble Viscount answer my second supplementary question? Does the Welsh Office have the necessary expertise to ensure ways and means of securing accountability of the quangos both to itself and to the members of the Welsh public? Otherwise, there will be no confidence in the regime of the quangos.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am quite sure that the Welsh Office has that ability.

Sheep Dip Disposal: Report
3.15 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to publish the report by the National Rivers Authority entitled Disposal of Sheep Dip Waste: Effects on Water Quality; and, if so, when.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, this report was commissioned by the National Rivers Authority and the Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research. I understand that this report will be published on 8th March.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. It is refreshing to hear a date given instead of the usual "soon". I am also pleased that most of the recommendations of the National Rivers Authority have been taken on board by the Ministry of Agriculture.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister how it will police the correct disposal of sheep dips. While many farmers understand that they must not pour spent sheep dip into rivers, streams and ponds, they do not understand the implications of residues in groundwaters. Although the
1694
Government recommend that it be disposed of in slurry, many farmers and contractors are still just tipping it on the ground.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Countess is a well known and respected sheep farmer in the North. She well knows that ample advice is always at hand to the farmer in the form of codes of good agricultural practice and guidance leaflets. Furthermore, I am sure that the noble Countess knows that the water regulatory authorities have a programme of farm visits the purpose of which is to advise the farmer on how to avoid causing pollution.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on 17th June 1993, at col. 1661 of the Official Report, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, reported that the Government had received a letter from the European Commission following a complaint that it had received about the application in the United Kingdom of Directive 80/68 on the protection of groundwater against pollution from spent sheep dip. He stated:
"The Government are carefully considering the Commission's letter and will be sending a full reply in due course".
Has that full reply been sent, and what does it contain?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Commission has agreed to revisit that directive on the spreading on to land of sheep dip. We hope to be able to say something along those lines shortly.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply to my supplementary question. He stated that the National Rivers Authority has advisers who go to farms. However, I gather that they are few and far between. In 10 years we have not seen one on our farm. Are there any other authorities, for example the Health and Safety Executive, which have powers over the farmers to ensure that they dispose of their sheep dip properly?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, again, as the noble Countess will know, perhaps one of the most important advisers and authorities on the issue is ADAS.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Earl help me a little further? What does "revisiting a directive" mean? It is not an expression with which I am familiar. Does it mean that a new version of the directive is being considered? If that is the case, does the present directive remain in force? If so, is there a letter replying to the application under the present directive?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, "revisiting" simply means that the Government are having a look again at the specific directive to see that the contents of that directive are sensible and can apply equally to other member states as well as to the United Kingdom.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the ADAS advice to which the noble Earl referred available free to farmers or do they have to pay for it?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I shall correct myself in writing if I am wrong; but I believe that in some cases it is free advice; in others, it is paid for.

DoE Appointments: Members' Spouses
3.19 p.m.
The Lord Bonham-Carter The Lord Bonham-Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why information about how many spouses of Members of both Houses of Parliament have been appointed to public positions by the Secretary of State for the Environment is not available.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, although the background of potential appointees is looked into before an appointment is made, details of spouses are not requested by the Department of the Environment because this is irrelevant to a candidate's suitability. With over 900 current members of DoE boards appointed by the Secretary of State, even an exhaustive search of individual appointment records could not reliably provide information on members' marital status. We consider that such a search would be disproportionately expensive.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his risible reply. May I ask him why it is possible for the Department of Health to supply those answers and not the Department of the Environment?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, first, I do not think it is at all a risible reply. It is absolutely genuine in this context. To suggest otherwise is not becoming or worthy of the noble Lord. As regards the point on the Department of Health, I make it perfectly clear that the Department of the Environment keeps no central record of the personal details of public appointees. Appointment details are held in offices throughout the country in headquarters and regions. But even an exhaustive search of the files may not provide details of spouses. As I have already said, that information is not requested of the candidates. I understand that the Department of Health had already carried out a search of its records last year so that most of the information was ready to hand. In the Department of the Environment's case a search would be disproportionately expensive.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, assuming that the Minister was able, given notice, to obtain the information, which would no doubt be of interest, does he agree that the assumption behind the Question is at best quaintly old-fashioned and at worst offensively sexist?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I may reply to that by saying that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, is quite an expert on NDPBs. He and many other noble Lords in the House know that he served with great distinction as chairman of the Race Relations Board and chairman of the Community Relations Commission from 1971 to 1977. He was chosen because of his suitability for the job.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is not one of the difficulties that the Question is intrinsically obscure? It does not say whether it means those who were spouses at the date of appointment, those who became spouses of Members of Parliament
1696
after the date of appointment or those who have ceased to be spouses. It is impossible to answer; it is a non-Question.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I cannot hold myself accountable for the defectiveness of any Question in your Lordships' House.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that when the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, served in those two positions, and also served with distinction as vice-chairman of the BBC, he was on all three occasions appointed by Ministers not of his own party; and that is a practice which has now almost completely disappeared under a government who have done more political jobbery than any other government for at least 142 years, since the Trevelyan-Northcote reforms?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, frankly, that is unworthy also of the noble Lord. I would expect a little better of him. If he is trying to say that these appointments are made through political bias, he is very wrong indeed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if it is the case that the Secretary of State for the Environment and his colleagues do not know the identity of the spouses of those who are put forward for public appointment in their department, how is it that when my wife was interviewed by head hunters for appointments by the Secretary of State for the Environment, and was, I believe, recommended for those appointments, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, knew enough to accost me in the Chamber and refer to the fact that she had been so interviewed?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I cannot account for that episode. As the noble Lord probably knows very well, neither political affiliation nor marital status is required on the DoE form.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that when spouses of Members of either House happen to be appointed to a public position, it enables the Members concerned to become even better informed about public affairs than most of them already are?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend speaks with great sense and wisdom. I have not yet said this afternoon to your Lordships that those who serve on public bodies deserve our gratitude. They give up a lot of their time, and family time, in order to serve with skill and quite often very little pay.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that in the absence of more definite information in reply to the Question, the impression may well be that the Department of the Environment has followed the pattern favoured by the Minister for Health, where the overwhelming mass of appointments are from Members of the party opposite or their spouses?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I do not believe that that is the case. The noble Lord ought to think of

1697
colleagues on his own side. I single out the noble Lords, Lord Cocks and Lord Dormand, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if the noble Earl cannot answer the Question on the Order Paper, or does not wish to, can he at least tell us how many of the positions are paid and how many are not paid?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, first, I can answer the Question on the Order Paper, and have already done so. I should like to make that perfectly clear. Secondly, my understanding is that about 90 per cent. receive some remuneration, however great or small.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, for a Government who are becoming increasingly famous for sleaze—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Yes, indeed, my Lords. We see it every day in the newspapers.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: That means that it is true, of course.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, would it not be as well if the Government were now to ensure that they keep such a record? It is a matter of public importance when wives, husbands or other relatives of Members of Parliament and Peers are appointed to remunerative posts. Does the noble Earl agree that it is much more important that the public know about such matters than who they slept with the previous night?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think that the sleaziness is in the eye of the beholder.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I do not wish to continue this indefinitely. But did I hear the noble Earl say that those people were paid very little? If so, is he aware that the part-time chairman of the Totalisator Board is paid £92,000 a year? Is that very little money?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, in that particular case, no, it is not very little money, but he does an extremely good job. I ask the noble Lord to look at those who perform equal service for very much less money.

Royal Assent
3.28 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Social Security (Contributions) Act;
Statutory Sick Pay Act.

Business
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the North Atlantic Council decision on Sarajevo.
Mental Health (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Local Government (Wales) Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [The local government areas]:
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry)The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry) moved Amendment No. I:
Page 2, line 12, at end insert:
("( ) Any such order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I should say that the Government have taken note of the comments of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee regarding the power accorded to the Secretary of State under Clause 1(1) to change by order the name by which a preserved county is known. The Government have therefore brought forward this amendment which makes that particular power subject to the negative resolution procedure of Parliament. In fact the Government do not envisage the need for a name change arising very often. The most likely event would be if one of the principal councils in the area of a preserved county were to change the name of its area so that it was the same as, or similar to, that of the preserved county. Whatever the circumstances, the Secretary of State would wish to consult locally before putting forward any proposal to change the name of a preserved county. For those reasons we feel that the negative resolution procedure would be appropriate. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as a member of the committee making that recommendation I should like to put on record my thanks to the noble Lord for the amendment, which is entirely appropriate. As there is no amendment tabled by the Minister to Clause 52, if he is able, without notice, to address the question of why that should be so, I would be most grateful. Perhaps he will bring it in at a later stage. That was also the subject of a recommendation in paragraph 13 of the report.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I believe that there will be an opportunity at a later stage in connection with one of the amendments which is down on the Marshalled List to come to that point. I shall address the matter at that stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule I [The New Principal Areas]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 48, line 12, column 2, after ("Meirionnydd") insert ("together with (from the District of Aberconwy) the

1699
communities of Betws y Coed, Bro Garmon, Bro Machno, Capel Carig, Dolgarrog, Dolwyddelan, Llanrwst, Trefriw and Ysbyty Ifan.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 7. One amendment gives and, as noble Lords will see, the other takes away. The purpose of the amendments is to move the nine community councils mentioned in the amendment from the county borough of Aberconwy and Colwyn to the principal area of Caernarfonshire and Merionethshire.
My reasons are as follows. First, these community councils have expressed a wish to remain in Caernarfonshire, and indeed have voted to do so. Secondly, historically and culturally they have been tied with Caernarfonshire. Thirdly, the communities are rural and would prefer to remain with a rural council rather than a county borough, which, as I understand it, is supposed to be urban. Fourthly, the switch to Caernarfonshire would not materially affect the numbers in Aberconwy and Colwyn. The total population in the community in Aberconwy and Colwyn is 106,236, whereas in the nine communities to which I have referred it numbers only 7,241. I beg to move.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, in these amendments. I happen to know the areas fairly well. Their affinity is certainly with Caernarfonshire and not with the proposed change to the county borough.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the decision to merge the existing districts of Aberconwy and Colwyn to form a single unitary authority has, I believe, been well received in the areas concerned. I give as an example to my noble friend Lord Stanley the fact, that as I understand it, the two existing district councils are already working together closely to prepare the way for the establishment of the new authority.
The proposed new authority brings together areas which have similar social, economic and cultural characteristics. The effect of the amendment would be to remove from Aberconwy and Colwyn and to place in Caernarfonshire and Merionethshire an area which, as my noble friend Lord Stanley said, is relatively small in population, though it is large in area. It does that by drawing a line just north of Llanrwst which would split in two what is in fact a discernible community along the length of the Vale of Conwy.
The Government have not received any representations which suggest that boundary revisions along the lines proposed by the amendment would have widespread support in the areas concerned. But that said, I shall bring to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State what has been said in the House today, and he may wish to consider the matter further in that light.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend for that statement. I must say that my local information is contrary to what he has heard; it is that the nine communities have expressed a very strong desire to go
1700
back to Caernarfonshire. I have to admit that two of them were in Denbighshire before, but that area is more or less like Caernarfonshire. I thank my noble and learned friend for his statement, and I shall leave the matter at that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa Lord Brooks of Tremorfa moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 48, line 17, column 2, at end insert ("and (from the community of Taffs Well) the wards of Taffs Well and Ty Rhiw with (from the district of the Vale of Glamorgan) the communities of Barry, Dinas Powys, Llancarfan, Llandough, Michaelston, Penarth, Pendoylan, Peterson Super Ely, St. Nicholas and Bonvilston, Sully and Wenvoe.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke at Second Reading and in Committee stage about extending the boundaries of Cardiff. I make no apologies for raising the issue once again. After all, we are concerned about the future of the capital city of Wales.
The proposal in the Bill, effectively to return Cardiff to its situation before the 1974 reorganisation, would be a tragic mistake. It would also be a lost opportunity with serious repercussions for the whole of Wales. I am not alone in taking that view. It was heartening to receive such eloquent support at Committee stage from my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont, Lord Hooson and Lord Aberdare, and my noble friends Lady White and the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, all of whom have an intimate knowledge of the city and its history. There was widespread recognition from all sides that this is indeed a matter of national importance, not simply confined to the narrow interests of the views of the Cardiff and Vale district councils. Indeed, only the Government remained to be convinced.
I trust that the Government will today respond to the real needs of Wales and the ever growing consensus which clearly now exists in favour of the proposal which I put forward. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate did his best to explain the Government's reasons for opposing my amendment. He made three points. The first two were wrong, and the third gave only a misleading part of the story.
The noble and learned Lord began by claiming that Cardiff had arrived at its present status as a great capital city within its present boundaries. The truth is that in order for Cardiff to establish itself as the undisputed capital city of Wales, governments of all persuasions have found it necessary to extend the city limits. Cardiff city's boundaries have been expanded six times since the end of the last century.
The noble and learned Lord's point was equally invalid if referring to developments in recent years. The major progress made by Cardiff over the past 20 years is recognised by many people. But that progress has been achieved, not by an authority working within restricted boundaries, but by an authority which has been able to take a wider perspective and form links and partnerships with the private sector and other agencies to benefit Cardiff and its hinterland. Wales needs a capital city which has not only responsibility for local government functions but also the capacity to continue the exciting developments which are getting under way.
In response to the widely held view that Cardiff needs room to grow, the noble and learned Lord said that the Government believe that there is enough land available for the expansion of Cardiff for the foreseeable future within its existing boundaries. I have access to the most recent assessments by the Land Authority for Wales and I can say that the Cardiff unitary authority proposed in the Bill has enough land for only the next five years and it will run out of land for industrial and commercial development within the next 10 years. The noble and learned Lord has written to me on that point. All I can say is that I disagree with his interpretation of the facts.
It will interest the House to know that the existing Cardiff City Council itself acknowledges the major problem of shortage of land for both housing and industrial development. A report to the city council in 1991 by its head of development noted:
"There was still currently a high demand for land from a range of market sectors both for indigenous business growth and inward investment purposes, but there was little land available for any such purposes. Remaining land largely consisted of small infill sites on existing estates; its availability for inward investment purposes was in particularly short supply and compared poorly with other nearby areas".
Similarly, a report by Cardiff City Council's director of land and valuation in 1993 said:
"South East Cardiff is the only area of the city that can cater for industrial and business expansion during the next decade or so";
and this site is earmarked as a site of special scientific interest, with the problems of dealing with a major investment in sea wall defences.
In fact, that was acknowledged by the chairman of the city council's land committee in a letter dated 24th January 1994 to members of his party's group in which he states that Tai Cymru (Housing for Wales) is concerned that insufficient land is available to it to meet the housing needs of the 11,000 people on the housing waiting list in South Glamorgan. He goes on to state that the city's main land bank is in South East Cardiff and extends to only 30 acres, which includes industrial and residential land.
He also refers to the sea defences that are required and which have not yet been put in place, resulting in the main land bank, in his view, being blighted and making it impossible for the council to achieve its policy objectives —for example, to build social housing and to bring forward land for industrial development. Industrial development land is desperately needed to secure employment opportunities for the 21,000 unemployed people in Cardiff and the Vale and for the 61,000 other people seeking work on the city's doorstep.
The noble and learned Lord concluded by claiming that my proposal would be bitterly resented by the population of the Vale of Glamorgan and that it was not desired by either the Cardiff City Council or the Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council. Self-preservation is always a regressive instinct. Understandably, they have consistently striven for one thing: their own survival.
But what evidence is there for claiming that the local population rejects my proposal? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord is relying on dubious opinion polls conducted by the two district councils three years ago.
1702
The Cardiff City poll took place during July to September 1991. The Vale of Glamorgan poll was done in the same year. Both are three years out of date and neither sought the views of the people about my proposals.
The noble and learned Lord may have been influenced by the view of a small number of community councils in the area. Only half of them supported an independent Vale of Glamorgan. Those 12 community councils represent only 18 per cent. of the population of that district. It is notable that none of the town councils in the Vale supported the case for two authorities serving Cardiff and the Vale. Indeed, Llantwit Major Town Council, on the western boundary of the Vale district, and Penarth Town Council, on the edge of the Cardiff Bay development, supported the case for a single unitary authority. Community councils representing 82 per cent. of the people in the Vale did not submit responses in support of the White Paper's proposals. The most recent survey conducted by the South Wales Echo is the most extensive ever carried out in Wales seeking the views of the people living and working in Cardiff and the Vale.
My proposal was put to the people of Cardiff and the Vale as recently as last month in the form of a detailed questionnaire. It formed part of a comprehensive consultation campaign about the actions needed to develop Cardiff as a leading European capital. So far, the returns from about 1,000 local people show an overwhelming 90 per cent. in favour of a future Cardiff which my proposal aims to put into effect.
My proposal also has the support of the business community in Wales, not just the leading companies in Cardiff but also the major commercial organisations throughout Wales. They are realistic people who know that a strong and successful capital is essential if Wales is to be a major player in the European economy. Noble Lords will know from their own postbags that I have the support of voluntary organisations, academic institutions, the trade unions, the business community and the local press. The adjoining county of Mid-Glamorgan is also in full agreement with my amendment.
I have explained the reasons for my amendment on two previous occasions in this House. I hope that noble Lords will bear with me if I briefly summarise the case again. As it stands under the current proposals, Cardiff simply does not have the room to grow into the major European capital that its economy demands and its public deserves. The House must question the Government's proposals which create a capital city which is half the size of the neighbouring towns of Bridgend and Newport and two-and-a-half times smaller than Swansea.
More significantly, Cardiff—a capital city—will be half the size of Edinburgh and a quarter of the size of Brussels and Stuttgart. It will have a population of only 280,000 which will not allow it to compete with other regional capitals. The capital is simply running out of land, which will result in Cardiff either developing on and destroying its current open spaces or developing on land bordering the green belt surrounding the city. The importance of international links to the city cannot be over emphasised. The current proposals take Cardiff

1703
(Wales) Airport outside the boundaries of the local authority serving Cardiff, thereby destroying the vital link to potential investors and visitors.
The motto of the City of Cardiff is Deffro maen dyth —Awake, it is day. I believe that the day has arrived to take Cardiff into the 21st century. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I rise to support briefly the spirit of the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Brooks. My purpose is to ask the Government how they have come to their conclusions about the boundaries of that part of South East Wales. I could also ask the same question about other parts of Wales. On what basis have the boundaries been drawn?
When I was first in the other place, the government of the day created the Greater London Council. It was supposed to be the answer to the problems of Greater London. That council has gone. Later, in the early 1970s, the government of the day created the metropolitan counties. I lived in one in West Yorkshire. They were to be the answer to the problems of local government. They have all gone. One could mention other changes to boundaries that have been made in the past 20 years which have certainly not stood the test of time as have those which were made 100 years ago for the county boroughs and the urban and rural districts.
So when I study and read again the proposals that are now made for Wales, and indeed for other parts of the United Kingdom, to put it mildly I am sceptical. I do not know the basis on which decisions have been taken. In South Wales, where I was born and to which I have returned to live after nearly half a century, it is said, behind hands, that some of the changes in South Wales in 1974 were made for political reasons. When we hear some of the problems in regard to quangos about which we were told today, one perhaps can believe that.
Now that I have returned to Wales, I find it a changed Wales —it would be surprising if it were not. It is a more self-confident Wales with great changes having taken place industrially—most for the better but some, sadly, for the worse. Nevertheless, there is a great confidence and Cardiff is seen as it was not seen in my day—as the capital city of a Principality of an emerging part of the United Kingdom that will play a fuller part in the economy of the United Kingdom, and indeed of Europe.
I was surprised at the changes that had taken place. The point I wish to emphasise to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is that my noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa raised, in a brief manner, the views of a group of businessmen from the Cardiff area who are in favour of extending and making Cardiff larger. I presume they sent the same document to the Government, who no doubt studied it. I know some of those businessmen and they are certainly not all supporters of my party; in fact, that is true of practically all of them. And if they stick their necks out to put this view, it is for some other reason than for political advantage. They say:
1704
"We are of the view that there is an overwhelming case in favour of a single unitary authority for Cardiff based entirely or largely on the existing County area".
On what basis do the Government say nay to that? What is their reasoning behind it? Is there a political reason? Is there a need to look after the parliamentary boundaries on the eastern side plus of the city? I do not suggest that there is. But those businessmen say that there is an overwhelming case. This is a government who listen to businessmen and the businessmen think in that way. They continue,
"We believe it is self-evident that this would be administratively less costly and more efficient than two unitary authorities".
Surely the Government are concerned to provide something that is less costly and more efficient. They continue,
"And it is our considered judgement that it would also ensure that the Cardiff (and Wales) success story of the past 15 years continues, to the benefit of all the people of Cardiff, the Vale and indeed the whole of Wales".
I have not lived in Wales for 50 years, and on my return I found, unlike the days of 20, 30 or 40 years ago when people worked in their localities, large numbers came down from the valleys to work in Cardiff. It is becoming the light industrial hub of the valleys. It is an important place; it is a flourishing place. Should we not give it a national status, a size, a financial base which would be to the advantage of Wales? I ask the Government: what is wrong with the analysis of those businessmen? On what basis is the smaller Cardiff being put forward to this House? It would assist us all in deciding how to vote if we knew what the Government's thinking was on the matter. That is why I support the spirit of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa.
Baroness White: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House because an excellent presentation of the case for this group of amendments has already been made by my two noble friends. But I should like to sustain the argument which started on the Second Reading of the Bill. Anybody who has any close knowledge of the area must be of the opinion that it is incomprehensible why the Government should wish to keep the total areas covered by Amendment No. 3 in separation one from the other.
I too am less familiar with the area than I was a few years ago, when I had close relationships with Cardiff. I still have good relationships there and know a number of the people who signed the businessmen's letter, which probably also reached other Members of this House. I am delighted to see that for once the CBI and the Transport and General Workers' Union are as one. They say that if we are going to have the kind of prosperity which we seek, we cannot do it with this detached pattern of local government.
We should pay no attention to the strong arguments which have already been put forward. Some people may have reservations, though I know it is a matter about which my noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa holds strong views in the opposite direction. I am not sure because I do not know enough about whether the area should extend so far as the airport. Nobody knows quite what the airport will turn into under this administration.

1705
At the moment it is the concern of three major local authorities. I do not want to bemuse the House by going into that specific area of difficulty. But there is no doubt that one does not want a city of Cardiff which does not have, even now, the full range of services. It does not look after its social services, education and so forth. That may be altered under the other provisions of the Bill and I am not sure what the future will be in that regard.
To separate South Glamorgan, Cardiff and what used to be the flourishing areas on the Bristol Channel does not seem right. As a young person, I grew up in Barry and we looked out over the Bristol Channel, which was a busy place with a busy port. However, the coal and steel vanished. If we are to have the kind of industrial and social prosperity that we need, we must have a large area in which to operate. I say no more because, to those of us who know, the problem is self-evident. Something along the lines of the amendment of my noble friend is the only intelligent way of dealing with the prosperity in South Wales with which some of us are closely concerned.
Lord Kenyon: My Lords, being from North Wales, I hesitate to speak on the amendment. But as an elected member of a borough council, I am acutely aware of the problems that agreeing to the amendment would bring.
The City of Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan are culturally two totally different regions and should be kept that way rather than being amalgamated into a massive authority which is against the wishes of the vast majority of the people in the area. It is being suggested on the grounds that there is a need for a super city, and that need transcends the fundamental principle of the Bill, which is to bring local government to the people. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, reminded us in Committee that they were always telling this Government to listen to the people, and then he went on to say that this was an exception.
Much was made at Committee stage of the suggestion that the boundary between Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan would form an artificial barrier which would strangle Cardiff's expansionist aspirations. But it is only an administrative boundary across which hundreds of thousands of citizens travel daily without knowledge of its existence. The City of Cardiff is just the hub of the economic region of South Wales. In one way or another its influence extends to every citizen of Wales. But that does not qualify it as a sole unitary authority for Wales.
There can be no doubt that if the amendment were to be agreed to, the balance of power and the authority created thereby would rest firmly with Cardiff and the needs of the Vale of Glamorgan would suffer. I therefore urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I listened with care to the way in which my noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa developed his case, but the amendment raises a deep issue; namely, whether there is a need to establish a greater Cardiff authority which would give our capital city the same growth opportunities as other
1706
major United Kingdom and European cities. My noble friend, as one would expect, presented his case with conviction. We have been reminded that the case is supported by the South Glamorgan County Council, by the Mid-Glamorgan County Council and by many business organisations and individuals. Like other Members of your Lordships' House, I too have seen the memorandum by the group of nine businessmen supportive of the amendment, which would, as they say, provide Cardiff with the space for controlled expansion. I have also received a letter from the Transport and General Workers Union supporting the amendment.
Despite the strong plea of my noble friend, we on this Front Bench believe that the House cannot ignore the fact that Cardiff City Council and the Vale of Glamorgan District Council are strongly opposed to the amendment. So therein lies one major difficulty. Those two councils are, of course, the two district councils whose interests and fortunes are directly affected by the amendment. Indeed, the amendment challenges the very existence of a Vale of Glamorgan principal council. In fairness to my noble friend, that was touched upon by him.
I mentioned in Committee that the leaders of both district councils had informed me of their misgivings and anxieties. Since the Committee stage I have received from them a joint letter and literature. They have studied the speech of my noble friend in Committee and the case presented by the South Glamorgan County Council, but their anxieties are as yet undiminished. I have also received a number of letters from individuals—men and women who live in the community and are worried about the amendment and all that it implies for them. I have also to tell the House that I have seen copy correspondence between the two district councils and business organisations which are opposed to the amendment. So to the Front Bench on this side of the House it appears that there are many difficult questions which have yet to be resolved and possibly questions which have yet to be posed. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa touched on some of the questions.
As I have said, there is no broad agreement between the South Glamorgan County Council, on the one hand, and Cardiff City Council and the Vale of Glamorgan District Council, on the other, about the merits of the proposal. In the short time that has been available our members—members of the Labour Party—and active supporters of the Labour Party in local government have not been able to come to a view about the best way forward for Wales' capital city. For us that is another major consideration.
I have therefore to say on behalf this Front Bench that we are not this afternoon in a position to support or to oppose my noble friend's amendment. If my noble friend is not satisfied with the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and decides to test the opinion of the House, this Front Bench will in those circumstances abstain.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, before I respond to the points made on this matter by the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, it may be helpful if at

1707
this stage I say just a very few words in general terms about the boundary issues in the Bill. Your Lordships will recall that in responding to the point made in Committee I undertook to report your Lordships' views to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I take this opportunity to say that I have done that. The position remains as I indicated in Committee. My right honourable friend has reflected and will reflect on the issues in the light of your Lordships' views, but before he reaches any conclusions on these matters he will also want to hear the views of the elected Members in another place.
I turn to the particular issues relating to Cardiff. As I pointed out in Committee, the Government have seen little evidence of widespread public opposition to the proposals for separate Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan unitary authorities. On the contrary, we are aware of a great deal of public feeling in the Vale that is aroused in favour of the existence of a Vale of Glamorgan authority and is very much opposed to any idea of a greater Cardiff. As many of your Lordships will be aware, an organisation known as the Vale Defence Committee, which represents the views of all but one of the community councils in the Vale, mounted a very vigorous and well supported campaign for a Vale of Glamorgan unitary authority. That also was supported by many representations from private individuals, from businessmen and from other organisations.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I too have received in the time since the Committee stage literature and representations from private individuals as well. Indeed, nothing that has happened since the publication of the Bill suggests in any way that the passionately held views of those in the Vale of Glamorgan have changed. I am aware that there are members of the business community in Cardiff who are in favour of the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, but there is little to suggest widespread concern in Cardiff that the interests of the city or of its residents would be better served by establishing an authority for greater Cardiff.
On the particular matters raised, the Government feel that there are indeed sufficient sites within the city boundaries, in particular in the Cardiff Bay area and in a range of other areas, both larger and smaller, on the periphery of the city as it exists, which are capable of meeting the city's housing and employment requirements over the longer term and which will come on stream as and when the need arises. I wrote to the noble Lord about that matter. The Cardiff City Council is on record as being of the view that the availability of land within its boundaries is sufficient to meet its needs and is not a constraint affecting the future economic welfare of Cardiff as a capital or in any way a constraint on it having appropriate status within Europe. The Government remain convinced therefore that the development of Cardiff will not be restricted in the way suggested on account simply of the fact that it will not have within its boundaries a population of some 400,000, which would have the effect of making it by far the largest of the authorities proposed for Wales.
Some of the suggestions made seem to ignore the
1708
facts of everyday life; for example, the idea—my noble friend Lord Kenyon mentioned it—that when these boundaries are drawn on the map they will somehow or other prevent people crossing them in the course of their business. The noble Lord, Lord Brooks, suggested that the proposal was destroying the vital link to the airport. Nothing will happen which will prevent people travelling from Cardiff to the airport and using it in a proper way. There is nothing in these proposals which should put a restraint on the development potential of the area. What one wants to see of course is economic prosperity in the area and further development, but that will not be restrained by these proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned the views of the leaders of Cardiff City Council and of the Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council. Since the Committee stage I, like the noble Lord, have received a joint letter which reaffirms their support for the proposals in the Bill. I say to your Lordships that when we are considering this matter we really must bear in mind the very strongly held views of those leaders of the two elected councils for that area.
The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, asked: what are the kinds of principles which the Government have had in mind in putting forward the proposals for local government for Wales? These general principles have been set out in the White Paper at paragraph 3.1. The first principle is said to be,
"local authority boundaries should, as far as possible, reflect and strengthen existing community loyalties; and"
the second principle—
"local public services should be of high quality, and delivered efficiently, economically and effectively".
Those are the principles which have been invoked in looking at the reorganisation and which have been borne in mind in connection with the proposal for Cardiff. We believe that we are indeed responding to the sense of community both in Cardiff and in the Vale of Glamorgan. We also believe that the authorities proposed would be of an appropriate size and so on, to be able to develop and deliver services of a high quality. The Government remain satisfied that the proposals in the Bill are the best for both the communities and in those circumstances I ask your Lordships to reject the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: My Lords, I note that during the various stages of the progress of this Bill the Government have been able to find only one Member of your Lordships' House to support it. Under those circumstances I must test the opinion of the House.
4.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 130.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L. [Teller.]

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ardwick, L.

Chapple, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Bottomley, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Cudlipp, L.

1709

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Kilbracken,

Diamond, L.

Lawrence, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Falkender, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B. [Teller.]

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Foot, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Milverton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Molloy, L.

Harrowby, E.

Mulley, L.

Healey, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Rea, L.

Hooson, L.

Serota, B.

Howell, L.

Stallard, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stoddart of Swindon,

Hunt, L.

L. Strabolgi, L.

Hylton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jay, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jeger, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

White, B.

Kagan, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Aldington, L.

Harlech, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Hayter, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Henley, L.

Alport, L.

Hooper, B.

Annaly, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Howe, E.

Arran, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Kenyon, L.

Astor, V.

Killearn, L.

Bauer, L.

Knollys, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Beloff, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Birdwood, L.

Layton, L.

Blatch, B.

Leigh, L.

Blyth, L.

Long, V.

Boardman, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lyell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

Brigstocke, B.

Chancellor.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Burnham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Butterworth, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cadman, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caithness, E.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Carnock, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Morris, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Mottistone, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Munster, E.

Cockfield, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Norfolk, D.

Courtown, E.

Norrie, L.

Cranborne, V.

Onslow, E.

Cranworth, L.

Orkney, E.

Croham, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Darnley, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Davidson, V.

Pender, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Pike, B.

Downshire, M.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elles, B.

Pym, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elton, L.

Rennell, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Renwick, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Romney, E.

Gainford, L.

Seccombe, B.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Selborne, E.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Gisborough, L.

Sharples, B.

Goold, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

1710

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Stewartby, L.

Trumpington, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Vivian, L.

Strange, B.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Strathclyde, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Westbury, L.

[Teller.]

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Swansea, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Sarajevo
4.21 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should now like to repeat a Statement that is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Sarajevo.
"In the senseless atrocities last week some 70 civilians were killed. These deaths showed again how urgent it is to end this war.
"It will not end by military victory. A lasting settlement cannot be imposed. It can only be achieved by agreement between the parties. The Government repeat their full support for the efforts of Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg. We welcome recent indications that the United States wants to take a more forward part in the peace process.
"Meanwhile, every sane person wants to see an end to the bombardment of Sarajevo. As honourable Members will be aware, the UN Secretary-General wrote to his NATO counterpart on 6th February asking the North Atlantic Council to authorise its military command to launch air strikes on request from the UN. Mr. Boutros Ghali recalled NATO's readiness, following its decisions last August and reaffirmed at the NATO Summit in January, to carry out air strikes to protect UNPROFOR and to prevent the strangulation of Sarajevo.
"NATO Ambassadors met yesterday in the North Atlantic Council. They reaffirmed NATO's support for a negotiated settlement of the conflict in Bosnia, agreed by all parties. They commended the UN negotiating efforts towards securing the demilitarisa-tion of Sarajevo. In support of these efforts, they agreed on three main points: first, with immediate effect, they accepted the UN Secretary-General's request to be prepared to launch air strikes, at UN initiative and in co-ordination with UNPROFOR, against artillery or mortar positions which UNPROFOR determines are responsible for attacks against civilian targets in Sarajevo; secondly, the North Atlantic Council called on the parties to respect a ceasefire around Sarajevo. The Bosnian Serbs were called on to withdraw all heavy weapons from within 20 kilometres of the city, excluding an area within two kilometres of the centre of the Bosnian Serb capital of Pale, or to place their heavy weapons under UNPROFOR control. The Bosnian Government were called on to place their heavy weapons in the same area under UN control and to

1711
refrain from attacks within the city; thirdly, they decided that all heavy weapons, along with their direct and essential military support, found within 20 kilometres of Sarajevo and not under UN control after 10 days from 2400 GMT today, 10th February, would be subject to NATO air strikes. These air strikes would be conducted in close co-ordination with the UN Secretary-General.
"HMG fully support these decisions. We helped to ensure that they were discussed and taken in NATO rather than any other forum, in the light of professional military advice. The NATO Council will be kept fully informed of all developments, day by day, and will review yesterday's decision at the latest on 2nd March.
"We were clear that any strategy for the use of force should be forward looking.
"There was no support in the North Atlantic Council for action which was simply punitive.
"We have since last August been prepared to see air power used, if necessary and practicable, to back the UN in carrying out its mandate. The UN, with NATO support, is taking an increasingly firm position: pressing ahead with the rotation of troops in Srebrenica; pressing for Tuzla Airport to reopen; confronting obstacles to road convoys; and warning off the Croatian regular army from entering the war on the side of the Bosnian Croats.
"The North Atlantic Council decision forms part of this pattern, specifically aimed at improving the situation in Sarajevo, helping the UN to fulfil its mandate and contributing to pressure on the parties to end the war.
"We look to the parties, particularly the Bosnian Serbs, to respond. Their aims cannot be achieved on the battlefield, nor by killing and mutilating civilians. They should end the siege of Sarajevo and hand it over to the UN administration. Such an agreement would mark a real step towards peaceful settlement.
"If the Bosnia Serbs do not so respond, they are now in no doubt of the action which NATO and the UN will take.
"No-one would pretend that this was an easy decision. The risks are clear; so are the advantages if it succeeds. It is the job of governments to test and retest options of this kind, and decide where the British interest lies. There is a strong British interest in maintaining the strength and solidarity of NATO. In Bosnia our interest lies in preventing the war from spreading, in helping forward the work for a peace settlement, and in relieving the suffering of the Bosnian people. We judge that these interests are best sustained by supporting the NATO decision and working for its success."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.27 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which we welcome. We believe that the right decision was reached in the NATO Council yesterday in response to the UN Secretary-General's request to issue an
1712
ultimatum to the Bosnian Serbs, backed by the intention to use air power if they fail to observe it. It had become vital for the international community to take action to end the wanton and cowardly slaughter of unarmed civilians in Sarajevo, including elderly people and children. People all over the world were deeply shocked by the events in Sarajevo last weekend. It is estimated that there have been some 10,000 deaths in Sarajevo alone since the war began.
Perhaps I may remind the House that the Labour Party called for an ultimatum to the Bosnian Serbs, backed by the threat of air strikes, as long ago as April of last year. I have to add that action earlier might have saved some of those lives. I was also a little surprised to hear in the Statement that the Government had been prepared to use air power since last August. I was not aware of that. We also welcome yesterday's decision because we have always supported UN Resolution 424, which was passed to create safe areas and to enable the United Nations to deliver humanitarian aid. To that end, it is vital to reopen Tuzla Airport. I wonder if the Minister can tell the House what, if any, decisions were taken about that at the NATO Council yesterday other than, as is stated in the Statement, to press for its reopening.
We also welcome the cease-fire which has, I understand, been negotiated by the UN commander on the ground, Lieutenant-General Rose, and hope that that cease-fire, along with the ultimatum, will be the basis for the beginning of more successful negotiations for a peaceful end to the war than we have seen so far.
Yesterday's ultimatum should also help to restore the credibility of the United Nations and NATO, which had been undermined for some time by the failure to implement their resolutions so that threats became little more than empty gestures. Will the Minister tell the House what steps will be taken to ensure a more permanent demilitarisation of Sarajevo should the Bosnian Serbs accept the ultimatum and withdraw within the 10 days allowed? Will she also comment on reports that NATO is ready to unleash air strikes on heavy weapons, shelling civilians in Sarajevo, even before the 10-day deadline for the withdrawal beyond the 20 kilometre zone?
We support the decision to allow a period of 10 days before the deadline is reached because it gives the Bosnian Serbs ample time to withdraw. There can be no excuses. It also allows time for our own troops on the ground to be reorganised and redeployed in the event of a Serb refusal to observe the ultimatum—at least, I believe that to be the case. Will the Minister reassure the House on that point?
We strongly agree with what was said by the Minister at the end of the Statement. Of course, these decisions are not easy. On the contrary, they are very difficult and we are all well aware of the risks. But the suffering of the Bosnian people has been both terrible in its intensity and protracted in its length. I reiterate that we must hope that the ultimatum will lead eventually to a lasting negotiated peace.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by her right

1713
honourable friend in another place. I congratulate the Government on taking action at last. I also congratulate General Sir Michael Rose on successfully —or so it would seem—negotiating a ceasefire, which equally was achieved by taking a tough posture in the whole business. It would have been better if the decision had been taken much earlier; if we had taken the advice of the French, which we have taken at last, and the advice of my right honourable friend the Leader of the Liberal Democrats 18 months or more ago. It will now be much harder and the risks will be much greater.
I have three questions to which I should like answers. First, is the equipment for detecting artillery and mortar fire available to our troops in sufficient quantities? In the circumstances, that is a matter of some importance. Secondly, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that the comment about Tuzla is weaker than others in the Statement. It merely states:
"pressing for Tuzla Airport to reopen".
That is an absolutely crucial step in helping the Bosnian Government, which is what it is, and I wish to know what steps are being taken to open the airport and when they will be taken.
Thirdly, I take it that care is being taken to protect the aid convoys in the new situation. I am grateful that we shall be able to discuss all these issues more fully on Monday when there will be more time. In my view, the debate is long overdue.
4.34 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for her positive initial response. I do not believe that any Member of this House or another place would have wanted us to take precipitate action. It would have been foolish had the action not been taken unanimously.
Many of us who have been deeply concerned with the detail of what has been happening in Bosnia for almost two years have been aware that we would support air power provided that it would support and not undermine the aid effort and the peace process. It is a matter of difficulty in deciding that.
Together with our NATO allies, we decided that this shelling of Sarajevo demands the strongest support. The decision passes the test that it will do more good than harm. I say to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that United Kingdom support for our air power is not new. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister suggested it to President Clinton last May. The concept became part of UNHCR 836 on safe areas. NATO close air support for UNPROFOR has been available since June last year. The UK fully supported NATO's decisions on air strikes which were made last August. The Prime Minister's initiative, with Prime Minister Balladur of France, led to the NATO summit decision in January on the readiness to use air power in Srebrenica and Tuzla. We have always said that air power is not an end in itself and on that the NATO allies agree. But air power can be part of the strategy to improve the situation and the prospects for peace. We believe and hope that that will happen.
I was asked about the work undertaken by General Rose. We warmly welcome the agreement that he
1714
achieved to establish a ceasefire in Sarajevo from today to be followed by a withdrawal of heavy weapons and placing them under UN command. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, asked whether there could be air strikes before the 10-day deadline. If artillery is judged by UNPROFOR to be responsible for the shelling of civilian targets, it could be used. However, we hope that the ceasefire will be successful because no one wants to start opening up unless it is really necessary. We wait to see the progress that is so badly needed for the people of Sarajevo. I believe that the attempts made by General Rose to secure the demilitarisation of Sarajevo and the agreement to place the city under UN administration, as envisaged in the European Union action plan, are a major step forward. That will be the beginning of the more permanent demilitarisation, which the noble Baroness asked about, and on which we shall work with all speed.
I fully agree with her about the suffering of the people. We sincerely hope that we shall be able to continue to relieve that suffering. The noble Baroness spoke of some 10,000 deaths in the Sarajevo area. I must put that figure against the many hundreds of thousands of lives that have been saved as a result of the aid that has gone in there, in particular during the winter periods.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, asked me about the safety of those in the forces and of aid workers. We have plans for their protection and reinforcement if necessary. They are our paramount concern. Last year the Defence Secretary announced that other capabilities would be made available as a contingency to draw on should that be necessary. That of course includes the already available NATO close air support. I am sure that the House will understand that I cannot give further details.
The noble Lord also asked me about the detection equipment being available in sufficient quantities. Last year the Defence Secretary announced that that would be so. However, I shall not engage in further detail on that matter, which I hope the noble Lord will understand.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked about Tuzla Airport. That is an issue for which I have been trying to obtain support for a long time. Pressure is being exerted at this very moment. The United Nations and the NATO military commanders in theatre are co-ordinating the plans, including the use of air power, if the Serbs will not co-operate. We intend to see not only that Tuzla Airport is opened but that it is kept open. In line with the other remarks that I have made, I am sure that the House will understand that I do not wish to reveal the detail of that. Although this is a very serious matter, we can view the examples that are being set by General Rose and the whole command structure as extremely hopeful for the future. We all hope that it will bring peace to the people of Bosnia and Sarajevo.
4.40 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that many people will be relieved about what appears to be the political target of the operation; namely, the demilitarisation of Sarajevo? But is my noble friend aware that, even if the Serbs withdraw their

1715
heavy weapons to 20 kilometres, the demilitarisation of Sarajevo will be extremely difficult to accomplish and secure? The demilitarisation of other places may need to follow. All that will involve the deployment of more, I dare to call them, first-class quality troops, without naming names. Is my noble friend aware further that we are not dealing with a civil war which has only three parties but one which has about 20 sub-plots all over the place? It will be a lot easier to get in than to get out. However, I am sure that my noble friend will accept that many of us are greatly relieved by the tone of her Statement, while crossing our fingers very tightly and hoping for success.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. He is absolutely right that the demilitarisation of Sarajevo will be difficult to secure, but it will be for the UNPROFOR commanders on the ground to decide the dispositions. That is a substantial task and there may be scope for redeploying existing UNPROFOR forces. At present we have no plans to provide additional UK forces, but we shall continue to support the aid effort through the winter and we shall wish to consult closely with our fellow troop contributors in taking future decisions. My noble friend reiterates something that I have said many times; that this civil war is full of sub-plots, apart from the three warring parties. That is why it has been so difficult to bring about a peace.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, we add our congratulations to those expressed by the Minister on the professional and resolute bearing of General Rose and the troops associated with him. Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness two short questions. In view of the likelihood that the convoys may be put at risk by the action that Western governments have now decided to take, and which we very much welcome, can the Minister give any indication of the state of current negotiations about Tuzla airport, because were that airport open, supplies could come in by air rather than overland?
Secondly, will the Minister comment on the resistance shown by the Bosnian Government—and it is to the point that one of the so-called warring parties is an independent internationally recognised government and not a guerilla force—and say whether one of their most fundamental problems can be solved; that is, access to safe and secure sea ports for their territories so that they would be viable if there were to be a peace settlement?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. Nobody is more aware than I of the risks that our convoy drivers, mechanics, electricians and mining engineers are taking all the time. I assure her that we have taken action to ensure that the best possible care is taken of the ODA civilians and the military who are involved in delivery.
We shall be able to open Tuzla airport only when it has been secured sufficiently from Serb artillery. Various preparations must be made before that can happen. They are taking place at this time.
1716
The noble Baroness spoke also about resistance by the Bosnian Government which would be lessened by access to the sea. That has always been part of the negotiating effort of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and Mr. Stoltenberg. That will continue because peace efforts must continue in parallel with all the other measures that are being taken to try to stop the fighting.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I think it was a Frenchman who said, "Gouverner, c'est choisir". This particular operation has produced more options for choice than it is possible to forbear. We must give Her Majesty's Government our maximum support and recognise the immense difficulties which they face.
My noble friend says that one of the reasons for the operation was to prevent the strangulation of Sarajevo. By its very nature, that is an action on behalf of the legitimate Government of Bosnia. According to John Simpson in this week's Spectator, the French Foreign Legion are patrolling the airport to make sure that people do not go into or out of Sarajevo. In effect, that is the United Nations helping the Serbs in their siege of Sarajevo.
Furthermore, large quantities of fuel and rations are reaching the Serbs because of attacks on the convoys which are going in. It seems to me that the Government have now come down on the side of the Bosnian Government. What happens if air strikes are called for and the Serbs hide their guns and go on fighting? Having taken into account all those factors, knowing how difficult it is to choose and knowing the horrendous problems which Her Majesty's Government and the United Nations are facing, what will be the next step in the event of the Serbs not responding to the ultimatum? I am trying to be helpful and not difficult.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his initial words of support. I should make it absolutely clear to your Lordships that the British Government, NATO and the UN are not taking sides. We are trying to bring to an end the fighting in the region. We are trying to make sure that it is not extended.
I believe that in General Rose we have a commander who has moved decisively in the very early days as regards Sarajevo. I for one would not wish to second-guess him in connection with some of the points which my noble friend has made. It is perfectly true, as it has been in every conflict in the Balkans, that there are hidden guns and weaponry. But the heavy artillery has done the most damage. If attempts can succeed to still that heavy artillery and have it withdrawn beyond the 20-kilometre range, it will be easier to deal with other hidden weaponry. That is exactly what the UNPROFOR troops will be asked to do.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there are grave misgivings across the political spectrum about the wisdom of this course and the risks that accompany it? There are serious anxieties about what will happen if the Serbs do not respond to the ultimatum. When you enter a situation, it is always as well to know exactly how you can get out

1717
of it. Have the Government and NATO considered what will happen if the Serbs defy the ultimatum and keep their guns where they are?
Secondly, what has changed since last weekend when the Foreign Secretary—and he has done it before—warned of the danger to our troops of an escalation of action, including air strikes? What has happened to his view that we must not listen to the "must do something" brigade? I hope that we are not being pressurised against our will into a dangerous situation which could put our troops at risk.
Finally, does the Minister have any news of the latest Russian reaction? Are the Russians calling for a special meeting of the United Nations? Further, what will happen if they use their veto on the decision of the United Nations to call for NATO to make air strikes? Would that not bring about a very serious situation which may lead to a widening of the conflict?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that I am aware of the many different views as regards the decisions that have now been taken by the NATO Council, and of the risks involved. Indeed, no one in this House has been more closely associated with what has been going on than I have over the past few months.
However, the answer to the noble Lord's question must be that if the Serbs do not respond to the ultimatum, then the heavy weaponry will be taken out. The decision that we have taken is that if, after 10 days, heavy weapons of any of the parties are found within the 20 kilometre zone (except within 2 kilometres of Pale) and not controlled by UNPROFOR, they will be subject to NATO air strikes. Whether or not the air strikes take place is a matter for the parties; in particular, it is up to the Bosnian Serbs. NATO has issued a clear warning. If that warning is not heeded, it has authorised the use of air power in co-ordination with the UN.
The noble Lord also asked me whether I could assure him that we had not been pressurised into such action against our will. Of course we have not. As I said in answer to an earlier question, it is, and has always been, a narrow balance. We believe that the decision we have now taken is right because we understand that it was the Bosnian Serbs who caused some 70 deaths at the weekend.
The noble Lord also asked me about Russian objections. I can tell him that the Security Council will discuss Bosnia tomorrow. There is no doubt that the action agreed by NATO falls within the framework already authorised by Security Council Resolutions 824, 836 and 844. There is no need for a new resolution and, therefore, there is nothing for the Russians to veto. Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will be discussing the matter with President Yeltsin and Mr. Kozyrev during their visit to Moscow. I believe that the foundations for those talks augur well for the decisions that will be taken. The change since the weekend is due to the action taken by General Rose which has shown the possibility of a way forward; but it needs backing up. That is exactly what the NATO decision has done.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I welcome the general tone of the Statement. However, I noted that it spoke of
1718
warning off the Croatian regular army. Is there not already evidence to suggest that units of that army are in Bosnia and may indeed be connected with the fighting in Mostar? Should not a much stronger and firmer line be taken with the Croatians?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe it is possible that the firmer line for which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, backed by many of us, has been calling for a long while will be taken in Croatia. However, the action that we are now discussing concerns Sarajevo. I have also been asked about Tuzla. We note what the noble Lord has said. His remarks will be acted upon.
Lord Harlech: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say what protection can be offered to volunteer aid workers who go to Bosnia in the interests of humanitarianism but who do not in fact legitimise, so to speak, their arrival through the Foreign Office, UNHCR or, indeed, the armies that are in operation in the field?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for asking that question. I advise any volunteer aid worker who is thinking of going to Bosnia not to do so. During the past two years, there have been many incidents where people have gone there not fully prepared; or, sometimes, even when fully prepared, they have not been adequately protected. That has created difficulties for those people and has also led to the involvement of troops who are needed to protect not only the ordinary aid convoys but also other troops. It has meant that troops have been diverted from the duties that they were supposed to be carrying out. I implore volunteers to stay away. When the peace is secured, there will then be plenty for the volunteers to do: but not now.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, the Minister will know my grave reservations as regards this action, which has been talked about for a long time. There is no need for me to repeat my views. However, the presence of General Rose, whose work in the SAS means that he knows a great deal about action on the ground, makes it a good deal better from my point of view.
I have one question for the Minister which arises from the answer that she gave to my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon. The noble Baroness very confidently said that if the Bosnian Serbs take no notice, the aircraft from Germany, America, France and Britain will take out the guns and the mortars. Is it the advice of General Rose that that can be done?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am not at liberty to disclose exactly how and where things will be done. However, that is the general outline of what would be done. There will be no indiscriminate bombing. The air strikes will be strictly limited to specific circumstances and targets as set out in the NATO decision. The objective is to support a ceasefire. The Secretary General must not only authorise the first use of the air strikes but, also, the strikes will only be launched in agreement with UNPROFOR—that means UNPROFOR commanders on the ground. I believe that answers the noble Lord's question.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister a question which is perhaps less academic than it at first sounds. I have heard that there is to be demilitarisation of the zone as a result of an agreement negotiated by General Rose. I have also heard that there is to be a withdrawal or neutralisation of heavy weapons as a result of an ultimatum agreed by the United Nations and NATO. Is it the case that the ultimatum produced the agreement or has the ultimatum been put in place to prevent the agreement breaking down? In other words, was the agreement arrived at by negotiation and now locked in place by force, or is it something that has been arrived at reluctantly in the face of the threat of force?
I have a further question that I am not sure my noble friend will want to answer. I understand that nowadays, heavy weapons can deliver projectiles over a distance of more than 22 kilometres. What is it intended to do if the bombardment of Sarajevo continues at a greater range?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is right; I shall not answer his second question at the present time. However, as regards his first question, I must tell him that the efforts to establish the ceasefire were tied in with the wish to secure a withdrawal of the heavy weapons and have them placed under UN control. Certainly, the NATO decision backs that up. I can assure my noble friend that General Rose has not been acting independently of Ministers and Governments. We are moving to try to secure a ceasefire. I sincerely hope that we shall succeed.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I was somewhat surprised to hear her answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, on the ability of our forces to locate heavy artillery? In a news report shortly after the incident in Sarajevo, Brigadier Ritchie told the reporter that we did not have the artillery-locating equipment to locate the fire from heavy artillery pieces and large mortars. Is the equipment being supplied so that our troops can be properly protected? I ask that question because, nowadays, heavy artillery can be moved quite easily in a short space of time from one position to another. It is useless if we do not know the location of such weaponry.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that General Ritchie was referring to mortar-locating radar, the purpose of which is to engage warring factions. That device has not been used because that has not been our purpose. However, because the security of UK forces is paramount, the Secretary of State for Defence will ensure that our forces will have the equipment that they need.

Local Government (Wales) Bill [H.L.]
5 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 1.
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 48, line 39, at end insert:
1720
("Montgomeryshire Sir Drefaldwyn The district of Montgomeryshire together with (from the district of Glyndwr) the communities of Llanrhaeadr-ym-Mochnant, Llansilin and Llangedwyn.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was reassured when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in replying to the previous debate emphasised the importance that the Government attached to the views of the community councils in the area immediately surrounding Cardiff, in particular those of the Vale of Glamorgan. He reminded us of the principles that are set out in the White Paper whereby the Government would seek to provide a unit of local government which accorded with the traditional loyalty of the people in that area. At this time, those principles and the weighting in favour of the views of the localities should also be exercised in favour of Montgomeryshire, Brecon and Radnor.
The noble and learned Lord should be aware that not a single community council in Montgomeryshire is in favour of a unitary authority for Mid Wales, or Powys, as it is proposed by amendment to call it. Historically, Brecon and Radnor have no claim to be part of Powys, but I agree that as a name Powys is a more acceptable description than Mid Wales.
Noble Lords will know that I am totally convinced that the proposal for a Mid Wales unitary authority is wrong and totally unjustified. I have spoken on this subject during our debate on the Queen's Speech, at Second Reading and at Committee stage. I shall not repeat my arguments save to summarise them in this way. Historically, all the arguments are in favour of such a proposal. In terms of ancient history, Montgomeryshire was a Tudor creation and prior to that was part of the old Kingdom of Powys. The modern history of Montgomeryshire is that it had a very successful county council and it was particularly famous for its education system. From 1974 it has been a very successful district council.
Secondly, I should like to refer to the geography and communications argument. I can sum up the matter by quoting a letter that was circulated by the Director of Education for Powys, dated 19th January 1994. It was addressed to every school governor in Powys and invited them to a government training session at Newtown High School. The last paragraph, which was written entirely unsuspectingly, without knowledge that it might be quoted in this debate, reads as follows:
"This letter is being circulated to all Powys Governing Bodies although it is appreciated that the distance might be too great for some to attend".
Newtown is no further from the southernmost part of Powys in South Breconshire than Llandindrod Wells is from the most north-eastern or north-western part of Montgomery. Under the Government's proposal people will be expected to make that journey every day, or every time that they are required to attend the new Unitary Council.
The third matter concerns the attitude of and the promise that was made by the Secretary of State. In 1991 when the consultation paper was issued he was in favour of a Montgomeryshire unitary authority.

1721
Consultations took place and in 1992 he announced that he was in favour of that unitary authority. The somersault between 1992 and 1993 is still unexplained. A promise of a Montgomeryshire unitary authority was made to the Conservative meeting at Llanfechain in Montgomeryshire during the election campaign.
The fourth argument is that the national opinion poll that was taken in Montgomeryshire showed that 76 per cent. of the people were in favour of a Montgomeryshire unitary authority—what price democracy, what price the attention paid to the views of local people?
The campaign for Montgomeryshire has all-party support. It has been totally supported by the local Conservative Association. I am informed by a very prominent Conservative who is on my committee, Mr. Lesley Morgan, that the area committee for the Conservative Party in Wales was overwhelmingly, with one dissentient, in favour of a Montgomeryshire unitary authority.
I should now like to comment on the arguments that were advanced by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in the previous debate when he stated that there were serious doubts about the ability of smaller authorities to manage their resources. There were no grounds for that statement. An analysis has been made from models drawn up by the Welsh district councils and it has been checked by Touche Ross. It indicated that the probable difference between two unitary authorities in Powys, one based in Montgomery and the other in Brecon and Radnor, was eight senior officers.
That exercise was relied upon greatly by the Welsh Office, which accepted it for many purposes. One ought to remember, too, that the Powys unitary authority that was then being considered preceded any proposals for the area committees that are now proposed in Clauses 26 and 27. If those area committees are to mean anything and if they are to be manned properly, the number of senior officers will have to be very much larger.
I conclude that the two-authority unitary structure without area committees will be cheaper than one unitary authority structure for the whole of Powys with area committees.
The Secretary of State and the noble and learned Lord have referred to the Mid Wales population problem. However population is only a factor in considering the right unit for a unitary authority, it is not "the" factor. It has to be balanced against other factors and in the case of Mid Wales, a more important factor is the nature of the area and communications.
A question was raised as to the ability of a smaller authority to attract staff of calibre. In Montgomeryshire experience has proved that it is possible to attract very good quality staff. They are often attracted at a young age to chief officer posts in small authorities such as Montgomeryshire. I indicated previously that three successive directors of education in Montgomeryshire have gone on to greater and larger things. They served much of their creative life in Montgomeryshire and left a great legacy behind them. People are attracted there by the quality of life which has less hassle. For ambitious people, as no doubt those three people were, it is a stepping stone, having first obtained a proven record in a smaller authority.
It has been stated that there is a need for joint arrangements and that the smaller the authority the greater the need for such arrangements. Joint arrangement is related not to the geographical size but to the problems that arise from, for example, strategic arrangements for traffic, land use, refuse disposal, economic development, transportation etc. I suspect that in areas like Cardiff, for example or Torfaen, because of their very nature it is much more important to have cross-boundary arrangements than it is in a large rural area like Montgomeryshire.
The findings of the structures group, which were relied on considerably in previous debates, did not as a whole argue against smaller authorities. Of course the county chief executives who serve on that structures group did so, but for a specific purpose. They wanted to retain many of the very large county councils. The arguments on the structures group were rejected by the Government, or the Bill would not be before us today in this form. Therefore to rely on its arguments for ammunition against Montgomeryshire is nonsense.
I should like to remind the noble and learned Lord of the recent Rowntree report on the impact of population size on local authority costs and effectiveness. That report concluded that:
"It would not be possible to conclude that there is a 'right' size of authority … for a particular service or services".
That must be right. It depends on a number of factors —the loyalties of local people, what they feel about local government and what they associate with it, as well as geographical conditions. All those factors have to be borne in mind when deciding on the right unit of local government.
There is one aspect which concerns me particularly and which I know has caused a great deal of anxiety and anguish in my part of the country. Why on earth did the Government change their mind between 1992 and 1993? They have not published any report as a basis for that change. They have not given us any proper explanation. It is time that they did so. What caused the Secretary of State for Wales to make statements in 1991, to repeat the same statements, after consultation, in 1992 and yet to change his mind in 1993 and announce that there would not be a unitary authority for Montgomeryshire?
There is a widely held suspicion, which is even shared by Conservative supporters in Wales, that it was entirely a political decision connected with what Mr. Redwood said last week when he visited Radnorshire. He said that he was very conscious of the sensitivities of Radnorshire. The local MP has said the same. I remind them that there are sensitivities in Breconshire as well as in Radnorshire, and the same applies to Montgomeryshire.
I share the view, although I recognise that it is not widely held in your Lordships' House, that even an authority as small as Radnorshire is quite capable of providing acceptable standards of local government as a unitary authority. I remind your Lordships that there are unitary authorities in Scotland with smaller populations than Radnorshire, and which cover as great an area, which have successfully acted as unitary authorities for many years.
I believe that it is necessary to look at the whole question again. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has come to the subject fresh from distant Scotland. We have been very impressed by the courtesy and care which he has shown in dealing with our queries. I feel that he understands our concerns far more than the Secretary of State. From the latter's reactions it appears that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has a deeper understanding and appreciation of our feelings on this issue than the Secretary of State himself.
The whole of an ancient county is pretty well united in the view that it should be a unitary authority. It is the only part of Mid Wales which is steadily growing in population. It has successful international businesses which were born and developed in the area. Because of its geography and history it has little connection with the former counties to its south. Why on earth then have the Government taken the view that they have? It is time that they indicated their reasons to the House and set out in detail their thought processes in reaching that conclusion. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I should like to add a few words in support of the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. I take it that he was speaking to Amendment No. 5 as well as to Amendment No. 4.
The Government seem to have got it into their heads that big is beautiful. I should like to express my disagreement with that view. Powys is much too large as it stands. It covers a quarter of Wales. As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, pointed out, it covers an area which is as great from north to south as the distance from Bristol to London.
I wish to hark back to my remarks at Committee stage when I made that very point. Local government should be local. It depends on the councillors having an intimate knowledge of the needs of the people they represent. They should have intimate local knowledge. Montgomery can easily stand on its own as a viable unitary authority. Brecon and Radnor could also form a viable unitary authority.
I should like to draw attention to a misprint on the Marshalled List. Brycheiniog is printed as two words and should be one. Perhaps my noble and learned friend could take note of that.
I believe that Brecon and Radnor would make a much more manageable unit, and Montgomery should stand on its own feet. Small is beautiful.
Lord Moran: My Lords, the amendment which we are considering is, as I see it, no different in substance from that which we debated at Committee stage, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kenyon, and rejected by your Lordships' House. The present amendment has been moved with eloquence by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. I believe that this is the fourth time that the noble Lord has put the case for a unitary authority in Montgomeryshire. I admire his determination and persistence. But I believe that what he urges us to accept is still unsatisfactory, because to meet the
1724
aspirations of Montgomeryshire it would be necessary, as I sought to explain at Committee stage, to override the wishes of the people of Radnorshire.
I have no doubt that the majority of people in Radnorshire do not want to be put together with Breconshire, which has a population that is nearly twice as large. They feel that they would be swallowed up. I was glad that when he summed up at Committee stage the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, said that the Government believed that a Breconshire and Radnorshire unitary authority would not meet the best interests or the wishes of residents of the areas, particularly the residents of Radnorshire. I believe that the Government are right to take account of those wishes and not to thrust them aside.
There are also practical reasons against having two or three small unitary authorities. As I sought also to explain at Committee stage, they are all too small for the services that local authorities are required today to provide for their populations. There is also the danger that if there were two or three authorities in Mid Wales they would be compelled to make joint arrangements with large authorities outside the area of Mid Wales, which would be unsatisfactory.
I am convinced that a single unitary authority in Powys would devolve local matters to local decisions by the shire committees. The same members would serve on those committees as would serve on the main council, and they would all come from Breconshire, Radnorshire or Montgomeryshire, as might be the case. I repeat my hope that if we have a single authority for Mid Wales—whatever it may be called—there should be the maximum degree of devolution to the shire committees. I believe that that is important. I am convinced that Powys would do that. I am also impressed by the degree of support among the business community and many others for retaining a single unitary authority for Mid Wales.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord's arguments on the structure of Mid Wales. I deployed some of the arguments with regard to Merioneth at Committee stage. I shall not repeat them. I believe that the arguments which I then put forward still apply with regard to Amendment No. 4 involving Montgomeryshire—or Sir Drefaldwyn, if I may treat both languages on a basis of equality.
The noble Lord referred to Powys decentralising to the constituent shires. It is not just a matter for Powys. The Welsh Office and the Secretary of State will approve all the decentralisation schemes, and similarly where a case is made out for joint working. As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and I have argued previously, it is possible to make out a case for a strong regional authority serving Mid Wales as a joint authority rather than a principal council, for strategic regional purposes. That authority would interrelate with the work of the development board, tourism council and the other regional bodies which already exist for Mid Wales.
However, the decision about joint working rests finally with the Secretary of State. Similarly, the establishment of joint authorities is again a matter to be decided by the Secretary of State. With regard to

1725
Montgomeryshire, I wish to ask the question that I posed with regard to Merioneth when we debated a similar issue in Committee. The Secretary of State and the Welsh Office determine the appropriate areas and functions for all the units. Let us not pretend that we are dealing with a simple unitary authority structure in the Bill. We are dealing with what will be a complex multi-layered system of local government. We shall have area committees, joint working arrangements, joint boards, principal councils, and community councils to which we shall refer later. If we have that structure, what is the difference between the Secretary of State overseeing the functions of a unitary authority based on Montgomeryshire—as the Bill provides—and an area committee based on Montgomeryshire? It is for the Welsh Office to determine in the final instance the appropriate function to be carried out, and at what level.
When I considered at the final stage the detailed paper on the powers of area committees, I was not impressed with the amount of decentralisation that the department appears to allow. I believe that we are still right in arguing for a series of smaller unitary authorities that will be able to participate in joint working arrangements under the umbrella of the Welsh Office —at present the Secretary of State, but one day, sooner rather than later, under the umbrella of an elected Welsh assembly.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, at an earlier stage, I referred to the fact that any government which tackles local government reform takes a great risk. The Labour Party thought about tackling it and wisely did nothing. In our wisdom, between 1970 and 1974 the Government decided to come forward with a solution. Most of what we did then was right, but some of it was wrong. The aspects that were wrong related to Dyfed and North West Wales—Anglesey.
So far as concerns Mid Wales—Powys as we now call it—we were right. The past 22 years have shown that we were indeed right because that council has worked extremely well. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and the way in which he defended the interests of his supporters in Montgomery. I should not like to be on the other side of a court arguing the toss with him. However, the fact remains that if a system has worked well, and if there is a measure of support for what the Government now propose, I hope that the Government will not change their minds and will continue to keep a unitary authority in Mid Wales which they will call Powys.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I feel very torn in loyalties and persuasions in the light of the discussions. On the one hand, I am one who believes that over the years Powys in its enlarged state has done a good job. I should not have been sorry if no change had been made. I also believe that in its proposed reduced state it will do, if anything, a better job. Therefore my personal inclination is to agree with the Government. I hope that the area will be called Powys and not Mid Wales.
On the other hand, I have a great feeling of respect and loyalty to my noble friend in his contention that Montgomery should have its own status as the local authority. However, if that is so—and without it having
1726
been formally moved I speak now to Amendment No. 5 —I should feel very bad indeed in supporting Montgomery, while Radnorshire and Breconshire are lumped together. I believe that that would be an unhappy and difficult liaison. In arranging that pairing, Radnorshire, with its smaller population and lesser influence, would probably lose something to Breconshire. That would be a great pity.
My experience of Radnorshire over many years is that it is now perfectly capable—it may not have been so—of assuming the status of a unitary authority. I merely express to your Lordships my state of indecision, with a mild preference for the Government's proposal for Mid Wales. I hope that that area will be called Powys. However, if my noble friend's Amendment No. 5 is moved, I shall support it. In that case I would not support the lumping together of Breconshire and Radnorshire.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, surely the same arguments apply to the unity of Breconshire and Radnorshire as those advanced by the Government in regard to the larger authority of Powys. If it is argued that Montgomeryshire can still have many of the powers delegated to an area committee, the same can be true of Radnorshire. It would not be overwhelmed by Breconshire, as my noble friend feared, because there are already provisions in the Bill for many functions to be dealt with at a lower level. Radnorshire could assume as many of those functions as it was fit to carry out.
That is the answer that I would put to the people in Radnorshire who are anxious about the proposal in my noble friend's amendment that they should be lumped in with Breconshire. The same provisions apply to them on devolution as would apply from the Government's side for devolution from the unitary authority of Powys to the three constituent counties that that would include.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Kenyon: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, pointed out, I moved this amendment at Committee stage and I am pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, at Report stage. When we discussed the amendment at Committee stage, my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate expressed concern that the division into smaller authorities would increase the number and complexity of joint arrangements. True, it would increase the number, though I have no reason to believe that it would necessarily increase their complexity. What my noble friend failed to add was that it would reduce the number of decentralisation schemes, and those will be infinitely more complex than any joint arrangement.
The other concern that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate saw as a more important impediment to agreeing to the amendment was the proportionately greater central overheads that would be required to run two separate authorities as opposed to one larger one. Although that may be true, the debit side—which is the cost of running the decentralisation schemes, which will be unavoidable for that authority—must also be taken into account. I remain convinced that this new authority is not in the interests of the residents of the areas and

1727
that a far better quality of local government will be achieved at very little extra cost by agreeing to the amendment.
Baroness White: My Lords, I suspect that I am probably the only Member of the House present who has not lived in Radnorshire but has lived in both Montgomeryshire and Breconshire. Therefore, I have personal experience. I feel that the best argument used so far is that which we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Kenyon. Knowing the Montgomeryshire pattern, I am strongly of the view that it is perfectly able to manage its own affairs on the basis that we have been discussing for the authorities in general. The difficulty is that Radnorshire has a small population; of course, it makes up for that in its quality, I have no doubt. My noble friend Lord Williams is a Radnorshire man. No one impugns the quality of Radnorshire, merely its rather low population.
My view is that it would, frankly, be much better to let the three units do as much as they possibly can under the provisions of the Bill, and that they should do it in local matters at least as separate units. One can see the difficulties of putting them all together. The physical difficulties of distance are quite serious, particularly with staff. It seems to me that the more one can do in each of the three separate units, the better. We shall obviously have to have joint arrangements in certain areas, but that can be managed. There are so many possibilities under this complicated Bill that I do not believe it is beyond the skill of the noble and learned Lord to find some way of sorting out the genuine problems and also the good opportunities for a Mid Wales administration. I use the words "Mid Wales" by a slip of the tongue, because I shall certainly support the name Powys rather than Mid Wales. Aberystwyth is in Mid Wales, so why should anyone suppose that "Mid Wales" would be an acceptable term? However, that will be dealt with in the next amendment.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I hope that I do not surprise colleagues by rising momentarily on this amendment. Many years ago, in 1959, together with Tom Hooson, the late cousin of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, I wrote a booklet about the Welsh economy. We still mourn his death deeply. In the book, we put forward proposals for local government at that time and proposed the establishment of the county of Powys. We visualised it then as being a two-tier structure, as it became. I can see the justification for the larger authority in that context.
I have been impressed by the arguments of my old but still friendly opponent, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, in favour of his amendment and by those that have reached me from Conservatives within the county of Montgomery. I would not pretend to have close proximity to the details of the argument, but one question which has been repeated several times by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, is: how come the Secretary of State changed his mind? If the original proposal was for a unitary authority of Montgomery, endorsed on more than one occasion, what has been the reason for the change of mind? I have no doubt that my noble and
1728
learned friend the Lord Advocate will have an ample flow of words with which to answer, but they will need to be convincing.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has campaigned for years for the restoration of the status and powers of the ancient county of Montgomery. It seems to me that he has at least the satisfaction of knowing that the Government have been obliged to acknowledge the strength and the merits of the case. It is widely accepted that that is the true explanation for the rigid decentralisation in Clauses 26 and 27, which would have devolved some power to the Montgomery area committee, with the consent of the Secretary of State.
Of course, having designed that theoretical solution, it seems to me that the Secretary of State thought that he could now set Montgomery on one side and concentrate his efforts on wider issues. However, the people of Montgomery have not been satisfied. The point has been made that if there is to be a Montgomery area committee, with the consent of the Secretary of State, it becomes very difficult indeed to deny that historic county the status and powers of a unitary authority. For those reasons, we support the amendment. I add that, if Powys is to be retained, we would have thought also that the name "Powys", with its historical associations, should also be retained.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, in responding to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Kenyon and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, at Committee stage, I outlined the considerations which the Government had taken into account in looking at the proposals put forward for small unitary authorities. I do not intend going through those considerations again today because, like the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, I do not wish to weary your Lordships with repetition.
As I have said on a previous occasion, the very fact that at one stage in 1991–92 there appeared a proposal for a unitary authority of Montgomeryshire shows that the Government have not taken any a priori hostile decision against Montgomery. There was no hostility at all because that was at one time envisaged.
However, what has happened since then is that the matter has been further considered by the Government. Although I understand that noble Lords have found nothing which has been said hitherto in any way convincing, I do not believe that I can greatly elaborate upon what has been said, except that the basis was that the Government have all along had two matters in mind. I have mentioned them already today: the local community loyalties and the delivery of high quality services.
In considering the matter, the Government have come to the conclusion that it would not be possible to deliver services of the quality required simply on the basis of having a unitary authority for Montgomery, perhaps leaving some other arrangements for Breconshire and Radnorshire.
The very facts that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and many others have spoken so eloquently for Montgomeryshire and that the case for

1729
Montgomeryshire was originally envisaged by the Secretary of State at that time show that the weighing-up process has been gone into carefully and that the decision was reached despite the strongly held views. Those views were not ignored. It would be very easy in one sense to say we accept those strongly held views and that is the reason to give way on this matter. But we had to consider the other aspect; namely, whether at the end of the day it would be a way to deliver the best and most efficient services.
Despite the strong emotional and historical arguments—all of which have been recognised, not ignored—the Government have come to the view that the structure that is proposed is the correct one. In taking that decision they have had regard to such matters as the increased overheads which would be involved in having a series of smaller authorities. I acknowledge that there will be some costs from the system of area committees. But for the reasons that I gave at Committee stage, the judgment of the Government is that on this occasion it is correct to have a unitary authority for the larger area which has been called Mid Wales.
In reaching that decision the Government have taken account of the fact—not exclusively but among other considerations—that the population in the case of Montgomeryshire would be about 55,000; in Breconshire about 46,000; and in Radnorshire, however high the quality, it would be only 23,000. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, meets that point head on and says that that figure would nonetheless be enough for a unitary authority. But the Government's judgment is that it would not be enough for a unitary authority. In that event one would be forced back to a situation where, if one removed Montgomeryshire, there would then be left Breconshire and Radnorshire. It seems quite clear that an authority bringing together Breconshire and Radnorshire would not be a popular authority, especially with the people of Radnorshire. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State referred to the sensibilities and sensitivities of those in Radnorshire. I am sure that he will take that factor into account, just as he takes into account the acknowledged sensitivities in the case of Breconshire and Montgomeryshire.
The Secretary of State has looked at this matter in such a way as to take account of those local sensitivities and of the fact that people in Montgomeryshire, Breconshire and Radnorshire, as in other parts of Wales, may wish to have their particular local services dealt with at a more local level. For that reason the Secretary of State has come forward with the proposals, sometimes called the Powys proposals, for decentralisa-tion. It is not a rigid formula, as was suggested; on the contrary, it is a flexible formula which can be adapted to the demands of any particular area of Wales.
The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, spoke at one point about joint working, and said that at the end of the day all these matters were subject to the Secretary of State. In fact, the powers of the Secretary of State in Clause 29 that relate to joint working are only reserve powers. What is envisaged is that local authorities will themselves wish, of their own volition, to enter into appropriate arrangements. It is only in a situation where they have not provided, where it is necessary, the
1730
appropriate local arrangements for joint working that the Secretary of State would come into the picture in the exercise of his reserve powers under Clause 29. In no sense would it not be open to local authorities to deal with matters themselves.
I believe that the combination here of the larger authority with the possibility of using decentralisation delivers that combination, which many noble Lords have recognised, of the need for local services to be delivered locally yet within a larger picture. The Government see that as the way to go forward on this matter. For that reason the Government are not able to accept the amendment.
I repeat what I said before: the Secretary of State has considered the points that have been made. I am certain that he has considered them carefully and sensitively. As I have said, it is not and could not be because the Government are unaware of the arguments that were put forward. The Government have not swept them aside. They have been considered. Nonetheless, at the end of the day the Government are satisfied that the structure which is proposed in the Bill is the appropriate one. In the circumstances I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, to withdraw his amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the courtesy of his reply, which I must say again I found totally unconvincing. It seems to me that the Government have a preconceived idea now of population size and are trying to squeeze a very large area which has a particular historic background into a formula. I hope that the Government will reconsider this whole matter. I am very grateful to noble Lords from all sides of the House, from the Labour Benches, the Cross-Benches and the Conservative Benches, who have spoken in favour of this amendment and to those who have spoken against it. We are all concerned about a particularly difficult area of local government.
I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate whether he will go back to the Secretary of State and ask him to look afresh at this question. We have to live with this decision for many years. In 1972 in another place I raised doubts about Powys. I opposed it; and here we are 20 years later having a unitary authority for Powys thrust upon us and doing away with the district councils which were put forward then as the answer to the problem.
I return to what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon. I acknowledge that in the old days we were frequent opponents in the courts as well as in politics. I remember his book written with my late cousin, Tom, on the economic regeneration of Wales. It may well be that because of its particular problems the Government would find that the people of Mid Wales would prefer the status quo to anything that is being proposed now; that they would prefer the county council and three district councils to a unitary authority the size of Powys and area committees. If we cannot have unitary authorities, there is a good deal to be said for going back to that situation.

1731
My own preferred solution would be that of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, who referred to the proposed development by the Forum for Mid Wales to set up an agency to provide some of the services. Historically Mid Wales has always included Cardiganshire. They have two universities there. Many of the specialised services could be provided on an agency basis by the universities. The Government need to look again at this whole problem. Rushing this matter through in this way will not do any good. This solution will not last.
I had dearly hoped to force a Division this evening. But I am advised that the government forces are present in strength and I have come to the conclusion that I cannot win because many of those who would vote have not heard the arguments or the debate. I am very sorry about that. However, the great thing is to make sure that we have the right solution for Mid Wales. I am quite certain that so far the Government have failed to find it. Having said that, I wish to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 49, line 2, column I, leave out
("Mid Wales
Canolbarth Cymru")
and insert—
("Powys Powys")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the question that I should like to put to my noble and learned friend is why there should be this change. Why is there to be a change from "Powys", which is a short word of five letters only, to "Mid Wales", which is a much longer term and conveys nothing to many people? The boundaries of Powys are barely affected by this Bill. It is simply change for the sake of change. Whatever one may think of the concept of an enormous area such as Powys, we have lived with the name for almost 20 years. We have got used to it and are reluctant to change it. As my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt has said, it works very well. To my mind the area is still far too big, but that matter is behind us now. Let us leave the matter as it is.
I remind my noble and learned friend of the American saying: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The name serves very well as it is. We are used to it and have been living with it for nearly 20 years. There are already too many super-counties, amorphous bodies with names to match. I can cite only the gaffes of Teesside, Greater Manchester and that abomination to end all abominations, Hereford-Worcester.
The expense of changing the name to Mid Wales, as the noble and learned Lord himself said a few moments ago, will mean increased overheads in the way of increased expense to local authorities in changing all the letter headings. That applies to firms and individuals as well. It would involve them in expense which will be uncalled for and quite unwelcome to them. It increases the expenses of ratepayers, firms and individuals.
Spare us Mid Wales. I beg to move.
Lord Kenyon: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Swansea in this amendment. I am sure that my
1732
noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate will be pleased to know that the amendment does not involve any movement of boundaries. It is a very simple amendment. It simply seeks to remove the eminently functional name of Mid Wales, which conveys very little to anybody. I might suggest that noble Lords would not wish to be referred to at the moment as being in South-East England.
The name of Powys has been associated with the county since 1972. If, following the failure of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, it is to exist, then I believe that the name Powys is a far better name for the area than Mid Wales.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I very much support the amendment. In fact there is a movement of boundaries, but that happened in 1972. Historically, Brecon and Radnor were not part of Powys, save possibly in Welsh mythology for a period of about 12 years when the son of Hywel Dda was said to have taken over Powys and extended it to the banks of the Wye, though it is believed now that the banks of the Wye referred to were at Llangurig and not further south.
Having said that, I am quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, is right and so is the noble Lord, Lord Kenyon, in supporting him. I thank them both for their sustained support on the whole subject of Powys and its relationship with local government reform. Obviously, it is better to have a romantic name like Powys rather than the utilitarian name of Mid Wales, which in any event indicates to most Welsh people five counties including Cardiganshire and Merioneth.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, I am glad to support the amendment and also, on this occasion, to be on the same side of the road as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. I should like to know one thing. So far the Government have not produced any reason whatsoever for the present Powys to be called Mid Wales. I quite admit that it is in the middle of Wales; but the reasoning behind the change has not been given to us. The expense to which my noble friend Lord Swansea referred would be quite significant for the local authority and in particular for each individual householder, who would have to change the address at the top of his notepaper. I ask the Government to think again on this matter.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I merely wish to indicate once again that we are in full support of the amendment. We very much hope that the Government will give it sympathetic consideration.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, in April last year the Secretary of State's predecessor launched a consultation on names for the new authorities which invited views from local authorities, members of the public, the Welsh Place Names Advisory Committee and the Welsh Language Board. There appeared to be no strong support for retaining the name Powys for the new authority. My right honourable friend the present Secretary of State considered that Mid Wales would be more desirable, since it would not overshadow the historic names of Montgomeryshire, Radnorshire and Breconshire, with which so many people in the area seem to identify. The name Mid Wales for the new

1733
unitary authority would also remove the possibility of confusion with the preserved county, which will retain the name of Powys.
For those reasons the Secretary of State wishes to retain the name Mid Wales in the Bill. However, he will be taking very careful note of the points made today by your Lordships and any that may subsequently be made in another place. With those assurances I hope that my noble friends Lord Swansea and Lord Kenyon will be prepared to withdraw the amendment. In any case, they may like to know that under the Bill as drafted (that is to say, paragraph 20(5) of Schedule 14) the councils of the new authorities will have the opportunity to change the name of their area in due course.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I must say that I am slightly disappointed in the response given by my noble friend. Every noble Lord who has spoken on this amendment has been in favour of it. He indicated that the Government may have second thoughts about the matter, particularly when it goes down to another place. Nevertheless, this is one occasion on which one might test the feelings of the House.
5.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 88; Not-Contents, 60.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hunt, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jeger, B.

Avebury, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Bath, M.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kagan, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Kennet, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L

Kenyon, L. [Teller.]

Cadman, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Carter, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kitchener, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Leigh, L.

Colwyn, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lyell, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Marlesford, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mayhew, L.

David, B.

McNair, L.

Davidson, V.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Milverton, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Molloy, L.

Ezra, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Faithfull, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Falkender, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Feversham, L.

Newall, L.

Finsberg, L.

Norfolk, D.

Fisher of Rednal,

Norrie, L.

B. Gainsborough, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Goold, L.

Richard, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hollick, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hooson, L.

Swansea, L. [Teller.]

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Swinfen, L.

Howell, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Teviot, L.

1734

Tordoff, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Wharton, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

White, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Long, V.

Arran, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

Astor, V.

Chancellor.]

Birdwood, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blatch, B.

Mancroft, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carnock, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mottistone, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Munster, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cox, B.

Orkney, E.

Cranborne, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Sharples, B.

Downshire, M.

St. Davids, V.

Elton, L.

Strange, B.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Goschen, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Harrowby, E.

[Teller.]

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Howe, E.

Vivian, L.

Hunt of Tanworth, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

[* The Tellers for the Contents reported 88 names. The Clerks recorded 87 names.]
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.7 p.m.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 49, line 22, column 2, leave out from ("Ogwr") to end of line 24.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I return to the three small and historic communities of Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick, having a total population of about 3,200. They are currently within the area of the Ogwr Borough Council. The whole of the Ogwr district, except for those three communities, will be comprised in the new county of Bridgend. But those three communities will be transferred to the adjoining Vale of Glamorgan authority against their strongly expressed wishes.
Last June the Electoral Reform Society conducted a poll of the electors on the question of whether their communities should be transferred to the Vale of Glamorgan authority. The turnout was 76 per cent. and, of that high turnout, 86 per cent. voted against the Government's proposal. That confirmed that the overwhelming weight of local opinion is against the proposed transfer.
I explained in Committee that for centuries those three communities looked to the town of Bridgend for their principal services. They gravitated towards Bridgend in terms of social, business and cultural activity. We can also say that the vast majority of residents look to Bridgend for their health services,

1735
social security services, consumer protection services, the main Post Office services and their banking and financial services. That is not surprising as Bridgend is only two miles from one of the villages, three to four miles from St. Bride's Major and six miles from the third village.
Ever since the local authorities were set up at the end of the last century those communities have been part and parcel of the administration based at Bridgend, and they have been well served. I do not believe that even in Committee the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate indicated that there would be any improvement in the delivery of services. Under the Bill the local authority services will be administered by the Vale of Glamorgan. In that situation the important principle of coterminosity is totally ignored. As I said, there is no ground for believing that there will be an improvement in the quality of the services delivered to the people of the community.
The principal office of the Vale of Glamorgan council will be in Barry, which is 13 to 15 miles away. There is no direct regular bus service to Barry and there are no passenger trains serving the area. On the other hand, there is a direct and regular bus service to Bridgend. Therefore if things go wrong it would be far more inconvenient and costly to attend at the Barry offices of the council to sort out a problem and to seek a remedy. Local government services are extremely important to people and ease of access to the town hall is a significant consideration.
Those are some of the special and powerful reasons why the electors wish to be part of the Bridgend unitary authority after reorganisation. Their case is supported by the two district councils themselves and by the community councils serving the locality. Indeed, earlier on the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate prayed in aid the opinions of the community council. This proposal is being imposed on the people of these three communities against their wishes—this by a government who so freely propound in the Citizen's Charter and elsewhere the doctrine of consultation and choice. We ask whether it is fair that these people should be denied or deprived of a democratic choice.
These three small historic communities have another justified complaint to make against the Welsh Office. They are not being treated equally with other small communities up and down Wales which have protested about being transferred to adjoining new authorities against their wishes, although I take note of what was said earlier on by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. But apart possibly from those villages—I am not briefed about their position—and apart from the historic county of Montgomery, the Welsh Office has taken full account of the complaints of all other communities and rescinded the proposed transfer or, as Ministers call it, the scheduled transfer.
This comes out very clearly in the Notes on Clauses. Perhaps I may trouble the House by reading a few extracts. Paragraph vi explains that,
"the communities of Cynwyd and Llandrillo have been included in Denbighshire … These amendments reflect the weight of representations from the areas concerned"
Paragraph vii explains:
"The decision to amend the White Paper proposals to include in Flintshire the whole of Delyn reflects the overwhelming weight of local opinion".
Paragraph x explains:
"The communities of Ystradgynlais and Tawe Uchaf have been added to Mid-Wales since the White Paper was published in accordance with the strongly expressed wishes of local residents".
Why then have the strongly expressed wishes of the overwhelming majority of electors of Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick not been similarly listened to and respected by the Welsh Office? On this the Notes on Clauses offer the explanation that they are,
"largely rural and agricultural, have more in common with the Vale of Glamorgan authority than with the town of Bridgend and with the industrialised valleys to its north".
Your Lordships will recall that this was the only justification advanced by the Lord Advocate when we discussed this amendment in Committee. Now that I have been reminded of what happened in Ystradgynlais and in Tawe Uchaf, this is a particularly inadequate explanation because it has been noted in Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick that the explanation did not prevent the Government from adding industrialised Ystradgynlais and industrialised Tawe Uchaf to rural Powys when that was the strongly expressed wish of local residents. So the people of these three communities ask why they are being discriminated against.
In order to ameliorate the position, it seems to me that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was suggesting in Committee on 17th January that this problem could be reviewed by the Local Government Commission when conducting its post-reorganisation review. But that review is in order that,
"anomalies can be identified and corrected".
Surely this is more than an anomaly or a boundary irregularity which has yet to be identified. Already it is a glaring mischief which is standing out a mile.
I very much hope that the Welsh Office will consider the case of these three communities very carefully indeed. But if the schedule remains unaltered, I have no doubt that they will appeal to the Boundary Commission. Then we ask: in a case such as this, why should the electors have to be burdened with the task of petitioning the Boundary Commission to remove a glaring mischief? Why should the Government treat the objections from those three communities so blatantly differently from those of the other communities which I have named?
I trust that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will see that these three small ancient communities have a genuine complaint against the Welsh Office on both grounds —that their voice is not being listened to and that they have been discriminated against. I very much hope that the House will support the plea of the communities and that the Welsh Office will reconsider its position. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am usually quite ready to leave it to the silver-tongued eloquence of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies to plead for any amendment to which he puts his name. But on

1737
this occasion, I beg leave of the House to add just a little to what he has said in pleading for justice and fairness for this little group of communities. These are the tiddlers; these are the small people in this reorganisa-tion. Many of us feel, and feel strongly, that they are being swept aside and that proper notice is not being of them.
Since we discussed the subject of the amendment at the Committee stage I, like many others, have had further strong representations on this matter from the local area. I can assure the noble and learned Lord that feeling is strong in the whole of that area. I remind the noble and learned Lord that the electoral reform ballot which was held found that each of the community councils had an overwhelming majority of residents who were opposed to the proposal to transfer them to the Vale of Glamorgan—a 74 per cent. turnout on something like this and a vote of opposition of 87.5 per cent. Indeed, it was difficult at that time to find any support for this proposal except from within the Government in Cardiff and in London.
Quite apart from the clear message from the residents themselves—the people—there is unified opposition from the Ogwr Borough Council, from the Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council and from all three of the elected community councils themselves. On the basis of historical background, community interests, communications and bringing local government nearer to the people, these three communities wish and surely must remain with the new Bridgend council. Indeed, as was stated by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies at the Committee stage, and as he mentioned again today, the only public organisation or public figure supporting the Government's proposal is that of the present Conservative Member of Parliament for the Vale of Glamorgan parliamentary constituency. Why should his voice prevail against all others?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, at Committee stage I stated that the Government included these three communities—I do not believe it has been denied that they are predominantly rural and agricultural —in the Vale of Glamorgan authority in the belief that the areas concerned had in effect more in common with communities in the Vale than with those which make up Bridgend.
Wick is a small community situated in the Vale countryside. It is in effect an isolated community. Its character in that respect is very similar to the character of other villages in the Vale such as Colwinston. St. Bride's Major and Ewenny are likewise predominantly rural in character and to that extent they more resemble other small communities in the Vale than they do Bridgend.
Although I am aware of all the representations which have been made by the residents, it is true to say that, nonetheless, they show themselves in certain aspects of their daily lives as having a sense of being part of the Vale. That is to be seen by the fact, for example, that the residents of these three communities sometimes advertise their houses as being in the Vale rather than
1738
being in mid Glamorgan. In that sense they are in the Vale and they are not identifying themselves with Bridgend.
Geographically, these communities are a natural part of the Vale and they are separated only by an artificial boundary which really does not have anything to do with topography, the rivers or anything else. Again, that is shown by the fact that in winter it is snow-ploughs from the Vale which clear the snow from the roads in the Wick area. These are matters which show that these communities have a very real connection with the Vale. It is also true to say that the other two communities are close to the existing Vale boundary and parts of them are further from Bridgend than other places like Colwinston which are already in the Vale —a point which no one is disputing.
These are the factors which the Secretary of State has had in mind as I explained on a previous occasion. I also pointed out on that occasion that the Secretary of State will be asking the Local Government Boundary Commission to look at the boundary between the Vale and Bridgend when they undertake their post-reorganisation review. In that review the commission will be able to consider splitting existing communities so that, as noble Lords have already indicated, any obvious anomalies can be corrected. The report and recommendations of that body will be considered carefully by the Secretary of State.
I have explained to your Lordships the Government's position on this matter. Nonetheless, I recognise what has been said not only today but on the previous occasion in Committee. I have already conveyed the remarks made on the earlier occasion to the Secretary of State. I shall certainly not hesitate to put forward again to the Secretary of State what has been said today.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord take account of the fact that the inhabitants of the three villages want to stay with Bridgend? Does he regard that as an important factor?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I hope that at no time have I suggested that that is not a factor. Since it has been stressed by noble Lords, it is a matter which the Secretary of State will have to bear in mind. I simply say to your Lordships that he will wish to take into account not only what has been said here, but also what may be said in another place by the elected Members.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down perhaps I may offer to help him a little on the question of estate agents and the selling of houses. I really do not believe that that cock will fight nor that horse run. If you are selling a house you are dealing in money. The Vale of Glamorgan is posh; Bridgend is not so posh. If you live in certain parts of London you say that your house is not in Kilburn, it is in West Hampstead because you can make a bit more money that way. The inhabitants of Wick, Ewenny and St. Bride's Major know which side their bread is buttered.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, because it is posh the Government may well be thinking that these three communities can help the Conservative Party to secure

1739
the Vale of Glamorgan parliamentary seat which they are holding with a majority of about 18. If that is the true reason and explanation for this astonishing provision in the Bill, we say that it is really an improper use of legislation. I am disappointed by the reply. The noble and learned Lord gave us about three or four indicators of association between the villages and the Vale which I shall not deny. I should have thought that there are about three times that number of indicators showing their association with Bridgend.
There is another point which was raised by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn. There is overwhelming evidence that the people of these three communities want to remain associated with Bridgend. At the moment I cannot recall the precise paragraph in the White Paper, but I have the firm conviction that it is stated there that the express wishes of the population can only be set aside if there are strong arguments on the ground of improved delivery of services. That is my impression and it is something that we shall have to check on.
Nevertheless, the noble and learned Lord said that he has reported the discussions in Committee to the Secretary of State. He did not give us an indication of how he responded. I sincerely hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will seek to persuade the Secretary of State to see that there is here a risk of grave mischief and injustice. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 9 to 12 not moved.]
Lord Howe of Aberavon Lord Howe of Aberavon moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 50, line 7, at end insert:
("Port Talbot Porth Talbot The district of Port Talbot")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose to detain your Lordships very long in moving the group of amendments which stand in my name. They all have the same single purpose. They are designed to secure the survival of the borough of Port Talbot as a unitary authority rather than see it merged with the adjacent borough of Neath, as proposed in the Bill.
The case which I am making has been mentioned already in your Lordships' House; first, at Second Reading by the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, a former Secretary of State for Wales. He is currently out of the country and unable to support the amendment today, but he would certainly wish to do so. He and I, and another former Secretary of State for Wales, the right honourable John Morris—the present Member for Aberavon—also expressed support for it to the previous Secretary of State for Wales some months ago.
In Committee I was able rather guilefully to ride upon an amendment that was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for the survival of Llanelli and to commend this provision then. I do so now in a more orthodox fashion. The reasons underlying the amendment are extremely conventional—and none the worse for that. They were summarised in a sentence in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, on
1740
Second Reading when he said that it was upsetting the deep-seated loyalties of communities in Wales and that that is something for which the Government will not easily be forgiven.
It is difficult to overemphasise the importance of the separate sense of community that attaches to the borough of Port Talbot by contrast with the adjacent borough of Neath. Port Talbot has a long history. Although the borough was born by that name only in 1921, that was a renaming of the previous borough of Aberavon, a name that I am proud to bear as part of my present title. Aberavon can trace its history back to the first Lord of Afan at the end of the 11th century. I was proud to find in a location near Madrid not many months ago a map of the British Isles that was printed in Rome in 1677 which showed only three communities in the county of Glamorgan: Llandaff, Cardiff and Aberavon. That shows what an ancient history Aberavon has, and what a proud history Port Talbot has in its place.
However, they are two distinct communities, concentrated in two quite distinct valleys. Port Talbot has the more modern industrial history and was advertised in the days of the Steel Company of Wales by the phrase, "The City of Steel that never sleeps". The Abbey Steel Works there now employs under 5,000 people—about 4,700 people. In the days when I contested the constituency—in 1955 and 1959—when I counted BISAKTA, the British Iron, Steel and Kindred Trades Association (the steel workers' trade union) as my most important client at the Bar, almost three times as many people were working in that steel works. Port Talbot has gone through an industrial revolution on a painful but dramatically successful scale. The Port Talbot steel works is now one of the most modern and successful in Europe. That is one factor that gives a sense of identity and community to the borough of Port Talbot.
The borough of Port Talbot now extends up the Afan Valley to include many of the old communities that used to be in the former Glyncorrwg district council, such as Abergwynfi, Cymmer/Croeserw, Glyncorrwg itself, Abercregan, Duffryn, Cynonville and Cwmafan. All are separate communities that regard themselves as attached to Port Talbot and having not much to do with places like Ystalyfera and Gorseinon on the Neath side of the county. There is a serious difference of identity.
A long time ago now I was born in a house overlooking the Aberavon rugby football ground. I have with me a poster advertising the regular Boxing Day match between Aberavon and Neath. I am sorry to have to say that Neath won last Boxing Day. It was a temporary accident. For the Government to be proposing to merge those two participants in a sustained local derby is to risk the most fearful consequences. We like people from Neath as long as they keep their distance and I hope that they take the same view of we people from Aberavon, but there could not be two more distinct communities. It would be a mistake to merge them.
Port Talbot Borough Council—I have no doubt that this applies to Neath also—has a good track record of success in delivering services to its people and wishes to continue to build on that success. A unitary authority in

1741
the present location of Port Talbot has been estimated as likely to make substantial cost savings of about £1 million, without any adverse impact on the quality of the services that are delivered there, whereas if there were a merger we would end up with two authorities, each with a present civic building, which in neither case would be large enough to house the merged authority. Inevitably, some new municipal structure would have to be constructed at substantial expense and at least one of the old buildings would have to remain. One would be creating an authority which had all the qualities of remoteness which are currently leading my former constituents in East Surrey to favour a unitary authority which takes them away from the county of Surrey because, for the folk in Caterham, Kingston is a long, long way away, just as for the people in Taibach, Margam or Glyncorrwg, places like Ystalyfera and Gorseinon will be a very long way away.
Therefore, I think that there is a very serious case to be made against the merger which is proposed. Moreover, the survival of Port Talbot has commended itself to 95 per cent. of the local people in an opinion poll that was taken on this, and the survival of Neath has commended itself to more than three-quarters of the people in that community.
The case that I made to the previous Secretary of State for Wales which, as I have said, is supported by the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, and by the present Member for Aberavon, is being made on behalf of a borough with a strong histrionic history. There are now five notable preachers who can trace their birth to Aberavon. The noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, is one of them. I am another. Sir Anthony Hopkins is a third; Richard Burton is a fourth, and perhaps the most histrionic of the lot of us is, alas, not heard so much these days. I refer to Clive Jenkins. The House may count itself lucky that it is the least histrionic of those five characters who is the advocate now presenting this case to the House. Imagine what it would be like if all the other four were here at the same time, singing in some cymric chorus. I commend my amendment to the House.
I wrote my first political pamphlet in 1953. It was called The Lifeblood of Liberty and was on the subject of local government reform. The title page bore a quotation from a Dutch author whose name now escapes me, I am afraid, but who wrote that local self-government is the lifeblood of liberty. If that cause can commend itself to the Government, the Government will commend themselves to the people of Port Talbot. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, all noble Lords will be pleased that on this occasion my noble and learned friend Lord Howe is present to move his amendment. If I may say so, it was no less effectively moved for being spoken to slightly less histrionically than he thinks might have been the case if it had been moved by others. It was moved most effectively and eloquently.
The Government are aware—who could not be aware?—of the fact that the people of Port Talbot, just like the people of Neath, have a very strong sense of
1742
their own area, its history and their community identity. The Government are also aware that the rugby matches that take place between those two areas show them to be in rivalry in at least that sense.
Therefore, this is another occasion when, having taken account of history and the local sense of identity, the Government have had to take account also of the other factor that is mentioned in the White Paper. I refer to the need to choose unitary authorities which are able to secure the effective delivery of local services and which have the necessary population base for that. In the case of Port Talbot and Neath, partly for the reasons that my noble and learned friend has mentioned, the population and demographic trends over some decades have suggested that both areas would benefit from the kind of merger that is envisaged here, with the addition of the communities from the Lliw Valley, so creating a unitary authority which would have a large enough base to co-ordinate the strategic delivery of services. It would be an authority in which no single area would be able to dominate the others. That is something that must be taken into account when there is a sense of local rivalry.
The Government have acknowledged the strength of community identity in the areas by making a change which your Lordships may regard as being small but which in the light of the previous amendment is not so small. They have changed the name from West Glamorgan to Neath and Port Talbot. Furthermore, under the terms of Clauses 26 and 27, it will be possible for these areas, if they so desire, to apply for the setting up of area committees. That will ensure that certain aspects of the services will be decided upon and delivered by a committee which represents the local area.
Given the fact that that option is available, the Government believe that the unitary authority as proposed in the Bill is the best solution for this area. I urge my noble and learned friend to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate has dealt with these complex and sensitive Welsh issues with enormous sensitivity and skill. I join in paying tribute to him. I cherish the hope that his elegant style of advocacy will be deployed within the Welsh Office so as to convince the Fellow of All Souls who now presides in that distinguished place to accept this argument. A Scotsman addressing an Englishman on this Welsh issue yet has a chance of success, and on those terms I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 14 to 18 not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 19
Page 50, line 27, column 2, after ("Llangedwyn") insert ("and the district of Colwyn").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hasten to say that this is a probing amendment. It is not a takeover bid by Gwynedd of Clwyd. I wish to discover why Aberconwy and Colwyn has been split between the preserved counties of Gwynedd and Clwyd. I can foresee problems as to which preserved county official will do

1743
what, when and where. For instance, if there is a royal visit, which preserved county official will do what? Who will meet the royal visitor? Will it be the Lord Lieutenant of Clwyd or the Lord Lieutenant of Gwynedd?
I am also somewhat perplexed by the logic of splitting a county borough between two preserved counties. I had thought that one of the objects of the Bill was to encourage local affiliation and a sense of belonging. If my noble and learned friend can explain the Government's reasons for the division, I and many others will be most grateful. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, my noble friend was kind enough to write to me indicating that he would raise this matter. The preserved counties are being retained for non-local government purposes only; that is, for the lieutenancy, the shrievalty, the magistrates' courts and, importantly, the parliamentary constituencies. In that sense, their retention is no more than an administrative and geographic convenience. My noble friend will have noticed that the Bill provides for the boundaries of the preserved counties to be coterminous with those of the unitary authorities. That will entail only minor changes in areas such as Llanelly, the Vale of Glamorgan/Bridgend boundary, which we have already touched on, and the Mid Wales/Wrexham boundary. These changes, however minor, are considered desirable in terms of facilitating administration and identification. It would be confusing, for example, for Llanelly to be covered by a different lieutenancy from the rest of Mid Wales. That highlights the reason why my noble friend has brought the amendment forward.
In three cases—Aberconwy and Colwyn, the Heads of the Valleys and Caerphilly—the new principal area is virtually bisected by an existing county boundary. In those cases, the Government consider that the changes needed to accommodate the new area wholly within one preserved county are too substantial to be undertaken without first having a thorough review of all the implications for the functions concerned. For that reason, the Government propose in these three cases to leave matters as they stand at present, but will ask the Local Government Boundary Commission to undertake a review as soon as possible after Royal Assent with a view to making proposals to amend the boundaries of the preserved counties as it thinks best. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule 2 to the Bill make provision for the Boundary Commission to undertake reviews of this type and thereafter to make proposals to the Secretary of State.
I hope that in the light of that explanation my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that detailed explanation, which will be a great help locally. One of the reasons why I moved the amendment was that I noticed that most of the preserved counties coincided with the unitary authorities. However, I understand that there is a difficulty in this case. It would have been nicer if we could have decided the matter now rather than
1744
have to wait for the Boundary Commission, but I understand my noble and learned friend's reasons. I am grateful for that answer and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 20 to 22 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Schedule 3 [Establishment of Principal Councils]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 54, line 21, leave out ("the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 was passed") and insert ("notice is given of elections to the new principal councils").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come to an old friend, an old chestnut, and refreshingly a topic which is not a boundary dispute between two areas. I hope that we shall not hear from the noble and learned Lord any dismal phrase about taking note of what was said in another place before anyone can do anything whatever about anything at all.
As I said when we discussed the amendment in Committee, it is simple. Its purpose is to shorten the period in which casual vacancies must remain unfulfilled. The months after the Act is passed will be extremely busy and difficult for all local authorities. They will need a full crew on board to stoke the engines. We can see no reason why there must be such a long period of unoccupied time, which could cause great problems for a new council if a key person happened to fall under a bus.
As it stands, the Bill could lead to casual vacancies in the elected membership of existing councils being unfilled compulsorily for a period of up to 21 months. That could mean that communities are unrepresented, which could lead to the political balance of councils being arbitrarily changed.
As I listened to the noble and learned Lord in Committee, I thought that I detected a whiff of willingness to accede to my plea on this topic. I raise the amendment tonight to ask what progress has been made and what he can do for us. I beg to move.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, when this House debated this matter in Committee, I advised your Lordships that the Government were prepared to consider a later cut-off date than that proposed in the Bill, but felt that the date on which notice of elections is given would cause problems for the reasons that I explained on that occasion. We are still considering a number of options. Our present thinking, however, is that 31st December 1994 might be an acceptable cut-off date. But the Secretary of State wishes to reflect on this further and will come forward with a firm proposal in another place.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, that is indeed a refreshing answer. I have heard a murmur from my noble friends on these Benches, from a quite improper sedentary position, of something that was going through my mind as I was rising to my feet. If the Secretary of State is to reconsider this matter, why can a proposal not be put before this House rather than another place, and very soon? However, I take note of

1745
the fact that the noble Viscount agreed that the ball is very firmly in the Government's court. I note also that the Government are minded at present to consider 31st December 1994 as a cut-off date. I too must think about that. It is not a bad offer but we might be able to do better than that were we to exert a little bit of pressure. Reserving my right to exert pressure on any part of the noble Viscount which comes my way, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Change of status from county to county borough]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 3, line 45, leave out from ("purpose") to end of line 2 on page 4
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deletes subsection (2) (b) of the new Section 245A, as it will be, to be substituted in the Local Government Act 1972, on the grounds that the subsection is superfluous. The provision of subsection (2) (b) that notice of the meeting should give:
"a clear indication of the purpose of the meeting",
would merely repeat the requirements of Part XII of the Local Government Act 1972. Those include that three clear days' notice of any meeting must be given and that the agenda must be published. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I rise merely to say that the explanation given by the noble and learned Lord is to our satisfaction, and we are pleased to approve the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Community meetings and continuation of community councils]
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 6, leave out lines 8 to 10 and insert:
("(2) For the purpose of exercising functions on and after 1st April 1996, there shall be a community council for every community in Wales.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments to Clause 8 enable us to have a short debate on the role of that most important tier of local government; namely, the community councils. The effect of the amendments would be to establish a statutory framework of community councils throughout Wales; to make it easier to establish effective local accountability through those community councils; and to make it less easy to dissolve them. There is a later amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, which pursues that issue further.
The system of parish councils does not cover the whole of England; but since 1974 there has been a system of 900 community areas throughout Wales. The overwhelming majority of those—more than 750—have community councils functioning for their communities. There is a strong argument for ensuring that community councils should exist at that level of local government throughout Wales to represent the views of communities throughout Wales.
The suspicion that some of us have had is that the Government regard community councils as some kind of optional extra. Even in their early discussion document, although they paid lip-service to the role of
1746
community councils, they did not seem to be clear as to their functions and effectiveness. We feel that the principle of town and community government at that level should be written more firmly on to the face of the Bill.
There is another specific issue that I should like the department to look at. Following the reorganisation and creation of principal councils, there will be an uneven distribution of community councils within the areas of the new principal councils. In other words, in a number of areas there will be a principal council which will have part coverage and part non-coverage by community councils. That is an important issue. It may well be that the Boundary Commission should consider that matter. It seems to me that an unevenness of representation and tiers of local government may be created if some new principal councils are divided into non-community council areas and areas where there is representation by those community councils.
It is important to emphasise that community councils are not an add-on to the structure of local government. Many of us —decentralists and devotees of the principle of subsidiarity—have envied the strength of the community and mayoral system on mainland Europe. Many of us would wish to see such a strength existing at community level in Wales. We are well aware that we are not addressing a decentralising Government. We are addressing a Government who are increasingly centralising powers within the Welsh Office. I believe that in this case, a piece of democratic centralism would be welcome in the Bill, whereby the Welsh Office could ensure that every community in Wales has a community council of its own. That may then signal the reflowering of genuine local democracy. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, on this side of the House we share with others a commitment to the community councils. We wish to encourage their establishment. They can make a contribution towards harnessing local loyalties, and they encourage participation in the life of a community.
I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said; but I part company with him on the question of compulsion. The reality is that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to compel communities to set up councils. But apart from that measure of dissent, I support the amendment.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I support these amendments. It seems to me that community councils are an extremely important part of local government. To most people, their immediate community is of the greatest concern. The further away you move from the immediate community, the less is the concern. After all, people take pride in their own locality, parish and town. Therefore, it is extremely important that we should promote community councils within Wales.
One of the most important functions is to give them some finance. If they have no finance, they face grave difficulties. The more responsibilities they take on, the more they find that they have to put an additional burden on the rate in their area. Some means must be found by which to overcome that particular problem.

1747
I am all for getting local government as close to the community and to the roots of society as possible. It seems to me that the means of doing so is through community councils. One of my doubts about the proposed area committee system for Mid Wales (or Powys as it is now to be called) is the question of how it will affect the role of community councils.
7 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, for my part, I would not disagree with much that has been said. The Government certainly recognise that community councils, where they exist, can play an important part in the life of their communities. As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, indicated, it is also correct that, where they exist, they may very well represent a very important level of local democracy. Nonetheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, recognised, they do not exist in all areas, the reason being that the people of those areas have not wished to have a local community council. Over all, I believe it is the case that they are more common in rural areas; whereas, for example, in Cardiff, they are less common. That probably tells us something about the kinds of communities with which we are dealing.
Where I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, and where, in effect, the Government join the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is in saying that compulsion would not be desirable, nor would it work. There is no proper basis for forcing communities that do not wish to have a council to establish one. If communities did so only because they were compelled, there is no reason to think that such a council would ever work or that it would satisfy local people. It would almost certainly be seen as the imposition upon them of an additional financial burden. For all those reasons, and while fully recognising the importance of such councils where they exist, the Government cannot accept the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for taking the opportunity to emphasise the importance of community councils. I am certain that those communities which at present do not have such councils will take note of what he said. During the course of the Bill's passage through this House and the other place, I hope that there will be a further opportunity for both associations representing community councils in Wales to make further representations to the department on the lines of the amendment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage begin again at five minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

River Calder (Welbeck Site) Bill [H.L.]
7.3 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
First, I must say that I am delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, has chosen this as the occasion upon which to make his maiden speech. We all look forward with much interest to hearing him speak.
As your Lordships will recall, the Welbeck project is an integrated scheme of land reclamation and land raising, over a square-mile area of the lower Calder Valley which was ravaged by old mineral workings. The scheme is using colliery spoil to bury existing dereliction under an attractive new landscape, and to prepare a screened void for the disposal of household and trade wastes.
The Welbeck project has already been under way for eight years, with the site being progressively reclaimed, working from its outer areas inwards. Much of the infrastructure is now in place for the spoil and waste intakes. Indeed, over one-third of the site is already permanently restored to countryside, thus much enhancing the environment.
The purpose of the Bill is to enable the diversion of the River Calder to one side of the Welbeck site. That will accelerate the restoration of the river corridor, and its reopening as a public asset. It will also enable the creation of a new landform to higher levels, which will more than double the void space available for spoil and waste within the site.
The Bill was opposed by only two petitioners, one of whom, the Stanley Forum Committee, withdrew its petition early in the Committee proceedings. The Warmfield Company, who are landowners affected by the Welbeck project, thus became the sole petitioner.
The Select Committee heard some 23 days of evidence and argument involving 16 expert witnesses, spanning over nearly a 12-month period. I am sure that your Lordships will wish to join me in expressing gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, and his committee for their dedication and, indeed, stamina in the matter.
As I understand it, the petitioners' case was very wide ranging but made only limited critique of the river diversion itself. The main thrust of their case, rather, was that the despoiled ground of the river loop area, where household and industrial waste is to be put under the Welbeck project, is unsuitable for that purpose. The petitioners argued that an artificial containment site could not be built there; or, if it could, it would not work; or, if it worked, it would be too costly. The promoters have access to expertise in land reclamation, and showed that the land could be, and indeed was being, successfully prepared and pre-treated for that purpose. They demonstrated that a waste containment site could be built, would work, and would be viable.
The Select Committee recommended to the House that the Bill be allowed to proceed subject only to the giving of an undertaking by the promoters to the effect that, in the event of their also obtaining compulsory purchase powers, they would offer to purchase certain

1749
residual land. The latter is an area of degraded agriculture, woodlands and historic buildings which remains in the ownership of the petitioners, and which would then be of little use to them. Such an undertaking has been given to the satisfaction of the Select Committee and it may be inspected in the Printed Paper Office.
At this point, I turn to acknowledge, with the promoters' support, the constructive action by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, in withdrawing his amendment. The background to that withdrawal is that negotiations between the promoters and the petitioners have very recently been making good progress. The noble Lord's action will help in taking those discussions forward.
In conclusion, I should make it clear that the Welbeck project is going and will go ahead in some form anyway, including waste disposal on reclaimed ground in the river loop. It has a long-established planning permission. The land is there, the access provisions are being made, and it needs no parliamentary approval. As I said, the scheme has already been in progress for eight years and has incurred capital expenditure in excess of£10 million.
What is at issue as regards the enactment of the Bill is the diversion of the river and the additional void space which would be created over that land. The capacity of the Welbeck project for waste disposal over the council's own land would, thereby, more than double. The Welbeck project also makes positive engineering and environmental use of great quantities of colliery spoil, which would otherwise have to be tipped on greenfield sites elsewhere.
The passage of the Bill will help to secure a long-term spoil disposal outlet for the Selby coalfield, with which I was personally much connected in my days in the coal industry and which is now central to the future of the British coal industry.
The Welbeck project and its river diversion have been justified in economic, engineering and environmental terms. The project has been pursued from the beginning on an all-party, inter-agency and partnership basis.
At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, expressed the hope that the Bill would have a successful and speedy passage:
"in the face of that virtual unanimity and in the face of the very restricted objections put forward".—[Official Report, 14/5/91, col. 1548.]
Nearly three years later one is bound to reflect that the speed has been a little elusive, and I hope that not too much further time will be lost. This is a substantial environmental scheme and it deserves our backing. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Ezra.)
7.13 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I rise to support the Bill. It occurred to me, in the light of the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, of the fact that there is no amendment and, therefore, no vote, that the simplest thing would be for all noble Lords to sit down and let the Bill go through. That view is reinforced by
1750
the fact that the Bill will go back to the other place where local Members will have their say. My honourable friend the Member for Normanton, will raise a number of issues, not least that of Newland Park, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, will say a word. When I read that he represents the Wakefield Historical Society, I am on his side. It is very important that local history is not forgotten when such schemes are passed.
For most of today I have been involved with the Welsh local government Bill, which concerns my roots; my interest now is as a former Member of Parliament for Leeds. I am supported by my noble friend Lord Milner of Leeds whose father represented part of the area that I represented for 30 years. So between us we go back to the First World War. I look forward to Welbeck, which is next door to Wakefield, becoming a place for wildlife to thrive, for extensive recreation and leisure and becoming a good deal better than it is now.
I am chairman of the South Leeds Groundwork Trust which is a "greening" organisation. The Bill has the support of that organisation.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, stated, holes left by mining must be filled in, scars must be covered up and new hills and valleys created. We shall use coalmining waste and increase the amount of household waste.
It is on the subject of household waste that I wish to speak. The origins of the Welbeck project go back 10 years and a good deal further than that to when the West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council was formed. That council inherited waste disposal arrangements which varied widely, but they were inadequate. The crisis in landfill grew to such a proportion that in 1975 there was an emergency programme on solid waste disposal. The plain fact is that the Welbeck project became one important element of the new approach which sought to create at least a 10-year supply of strategic landfill capacity. The Welbeck project is expected to offer 20 years of waste disposal and it is now by far the most important household waste facility in West Yorkshire. It is important because so little additional capacity has been created elsewhere in the county in recent years.
The Welbeck project has been in planning for approximately 10 years, and £10 million of public money has been spent in preparatory work. Despite the recession and all the efforts in relation to recycling, West Yorkshire Waste Management still has to arrange for the disposal of three-quarters of a million tonnes of household waste per annum as a statutory responsibility. It also faces demands to provide for a similar tonnage of industrial and trade waste, as it traditionally has provided. Landfill capacity is vitally necessary. The river diversion scheme is the important part of the project.
I understand that times have changed since 1986. The Government are privatising waste disposal. It is easy to say that we should leave the market to take care of future provisions, and render to the market that which is for the market, but the scars which I found in West Yorkshire 30 years ago were the results of free market forces. Those scars were not the result of public concern; they

1751
were the result of "where there is muck there is money". A lot of money must have come out of that situation and a lot of muck was left.
The scheme has the support of all parties not only here but in the Wakefield district council and the Leeds district council. The procedures of the Bill take a long time. We in West Yorkshire are second to none in our support of democratic methods, but the Bill is taking a long time. When I noted the proper concern in the Garden of England, in Kent, about the effect of the Channel Tunnel line, I wished that we could have had as much support about the effect of many other things in West Yorkshire over the years. We want to see progress.
I realise that there has been a change in the law; namely, the Environmental Protection Act. However, I understand that the promoters have left a clear offer on the table and are awaiting a response. In any event, the outcome would in no way affect the need for the river diversion. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra stated, the enactment of the Bill would more than double the capacity of the site for waste disposal.
Against that background I hope that the Bill will get a Third Reading. It will go to another place and be looked at by local Members of Parliament who know the area a good deal better than most noble Lords. That is an important part of the democratic process. We have already looked at the project in our Select Committee. I support the Third Reading of the Bill as moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Saint Oswald: My Lords, I understand that it is unusual for a maiden speech to be heard during a Third Reading debate on an amendment. However, as the amendment has been withdrawn, perhaps I am bending the rules less than I would otherwise be doing. It is because I have a special interest and concern for the Welbeck project that I have entered my name on the list of speakers for the debate.
My family house is only six miles from the Wakefield city centre. It is known as Nostell Priory and is about seven miles from the Welbeck site. Nostell was given to the National Trust in 1952 but my family has continued to live there and I hope that it will continue to do so for many generations to come. It is only natural that we should consider the house and perhaps the family to be an integral part of the historical, cultural and environmental heritage of Wakefield.
There was a time when our countryside was all too frequently devastated by mineral workings after the fields had been exhausted and abandoned. They were allowed to become overgrown and were put to no further use. I welcome wholeheartedly the fact that throughout our country these problems are being handled with a vastly improved attitude as such sites are being restored and, where necessary, landscaped for practical and scenic values.
The Welbeck project concerns one of those areas which, instead of being left as useless and abandoned land, is being put to a very different purpose. I would not support the Welbeck project, nor the proposed
1752
version of the River Calder, unless I was sure that what has been envisaged will be carried out to the highest standards both for scenic and safety measures.
I do not intend to spend any time speaking on the technical issues which have arisen at the planning stage of the proposed diversion. Not only would it be completely wrong of me to do so, but also I would be interfering in matters which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, understands and has explained so well since his experience of these matters goes back many years.
It says much about the concept and the conduct of the Welbeck project that there has been so little local opposition to so great an undertaking. I have to admit that until I visited the site several months ago it was only a name in the newspapers to me. I was ignorant of the true scale and complexity of the endeavour and, indeed, of the fact that it had already been under way for many years.
The Welbeck project is one of those things that has to be seen to be believed, and I mean that literally. I have visited it on more than one occasion and it is open to any members of the public who are interested in going there. In the past 12 months it has had no fewer than 1,400 visitors, including 600 children and their teachers, 200 students and lecturers, and sundry other people, including professionals who come to see it from their own point of view.
To me the project is remarkable for two reasons: its vision and its care. First, as regards its vision, somehow at Welbeck the engineers and planners have broken free from the constraints of their specialist roles and responsibilities and produced a concept possibly never before attempted. Basically, that concept says, let us take three problems—derelict land, waste and spoil disposal—and solve them together, to mutual advantage, at the same location.
The project does that by enhancing today's technologies in an economic way: the ability to discharge a 1,500 tonne payload train of spoil in half an hour; the ability to move material by machine at a fraction of historic costs, dealing with quantities and qualities which eclipse even the Channel Tunnel muckshift; and perhaps most critical to this Bill, the ability to design and construct a new river corridor with a predictable performance in flood or drought conditions.
Secondly, there is the care with which this vision is being carried out, and especially its care for the environment. Perhaps most central in the context of the Bill is the detail with which the river diversion is being engineered and landscaped. This is not only from the viewpoint of the stability of the new channel. The aim is also to create a wider river valley which will offer a rich variety of habitats for nature to recolonise, and a recreational asset for generations to enjoy. Already one can see on site at Welbeck a quality of restoration which not only puts right the years of mineral working dereliction, but truly vies with the attractiveness of the pre-existing countryside.
It is for your Lordships to decide whether the promoters' scheme would become a viable and valuable asset to the region. A mass of evidence has been produced and perhaps it is not an easy decision to reach,

1753
but it has been summarised by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who will doubtless have more to say in his final speech tonight. Certainly, I have no hesitation in saying that in my opinion every step has been taken to ensure the highest standards of technical excellence for a scheme that could become a precedent for comprehensive planning on other sites, not only in this country but also overseas.
There is only a short amount of time at our disposal so I shall not continue at any greater length, except to add this. There is one overriding problem about coal spoil and household waste which no one can possibly argue is not with us all the time. Both have to be disposed of somehow. It is essential that they should be disposed of as efficiently as possible. If that process can be used to advantage, what can be better than that?
To put it bluntly, the problem is this. Is the scheme for the diversion of the River Calder to form a loop for the containment of additional waste matter well conceived and, above all, is it safe and to the advantage of public interests? If your Lordships decide that the high standard required cannot be attained, the promoters may well have to sacrifice the river diversion scheme and the loop for the containment of the additional spoil and be satisfied to carry on with the Welbeck project as it is now being worked. That would be a great disappointment to many and I hope that it will not occur. However, if your Lordships agree that those standards will be attained, I hope that the Bill can be enacted in the other place as expeditiously as possible.
7.25 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate on behalf of the whole House the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, on his excellent maiden speech. As everyone will have realised, he spoke with great knowledge of the area which is under discussion. He spoke with feeling, he was interesting and non-controversial, all of which are excellent in a maiden speech. We look forward to hearing the noble Lord on many future occasions.
It is now nearly three years since we debated the Second Reading of the Bill. One of the reasons for the dereliction of some of the land under consideration is the result of uncontrolled mineral working in the past. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, that, although not a Yorkshirewoman, I have lived there for many years, and I have always been told that where there's muck, there's brass, not money.
The enhanced colliery spoil is being used to prepare and screen containment cells for waste disposal and to help restore the derelict land to fields, hills, lakes, woods and for recreational purposes, not forgetting wildlife and the environment generally.
North Yorkshire County Council finds that electricity generators have recently added to its spoil disposal problems by tightening their fuel specification. Whereas previously 18 per cent. of ash content was allowed, this has now been reduced to 16 per cent. This leads to the generation of more waste overall, and within that there is a proportion of wet, fine waste which is difficult to handle. There is not a one-way traffic in waste disposal from North Yorkshire to West Yorkshire, it occurs both
1754
ways. Some West Yorkshire domestic waste goes to Darrington in North Yorkshire for disposal and in exchange some North Yorkshire colliery spoil will go to the Welbeck site in West Yorkshire. If the Welbeck scheme fails, North Yorkshire County Council fears that the size of the tipping proposal at Gascoigne Wood would have to be increased.
There will always be industrial waste and household waste to be disposed of somewhere. Utilising the Welbeck site would not only improve the environment with controlled waste disposal but would provide many amenities for Wakefield and the surrounding area.
I hope that the Bill will succeed, and I warmly support the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
7.28 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I wish to say just a few words in support of the Bill. I say them as a Yorkshirewoman born and bred. I want to deal particularly with the social and environmental dimensions of the project and the river diversion, not the technical matters.
The progressive reclamation of Welbeck for leisure and recreational activities represents one of the most significant regeneration programmes in the country. This is at a time when we hear of so many other natural environments being destroyed by road programmes and other development activities. The project will create a recreational and environmental asset on the doorsteps of Wakefield and Normanton, an area—as my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees said—not noted at present for its beauty. It provides more and better lakes, wetlands, view points, river banks and waterways, some of which are already being discovered and enjoyed by local families, fishing clubs, boaters and bird watchers.
On the question of access and after-use, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has reported on the assurances given to the residents' group, the Stanley Forum, which originally objected to the scheme.
Concern has also been voiced on the future of the Newland Hall area. The Wakefield council has given an undertaking that in the event of its purchasing the area from the Warmfield petitioners, it will be retained as an area for countryside and leisure purposes. There is no intention by the local authority to use this historic area for the deposit of controlled waste. However, like my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees, I trust that the ancient monument situated on the banks of the River Calder will be protected and that the Wakefield Historical Society will be involved in the discussions on the reinstatement of the ancient monument.
The local authority has been prepared to address all the details in its planning with the utmost care for nature and for community concerns. That has been done since the inception of the project some eight years ago, not only in terms of both technical studies and achievement on the ground, but also through an extensive programme of public liaison, information and education.
There has been close involvement with both English Nature and the Countryside Commission throughout the project. The project has been welcomed by the Council for the Protection of Rural England. It welcomed it on the basis that,

1755
"large scale measures are necessary to deal with the large scale problems of the area".
The project has the support of the other four district authorities in West Yorkshire because it will provide a major leisure and environmental amenity to the area —an amenity that will benefit not only the residents of the immediate locality in Wakefield but all the residents of West Yorkshire.
I hope that your Lordships' House will support the Third Reading of the Bill.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I rise with great sadness because my appearance at the Dispatch Box is due to the absence of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Sadly, he received the news this afternoon that his father has died. As a consequence, he had immediately to attend to his duties. I wish to say, I am sure on behalf of the whole House, that we understand why he is unable to be present and express our deepest sympathy to him and his family at this time.
I know that my noble friend would have enjoyed appearing at the Dispatch Box on the subject because he did so three years ago. I indicate, as he would have done, that by convention the Labour Party has no partisan view on the issue. We are neutral on the matter. We hope that the findings of the committee will be forwarded to another place. Any remarks that I make are from a purely personal point of view.
First, I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on an impressive, masterly and brief outline of the issues. I was present three years ago at the Second Reading of the Bill. Those who take an interest in such matters will have followed the Bill's progress over the past years—if progress is the right word for a Bill that has been in Committee for such a lengthy period. Nevertheless, I was impressed by what the noble Lord stated about the outcome if the Bill was passed not only in this House but in another place.
Reference has been made to the economic, environmental and financial aspects. Those issues have been dealt with fairly and kindly. There is no doubt that there will be economic advantage to the communities in the area. We ought not to be mealy-mouthed. There are definite advantages in transforming a derelict and obsolete piece of land into an environment which will produce jobs and will be supported by the communities.
On the social aspect, people living nearby will undoubtedly be affected by the operation of the new scheme. It is right and proper that we should listen carefully to what will undoubtedly be said—we may not hear it at first hand but at second hand—by the Member of Parliament, Mr. Bill O'Brien. Quite rightly, he wishes to ensure that the worries of his constituents are fully taken into account. Not only is that the proper thing to do, but many noble Lords in this Chamber may have served, as I have done, on a planning committee and will recognise that it is pointless not to listen to the views of any sector of the community affected. Their views hold weight. Those who are affected by the operation of the scheme are entitled to have their view taken fully into consideration.
1756
I have been impressed by the dedication and determination of local councils, which recognise that an opportunity has occurred in the past few years to take advantage of a situation which was not of their making but which can be transformed, environmentally and economically, to the advantage of the people whom they represent.
I was pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees indicate the all-party nature of the issue. It is not simply the authorities, as I understand it, but the members of authorities of all political complexions who favour the scheme making progress. When I read the papers I was impressed at the genuine effort to achieve the agreement of all the interests which are affected, including business and industry. Such people are perfectly entitled to make sure that their interests are protected and well looked after. I was pleased to hear in the past two days that the councils' determined efforts to make progress through agreement appear to have borne fruit. Therefore I believe that the communities in the environs of Wakefield, Bradford and Calderdale, Kirklees and Leeds have been well served by their councils.
In this Chamber tonight we have been well served by our procedures. They have been somewhat exhaustive, but I hope that at the end of the day the people who will be affected will feel that their voice has been heard.
A number of people will take a keen interest in the Bill when it goes to another place. Although I am a Geordie and know the mining area, I cannot remotely claim the interests indicated by those who have spoken in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, is to be congratulated on making his maiden speech on such an important issue—many of us speak in general terms in our maiden speeches. The noble Lord made a great impression on the House. When the Bill passes to another place, Members of Parliament who serve the interests of the people of the Wakefield area will wish to ensure that the views of their constituents are fully taken into account. We know that those Members will not be backward in coming forward to ensure that their points are taken up by the Committee. Even at the Third Reading of the Bill in another place they will have their opportunity.
We have been well served in this House. I speak in an individual capacity, but we on the Labour Front Bench hope that the Minister will say kind things about the Bill and speed it on its way.
7.39 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I, too, may first congratulate my noble friend Lord Saint Oswald on his maiden speech. He spoke with enormous lucidity and sensitivity about land which he obviously knows well and about which he feels passionately.
As my noble friend Lady Blatch said during the Second Reading of the Bill in May 1991, the Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection in principle to the powers being sought by the council. I am glad to be able to say that remains the position today.
The Government have given financial assistance and encouragement for the Welbeck project; but in view of

1757
the so far unresolved matter of the compulsory purchase order associated with the project, which is still to be decided by the Secretary of State, I trust that noble Lords will understand why the Government's position must remain essentially one of neutrality.
However, I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Third Reading so that it may proceed to another place where I am certain that all the points raised by your Lordships' House will be most carefully considered.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I wish to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, including the noble Earl, Lord Arran, whom I thank for his benevolent neutrality. I hope that I can use the word "benevolent" without causing any offence. All the speeches have been important; but included in them were two particularly important ones from the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, to whom reference has already been made. His speech was all the more relevant to our proceedings because of his great knowledge of the area, stretching back a long time through his family.
I also wish to express appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. At short notice and in the sad circumstances affecting the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, which prevented his appearance, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, took on his role and carried it out admirably, expressing his personal opinions.
Rarely has there been such a unanimous view from all speakers in the debate. Most of those who spoke have probably seen the site and could not fail to have been impressed with all that has been done. I wish to pay tribute to the City of Wakefield for the work that it has done. We have all been extremely well-served by them, with every form of assistance that we could have required in order to conduct proceedings in this House. I wish particularly to express appreciation to Doctor Chris Macdonald who provided the briefing to all of us. He will, I hope, be totally satisfied with the satisfactory outcome, if I may anticipate the conclusion of proceedings.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until five minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.43 to 8.5 p.m..]

Local Government (Wales) Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 8.
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 6, line 18, leave out from ("before") to ("take") in line 19 and insert ("1st October 1997").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the Government acknowledge that a five-year time-lapse to ensure that all communities have both a Welsh and an English name, where generally accepted alternative forms exist, was perhaps a little too generous. Accordingly we have
1758
reconsidered and now bring forward this amendment which will reduce the period to 18 months. We feel that this is appropriate since it will enable principal councils to undertake consultations in the appropriate community areas, with the community councils (where they exist) and with specially convened community meetings where community councils do not exist—which is the case in over 130 community areas in Wales. Lest there be any confusion about the matter, I should point out that the naming provision in this clause relates to the community areas, not the community councils. The fact that there are so many areas without councils is why responsibility for ensuring that there are Welsh and English versions is being assigned to the principal council. I beg to move.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his amendment and for implementing the spirit of an earlier amendment that I moved at Committee stage. Clearly we have had two great victories this evening. Powys will still be called Powys; and the Government have accepted the spirit of the naming of community councils. I thank the noble Viscount for that.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we also welcome this amendment. It requires the community council to be named by 1st April 1997. We believe that is acceptable. In Committee I raised a number of other specific questions on the clause. I just want to place on the record that I have received a letter from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, which is satisfactory.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Establishment, dissolution and grouping etc. of community councils.]:
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Community councils: supplemental provisions.]:
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 9, leave out lines 36 and 37 and insert:
("(i) in case of the establishment of a community council such number as is equal to 30 per cent of the local government electorate or, if that number exceeds 300, is 300; and
(ii) in case of the dissolution of a community council such number as is equal to 50 per cent of the local electorate or, if that number exceeds 500, is 500.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to ensure that in those community areas that do not have community councils the procedure for establishing a community council is made easier, and the dissolution process is made somewhat more difficult. This amendment is, as it were, a second or third tier following the two previous amendments which we debated before dinner referring to the position of community councils. I would argue that this amendment seeks to put into effect what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate advanced in his speech opposing my earlier amendment; namely, that application of the principle of establishing a community council in those areas which do not have them is made easier by this amendment.
There has been a lot of concern both on the part of the Wales Association of Community and Town Councils and its sister organisation, the National Association of

1759
Local Councils, about the position whereby community councils can become dissolved by a snap vote on a rather narrow local issue. Therefore I believe that it is advisable that where that structural government exists, it should be more firmly established, and where it does not exist it should be more easily established. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment and in particular its second paragraph. Under existing law a council can be dissolved without any advice or review by an external body. As the Bill now stands it can be dissolved with the consent of just 30 per cent. of the electorate, or 300 if the electorate exceeds 300. That is far too low.
As we have thought almost from the beginning, it is an invitation to instability. We support the amendment and in particular the second limb of it, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas said, it will prevent the hasty dissolution of a community council.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I have already acknowledged the important role that community councils play, where they exist. Nonetheless, I cannot accept the amendment.
I do not think it is correct to say that the amendment will make it any easier for a community council to be established than does the proposal contained in the Bill. The effect of the amendment is to tease out the provisions of subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 12 so as to retain for the establishment of a community council the figures in subsection (5) but to substitute in the case of dissolution the figures in the amendment.
As I understand it, the effect of the amendment would be to leave the establishment of community councils on the same basis as proposed in the Bill. Nonetheless it would have an effect in the case of dissolution.
However, it is important to notice what in fact the Bill provides; namely, that in subsection (4) of the clause:
"At any community meeting at which there is discussed a proposal … for the dissolution of a community council … a decision to hold a poll on the question shall be effective only if not less than the required number of local government electors is present and voting".
That number is then specified in subsection (5).
But the decision at such a meeting is simply a decision to hold a poll. The issue of whether or not the community council should be dissolved is a matter that would then be determined at a poll. With the greatest possible respect to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I believe that it would be wrong to suggest that somehow or other the dissolution of a council could be achieved simply upon the voting figures in subsection (5). On the contrary, that is simply what is required to put the issue in front of the electorate. At the end of the day it is for the electorate to decide in both cases whether or not a community council should be established or whether or not it should be dissolved.
In my submission that is the correct way to look at the matter. A council should not be forced on a community if it does not wish it. The community should not be forced to retain one if on a poll the majority of the electorate do not support it. The proposals in the Bill are
1760
a very secure basis for a democratic decision on both the establishment and the dissolution of a council. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I find it a curious argument that a community may argue that it wishes to have a community council or it does not; in other words, its identity as a community may or may not be related to a political structure. Earlier in other parts of the debate the Government have taken a very strong view that whether or not a community wishes to remain a community or to identify itself politically is a matter for it to decide. Here we have an inconsistency.
It seems to me that in the creation of a principal council it is not a matter for the communities which constitute areas, shires or counties to decide to maintain their integrity or their political structure. In the case of Montgomeryshire or Merioneth or whichever of the other authorities we may refer to, it is not for the community to decide that it wishes to express itself in a political authority. However, when we come to community councils it is apparently for community areas to wish to express themselves and for them alone.
That exposes two aspects of the Government's attitude to the Bill. First, they do not really believe that community councils are an integral part of local government structure; and, secondly, it is clear that the principle of local democracy applies where it is least effective and not where it might be most effective in exercising political influence.
Having made what I suspect is in effect almost a Second Reading speech, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [General provision for transfer of functions]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 13, line 21, leave out ("or by any instrument under").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. In Committee we had some trouble with subsection (3) of Clause 17 and indeed with the whole of the clause as it stands. I recognise that the amendment that I moved Committee was in the nature of a probing amendment. It had certain defects which the noble and learned Lord quite properly pointed out. But I believe that it is right to return to this matter.
I asked the noble and learned Lord to have a look at the wording of Clause 17(3) before Report stage. He has done that and very kindly written me a letter. That letter was dated 8th February 1994 and I have not had a great deal of time to read it. But I am bound to say that even if I had had all the time in the world to read it I might not understand it any better than I do at present.
Clause 17 declares the general intention to transfer to the new principal councils every current local authority function contained in any relevant legislative provision. That is perfectly clear in subsection (1). Subsection (2) is equally clear. It is a general provision. Therefore, prima facie this is a wholesale transfer of each and every current local authority function, however and wherever

1761
described, to each of the new principal councils. That is the function of the clause. That is what Clause 17(1) and (2) say.
If that is the case, there is obviously a question of why there needs to be a separate provision in Clauses 18, 19 and 20 (for planning) and Clause 21 (for highways, transportation, housing, public health and related matters). Those functions are subject to the general provision of the transfer of functions in Clause 17(1) and (2). I accept that in the case of overlapping functions such as planning, some specific clause for transfer may be required. That may be a case where one needs a clause such as Clauses 18 or 19.
But the problem with subsection (3) is that it has the power to negate completely subsections (1) and (2). In other words, subsections (1) and (2) state a clear principle, which I have just enunciated and which is perfectly clear. And subsection (3) gives power to the Secretary of State to negate that principle and not just by what he puts in the Bill, but also by any instrument under the Act. The object of the amendment and the wording is absolutely clear on that point. We feel that the provision of secondary legislation to negate what is a primary function of Clause 17(1) and (2) requires further explanation from the noble and learned Lord.
I accept that to leave out subsection (3) altogether would be wrong. As the noble and learned Lord pointed out in his letter—in the part which I understood—in Schedule 6, paragraph 20(13) there is a specific provision to the contrary; that is, a specific provision qualifying the general transfer which is contained in the Bill. That seems to me to be a perfectly sensible and reasonable thing to do because your Lordships can discuss that matter as and when we come to it.
But when we come to doing what is in the schedule, and instead of putting it in the Bill we have an order doing it, then I start to become a little edgy, for two reasons. First, the transfer of functions should be quite simple if we follow Clause 17(1) and (2). Secondly, the 1972 Act, to which the noble and learned Lord referred as being analogous to what is happening here, is in fact not analogous. That Act dealt with both England and Wales and with the transition from county, urban district, rural district, parish and community councils to county, district, parish and community councils. It is therefore a much more complex arrangement than simply the wholesale transfer of certain functions carried out by certain local authorities to another group with which the Bill is concerned. I do not believe therefore that the 1972 Act is a proper analogy.
I recognise that if my amendment is accepted it will negate subsection (6) of Clause 17, because that would be an instrument under the Bill and the Secretary of State would not have the power to make an order adjudicating between councils where there was doubt. I think the noble and learned Lord said that it was some kind of failsafe procedure. All I can do is to repeat what I said in Committee: it is a little odd to have to write failsafe procedures into every Bill. It is up to the Government to get the Bill right and if they get it right then we do not need a failsafe procedure.
The problem with Clause 17(3) is that it allows the Government to negate the general transfer in a manner
1762
which Parliament at the moment cannot foresee because the Secretary of State can do it by order rather than putting it in the Bill. Therefore functions can remain with the bodies that have them at the moment simply because the Secretary of State says that they will remain with that body, and that is an end to the matter. That is why this specific subsection is causing great anxiety and why I would welcome from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate a justification of why that wording in regard to subordinate legislation should be in the Bill at all. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I listened with great interest and a certain amount of comprehension to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I have an interest in the amendment, which at present is academic, as a member of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, which did not pick up the point. However, it is a related point.
As I see it, the provision contains the intellectual difficulty of double and triple negatives, with which I always have a problem. If I understand the situation correctly—and I believe I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel—the amendment would prevent the Secretary of State doing what he otherwise might do, which is to extend the effect of the Act to existing legislation after the Act has been put on the statute book; in other words, extending its effect beyond that which Parliament can foresee in authorising it. Therefore the extent to which the use of that power is limited elsewhere in the Bill seems to me to be crucial to the extent to which we should favour the noble Lord's amendment.
I shall listen with great care to hear whether my noble and learned friend is saying that that will not happen because the Government do not intend to do it, but he cannot answer for succeeding governments, or whether he is saying that the Government will not do it because the provisions do not permit it. I should be most grateful if he could show us the extent of the use of the power.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I hope that the difficulties that noble Lords felt with the provision are due to defects in my exposition rather than any defects in the clause itself. I start by saying that of course Clause 17(3) does not give power to make orders, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, recognises. The power to make orders is the general power to be found in Clause 52. No doubt we shall come on to debate that.
In general terms the effect of an order-making power in connection with any Bill (or Act as it will be by then), is to give the Secretary of State power to make orders which carry forward the purposes of the statute. The purposes of this statute are to make provision in respect of local government in Wales and in particular to transfer functions and so forth.
Subsection (3) qualifies a general and comprehensible provision of subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 17, which provide in broad terms for a general transfer of functions. Then comes the qualification in subsection (3), and it says that,
"This section has effect subject to any provision to the contrary made by, or by any instrument under, this Act".

1763
Let us consider the words, "under the Act". The noble Lord, Lord Williams, acknowledged that the example which I gave was an example of that. The question then is what is intended by the words,
"any provision … made … by any instrument under, this Act"?
So far as possible the Bill provides, both in the general provisions of Clause 17 and elsewhere, as the noble Lord pointed out, for transfer whether generally or slightly more specific. But there are functions of local government the details of which are set out in secondary legislation. It would not be practical or indeed sensible, for the amendments to that secondary legislation to be contained in primary legislation.
What is envisaged is that there may be secondary legislation which is required to amend the existing secondary legislation which deals with the functions of the local authority. I accept also that there may be occasions where secondary legislation is used because, in going through the various statutes, certain functions have not been picked up. It is difficult to find all the references tucked away in legislation, so it is acknowledged that it may be used for that purpose also.
That is the kind of situation which is envisaged. The question then is: why, on looking through the Bill, one can make an instrument which provides that something should not be transferred? That is what the noble Lord is asking. The answer to that is most easily given if I suggest that there may be certain functions which should not be transferred or which it would not make sense to transfer.
For example, with the combination of county functions and district functions, there could be a situation where, under the existing system—with both the county and the district —there would be a power for the county to act in circumstances where the district failed to act—a kind of failsafe provision. In the transfer to the new unitary authority, there would be no room for the transfer of such a function to the county because one would no longer have two different councils. One would have only the one council. In that situation, it would make no sense for such a failsafe mechanism in the county to be transferred to the unitary authority because there would be only one authority. That is the kind of situation which is envisaged. There may be situations where there is a power which exists at the moment in one of the authorities which it would not make sense in the framework of the new unitary authority to transfer to that unitary authority. It may be that—
8.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. For the purposes of this clause it is irrelevant whether the function is defined in an Act or in an instrument. It is all included in subsection (2), so that part of the argument is irrelevant. If I may take the noble and learned Lord's example, there is a function which at the moment is exercised by a county, say, the failsafe: if a district does not do something, then the county can intervene. If the county is not going to exist, if there is to be a unitary authority, then the question of the failsafe falls
1764
automatically. Once you transfer to a unitary authority, you transfer to a unitary authority. So there is no question of using these powers.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, with respect, it seems to me that the noble Lord makes my point. If one has two authorities, with one of them acting in a failsafe capacity, it does not make sense for the legislation to provide, as it would provide if only Clause 17(1) and (2) existed, that both sets of powers would transfer to the new authority. The noble Lord may say that there would be no reason to invoke it. Nonetheless, there would be an extraordinary anomaly on the statute book in that the new unitary authority would have inherited two incompatible powers—two powers—only one of which would ever have to be exercised. Lawyers may do foolish things but they should not have on the statute book something which is entirely redundant and something which would cause doubt in the minds of people who had to operate the provisions in the future.
It is to allow appropriate provision to be made by statutory instrument—in order to take away that unnecessary power —that under subsection (3) the transfer takes place subject to the provision—in that case the statutory instrument. That statutory instrument would provide, for example, that only one power—whatever it would be—would come across. Therefore it would provide that this fallback power would not transfer. There would be no reason for it to transfer. I would ask the noble Lord to consider this further because, in my respectful submission, it makes sense in that context.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that exposition. It seems to me that we are getting down to a question of whether lawyers like something to be clean and clear. Perhaps I may take the noble and learned Lord's example ad absurdum. Authority A—a county council—has a failsafe over authority B, which is a district council. If authority B does not do something, authority A can step in and do it. All powers of authority A are transferred to authority B. This means that authority B—a unitary council—has powers not only to do the thing itself but actually to supervise its own doing of the thing. That may be untidy but it is nevertheless perfectly plain because authority A ceases to exist.
If the noble and learned Lord is saying—if I may take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton—that the only purpose of such an instrument made under Clause 52 is to clean up these small legal anomalies, and if he is prepared to give an assurance to that effect, I am perfectly happy, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will be perfectly happy. But I am rather more suspicious by nature than that. I should like the noble and learned Lord please, by leave of the House, to reply. If he cannot give that assurance, I should like him to tell us exactly how he sees this power being used.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I say very briefly that all that can be done is to use the powers which are given by the statute to make orders. There is no other power. The general power—apart from particular ones in particular clauses

1765
—is the power in Clause 52. That in itself is very limited to incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provisions. We shall come on to debate that clause in due course. All the authorities indicate that these powers are able to be used only in a very restricted way. The kinds of situations which we have in mind are those which I have indicated to the noble Lord. I cannot say that they will all be to do with fallback provisions, and so on. It is a technical provision to make sure that when the legislation takes effect and people have to apply it, they are not faced with something which is anomalous, hard to construe, hard to make sense of or hard to know how it is meant to work in a particular situation. It is to allow that kind of thing to happen. The power which is envisaged being used here would prevent the transfer of that kind of function. It is in that limited context, and I am quite happy to give that assurance.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, it may be that his last sentence covers this point but I shall have to read it in Hansard to make sure. He was pointing us to Clause 52 to reassure us and saying how limited the powers under the clause are. There are order-making powers elsewhere in the Bill, not least in Clause 30 which we shall be discussing shortly. The assurance that we need—I do not see why it could not be on the face of the Bill—is that this subsection relates to orders made under Clause 52. That would be an even neater and cleaner way of doing it. I am quite prepared to be told I am wrong because I am not a lawyer, and lawyers are always right. When they are right, I usually am wrong. But I should be grateful to my noble and learned friend if he would look at that.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I am happy to look at it but I should not like to give the assurance in those terms this evening because I would have to look at that more carefully. In broad terms, I am happy to give the assurance which I have already given. I would simply reassure noble Lords that the order-making powers are powers granted by Parliament. They can only be exercised in the terms which Parliament has granted. If the Secretary of State strays beyond those powers, they can be struck down by the process of judicial review, a process which, as noble Lords know, has become very effective in recent years.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for all his responses. I think that the argument is postponed until we get to Clause 52. As I said when I moved the amendment, subsection (6) of Clause 17 also contains an order-making power arbitrating between councils and therefore would be, as it were, subject to subsection (3). That is how I understand it. So there may be other places in the Bill, apart from Clause 52, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, pointed out, where that would apply. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord prefers to duck the point. I think that we should postpone the argument until a later date; indeed possibly until another stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [New principal councils to be local planning authorities in Wales]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 30:
Leave out Clause 18.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have a number of questions on which I have written to my noble and learned friend. I would like to have some clarification concerning this clause and other clauses which refer to planning. My first question follows my noble and learned friend's remarks at Second Reading (Official Report, 14/12/93; col. 1271). I ask: first, what confidence can the local people have that the planning system will deliver better decisions than it has in the past? In particular, will rural entrepreneurs still experience long and costly delays by dilatory planning authorities? Secondly, will the Government look again at DoE Circular 8/93 to make sure that those new and more local planning authorities do not behave unreasonably?
It is not unusual for an inspector to rule that a local planning authority has "behaved unreasonably" yet be unable, because of the circular, to award costs. So the local planning authority just laughs and continues to behave unreasonably. That is not quite in line with the Citizen's Charter. Can my noble and learned friend say whether ombudsmen's and inspectors' recommendations in future may—I say "may"—be made legally enforceable? They are in Northern Ireland.
My noble and learned friend may say that these points have nothing to do with this Bill. I beg to differ, not least because the new planning authorities will have lost the guidance, as far as overall structure plans are concerned, from the county councils. I shall be grateful if my noble and learned friend can tell me who, and more importantly, when, the future structure plans will be in place.
I suspect that these thoughts are somewhat similar to the points which were made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in a slightly different context but with the same philosophy on the last amendment. Perhaps my noble and learned friend can confirm that existing county council structure plans will remain in force until the new unitary authority plans are produced, or will the Secretary of State issue interim plans? I do not know. Perhaps he can also say what the position would be if an area committee adopted a planning policy contrary to a unitary development plan.
If there are to be joint arrangements between unitary authorities, are the Government going to issue guidelines as to how they should work? In particular, I am sure that guidance is needed on such things as road planning and certainly on waste disposal.
To put the matter in a sentence: believe that there could be a muddle. I accept that many of these points cannot be corrected in this Bill, but whenever any change in anything is made there is always a knock-on effect and it is always wise to be aware of that: commercial organisations are. I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to say that the Government will be looking at these points and will take any necessary correcting action; otherwise the planning system, which will inevitably become more locally

1767
based under the Bill, will fall into, dare I say, even more disrepute than already exists, if that is possible. In short, I am quite worried. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, are well put. The whole arrangement of how planning will work under the unitary councils, it seems to me, has yet to be determined. That will effect not just the business of structure plans and the development of Wales itself. It will affect all the voluntary organisations—I speak as president of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales—which will have to deal with the planning mechanism as it is. Until we have some clear idea in the form of guidance from the Government as to how the whole thing is to operate, and a clear indication from the Welsh Office that the scheme is to work in the way it believes is efficient and it can be demonstrated that it is efficient, we are a bit in the dark.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, when he says that the planning regime in Wales does not have the highest reputation. It may even get worse unless the Welsh Office takes a grip of it. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to answer convincingly the points which have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and that the Welsh Office will put these matters into practice pretty soon after the Bill becomes an Act.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it seems to me that the explanation which my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley is seeking may be supplied in my noble and learned friend's explanation of the effects of Clause 19, which would not work without Clause 18, which my noble friend's amendment seeks to remove. Therefore, it is proper to ask him whether the new body which is to be set up by the Secretary of State—by order, I might add, in the light of our last debate and under Clause 19(1)—will be the body which creates the structure plan. Will the structure plan created by it have the same effect as the structure plan under the existing arrangements in this country? I agree with my noble friend that without a structure plan planning will be all at sixes and sevens.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I may not be able to answer all the points which have been raised in sufficient detail. If that is so—and I shall reflect on what I am able to say—and as I reflect on the questions in Hansard, I shall write on these matters to my noble friend. But in broad terms it is of course the case that the new unitary structure does necessitate changes to the planning system in Wales. That is inevitable. Clause 18 provides for the new authorities to be the local planning authorities and the mineral planning authorities.
As noble Lords know, at the present time planning is currently the function of both the county and the district councils in Wales. The major effect and advantage of reorganisation will be to rationalise the administration and delivery of the service by vesting it, in effect, in a single authority for an area. I believe that that will mean
1768
that there is less confusion about responsibility for any particular matter. There will also be clear accountability.
I know from my own experience as regards equivalent legislation in Scotland that it is often difficult to deal with matters when there are two planning authorities involved. One finds oneself caught between the two. There is the awkward matter of evidence coming in or positions being taken by the county in Wales, and in Scotland the region, and so on. I believe that that of itself will be an advantage.
Clause 20 provides for a consequential change in the development plan system. That is a change from one based on local and structure plans to one based on unitary development plans, regulations and orders and directions as conferred by the Bill. That is the situation in broad terms.
In answering the questions more particularly which my noble friend Lord Stanley has put as regards what confidence local people can have that the planning system will be simplified, and so on, I have already indicated that the streamlining down to one authority should of itself help. I believe that that is a major advantage. Whether it will lead to all these authorities being as efficient as one would wish I cannot yet say because one has to see how they work. The trouble at the moment is that it is not necessarily the structure that is wrong but sometimes perhaps the particular body has not administered it as efficiently as it could. I cannot say at the moment that one can be absolutely confident that they will all be as punctilious in meeting the demands as my noble friend would like. However, I think that the system is an improvement.
My noble friend asked whether and to what extent one can expect the present planning system to be perpetuated. I think that it is correct to say that the system will not be fundamentally altered. The Town and Country Planning Act, as amended, will be amended to reflect the change in the nature of the authorities. Under the new system, each authority will prepare a single plan, a unitary development plan. It is expected that the new authorities will commence work on the unitary development plans as soon as practicable when the new system comes into force.
However, it is possible that the new authorities will find that they have inherited development plans which are in the course of preparation. They may take the view that those plans should be progressed through and, in due course, be adopted. They can apply to the Secretary of State for approval to do that. That is set out in Schedule 5. That would be an interim measure to ensure that an up-to-date development plan is in place before work commences on the unitary development plan.
To that extent, that measure is designed to deal with the kind of transitional problems which my noble friend has said that he fears. I think that any such change will have teething problems. We hope that such a measure will at least minimise those problems. The matter of the timescale for adopting the unitary development plans is something which the Welsh Office intends to deal with in guidance.
The question of approval of the unitary development plans will depend on local circumstances. A new

1769
authority may be able to take forward an existing plan, but that will not always be possible. It is for that reason that the department has not set any date for adoption of the unitary development plans throughout Wales. However, this is a matter which will, again, be dealt with by means of guidance from the Welsh Office.
Another question that was asked (of me in the letter) was whether clear guidance will be given in the unitary development plans to prospective developers. Unitary development plans will provide clear guidance. The decision-making of the new authorities will be based on the development plans. Although any individual planning application will continue to be considered on its merits—that must always be so—noble Lords will recall that under the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, local planning authorities are required to determine any application in accordance with the provisions of the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
In broad terms, the area committee would have to apply the terms of the unitary development plan. One of the matters that I should like to consider further and about which I shall write to my noble friend is the question of exactly what the remedy would be if the area committee decided not to do that.
I hope that I have, at least in broad terms, answered the questions that have been put to me. As I have said, I shall read Hansard and if there are any other matters on which I can help my noble friend or any other noble Lord, I shall seek to do so.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down—
Lord Elton: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down for the second but not the ultimate time, will he take on board the fact that it seems to me that the whole question of whether this will work hangs on the operation of Clause 19, which enables the Secretary of State to determine the size of the planning board? If boards are too small, the Secretary of State can make joint boards by order. That is crucial to planning. If the unitary authorities—the principal authorities—are very small, it will be almost impossible to have an industrial development plan, a housing plan or any of the other sorts of plans that should be established by an authority that covers much more of an area than one of the little bodies that we are creating. The Secretary of State can either leave a mosaic of small bodies or have a patchwork quilt, as it were, of larger authorities by using Clause 19. It would be extremely helpful to know the extent to which he intends using that power. If my noble and learned friend could put that information in a letter to me, I should be most grateful.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, since the noble and learned Lord has not yet sat down, perhaps I can ask another question of information. Is there any mechanism in the Bill as drafted for the Welsh Office to approve these unitary development plans? I can imagine that in relatively small authorities the development plan of one authority might adopt a completely different philosophy from the development plan of another authority. I think that I said in Committee that Radnor
1770
and Brecon have completely different methods of adjudicating on planning decisions. Indeed, the two counties look very different. That has been happening over the past 15 years to my knowledge. Does the Welsh Office have any mechanism whereby the Secretary of State can ensure that the unitary development plans follow a coherent pattern?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, not for the first time this evening—I am sure this will happen in the future—I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for the great care and trouble that he took in replying to my question—
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene to say that I should like to reply in writing to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on the matter that he raised. I shall reply equally to my noble friend Lord Elton.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am sorry to have been in such a hurry.
Not for the first time, I feel that I have pushed the ball into court and that your Lordships are playing it. I am grateful to noble Lords for their help in expressing similar concerns to mine over this matter. It needs quite a lot of careful thought, which is what your Lordships have given it. I strongly suspect that the Government will hear more about this problem, particularly when we get to the English Bill. I hope—I beg—that the Government will consider carefully (my noble and learned friend has obviously done this) the points that I and other noble Lords have raised so that we get this right—or as near right as possible. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 p.m.
Clause 19 [Joint and special planning boards in Wales]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 14, line 42, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, and now for something completely different. We shall, of course, be returning to questions of planning—in my case, in about 30 amendments' time. Meanwhile, we are all looking forward with scarcely concealed impatience to the Private Member's Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, on the national parks. The noble Lord, my noble friend Lady White and I have the honour to be Vice-Presidents of the Council for National Parks and have a deep interest in that subject. I should stress that we have no pecuniary interest in that topic so far as I am aware.
The purpose of the amendment is to seek an assurance from the Minister that if the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, fails—and heaven forfend that it should—the Secretary of State will definitely create boards where there are currently committees of county councils to administer the national parks in Wales. At present all three national parks in Wales are run as committees of county councils, which will therefore cease to exist.
Fortunately, there is an alternative legal framework for administering a national park. It is known as a "board". A board is a freestanding thing within the local government framework. Two-thirds of the members are from local authorities in both kinds of operation. It should be noted that in 1991 the Minister announced that the Government believed that all 10 national parks in both Wales and England should be constituted along the lines of boards and not committees. The term used was "independent authorities". That has come to be the term of art for this particular board.
That became a manifesto commitment. We on this side of the House never cease to be impressed by the way in which Her Majesty's Government honour any commitment which has appeared in the manifesto, no matter what may come. We hope that they will honour this one. Clause 19 makes it much easier to change existing park committees in Wales into boards and under current legislation that would be difficult. Therefore, we have no difficulty whatever in seeing some real merit and relief in Clause 19.
On Second Reading it was announced that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, hopes soon to introduce his Private Member's Bill with government support. That would offer a superior legislative framework for setting up national park authorities along the same lines as boards. The Bill would be superior because it would be drafted from scratch rather than amending and patching existing legislation. There would be the opportunity and scope to sort out anomalies and to incorporate best practice from existing areas which have boards. It would also apply equally to England and Wales.
Also on Second Reading the noble and learned Lord helpfully said that if the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, is successful with his Bill it would be the preferred option for the Welsh national parks. Therefore, from our point of view, Clause 19 can be seen as nothing much more than an insurance policy in case the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, should fail.
The danger that the Council for National Parks wishes to guard against is a scenario which might be as follows: the noble Lord's Bill fails for some reason unconnected with any of us, and for some reason the Secretary of State decides not to set up board parks in Wales using his powers to make an order. At present, Clause 19 is perhaps a weak enabling clause. We would prefer the Bill to say "shall" rather than "may" because "shall" is a firmer, mandatory word, briskly reminding the Secretary of State of his duties. It is a word which would both permit and oblige the Secretary of State to do as King Henry V—that great and good Welsh king of England—advised his English army; to stiffen his sinews, summon up his blood and set up boards for the national parks. I beg to move.
Baroness White: My Lords, I cannot quote Shakespeare, but I shall say that as a fellow vice-president of the Council of National Parks, I am entirely in favour of the proposed amendment. I hope that the Government will have the sense to accept it herewith.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the favourite parliamentary ploy is to play about with the words "shall" and "may". On this occasion, the word "may" can be preferred on two grounds. First, that the Secretary of State wishes to have an unbridled discretion. Secondly, that he envisages circumstances in which he may not want to institute a special board. I take it that we can discount the first and that the Secretary of State does not want an unbridled discretion but is content if necessary to be guided by Parliament. Therefore, when the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, replies—he seems to be the one on the point of reply —your Lordships will want to know what are the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may not wish to act as directed in the subsection.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I can assure your Lordships that the Government remain committed to their manifesto pledge of establishing independent national park authorities. The setting up of such authorities would dispense with the need for planning boards. Your Lordships are aware of the Bill which my noble friend Lord Norrie proposes to introduce. It would have the effect of creating independent national park authorities. Were my noble friend's Bill to receive the approval of Parliament, the Government would not need to bring into effect or use the provisions of Clause 19 to create planning boards for national parks in Wales. In the event of my noble friend's Bill not receiving parliamentary approval, however, the Government would certainly move to establish such boards.
The Government thus wish to retain the wording of Clause 19 as drafted. That will ensure that there is no compulsion to establish special planning boards when they may no longer be required on account of changes brought about by legislation being brought forward separately and subject to different parliamentary timescales. It will also retain consistency with existing permissive powers to establish joint planning boards which remain unaffected by the requirements of local government reorganisation.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for that reply; at least I think I am. I find it quite astonishing, as I found the whole of this splendid debate on what I thought would be a simple and pleasant little amendment. I normally find that anything said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, commands my instantaneous agreement and support. I found that to be so when he said that he was concerned about unbridled discretion being given to a Secretary of State. I found those to be cheerful and fortifying words. I am always suspicious of giving unbridled discretion to any Secretary of State —and I almost go so far as to say, of whatever party.
The noble and learned Lord asked what circumstances there may be in which a Secretary of State may not wish to act in the way that has been described. I am bound to say that the noble Viscount brought forward no such circumstances and I am relieved and pleased that I did not hear any such thing.
If I understood him correctly, the noble Viscount said that there is no need for any change here because, in the unlikely event—that sounds as though this aeroplane is

1773
coming down on water, does it not?—of the Bill sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, not succeeding, then the Government are minded, nay determined, to act as I want them to do. They do not wish to be told that that is what they have to do.
Forgive an old Welsh cynic but I find that I am always suspicious when somebody says, "There is no need for you to tell me to do that, because I fully intend to do it". Circumstances change; times change; things go differently. It is always nicer and more pleasant to have something set down in law and on the face of the Bill rather than having to rely on a statement made, even in your Lordships' House, and even by someone like the noble Viscount, with whom I would trust my life. Who was it who said: "God is love but get it in writing"?
That is still my view about the Bill. Perhaps I may ask the noble Viscount to explain why he is so robustly ready to do what I want him to do but does not want the words written on the face of the Bill.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the matter hinges on the fact that we should not need the powers of compulsion if the Bill sponsored by my noble friend Lord Norrie passes through Parliament. However, we have, as a commitment, undertaken that, if the Bill fails, we shall bring forward legislation to set up the necessary boards. We also wish to keep consistent existing law. Therefore, we prefer that Clause 19 should remain as it is.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, on the understanding, which I had not taken on board—and that was probably my fault—that, in the event of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, failing, legislation will be brought forward and that there is a commitment to do that, I am delighted and pleased to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (The Viscount of Oxfuird): My Lords, Amendment No. 32 should read:
"Insert the following new clause",
and not the words as printed.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 32:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
Local education authorities and minor authorities in Wales

(".—(1) In section 114 of the Education Act 1944 (interpretation), in the definition of "local education authority" in subsection (1), after "the county," insert "in relation to a county borough, the council of the county borough,".

(2) In section 192 of the 1972 Act (education), in subsection (1), after "non-metropolitan county" insert "in England" and at the end add "but, for each principal area in Wales, the local education authority shall be the council of that principal area".

(3) In section 114(1) of the Act of 1944, in the definition of "minor authority", omit, in paragraph (b), "is a community having no community council or" and, in paragraph (c) (iii), "which is a community having no community council or".").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 32 introduces a new clause. The Government are conscious of anxieties that have been expressed about the absence of any reference to education in the Bill as it was originally drafted. That gave rise to certain suspicions. I hope that those suspicions are allayed by this amendment, which makes good that deficiency. On that basis I hope that the House
1774
will welcome the amendment, which effects the transfer of the functions relating to education to the new authorities by making textual amendments to the relevant legislation.
All the amendments are solely for the purpose of carrying forward existing county functions into the new councils. As I believe your Lordships will appreciate, in one sense it is possible to achieve that merely by using the provisions in Clause 17. But, as with certain other functions, it has been thought better—and by "better", I mean better for those who must operate the legislation when it becomes an Act—for these amendments to be plain on the face of the legislation so that people can use them. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we welcome the new clause. I have sought technical guidance from the officers of the county councils in Wales on its contents, and am advised that the clause appears to be in order.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 33:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Trading standards
.—(1) Before 1st April 1996 the Secretary of State shall by order either—

(a) make a scheme to establish a single trading standards authority for Wales in accordance with the following subsection; or

(b) make schemes to establish a trading standards authority in accordance with the following subsection for the local government comprised in each of the combined areas set out in Schedule (Combined areas for trading standards administration) to this Act.

(2) A trading standards authority shall—

(a) have all the duties, functions and powers of a local weights and measures authority under the Weights and Measures Act 1985 or under any other legislative provision;

(b) enforce the provisions of sections 14 and 15 of the Food Safety Act 1990;

(c) discharge, with its agreement, any function of a new principal council under any legislative provision;

(d) be empowered to make, or assist in the making of, arrangements to provide advice to or for the benefit of suppliers and consumers of goods and services; and

(e) have a membership drawn exclusively from representatives nominated for this purpose by each new principal council.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment I shall, for the convenience of the House, speak also to Amendments Nos. 36 and 42. In Committee, there was universal agreement that effective trading standards control is essential not only for the well-being but also for the safety of the public in Wales, as is the case everywhere else. There was almost universal agreement that each of the successor bodies —that is, the principal authorities—created under the Bill would on its own be too small to deliver effective trading standards control. Therefore, not unexpectedly, the Bill provides the power in Clauses 29 and 30 for principal authorities to set up combined trading standards authorities.
There is also universal agreement that principal authorities can operate together. In addition, the Government believe that they will do so and that they will do so permanently. In Committee, I reminded noble Lords—as, indeed, I now remind my noble friend the

1775
Minister again with some authority—that that assumption is ill founded. I had exactly the same belief in 1985 when I was a Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and took the Local Government Bill of that year through the House. I was in exactly the same position as my noble friend today and I took exactly the same stance, though I was not justified in so doing.
In that Bill, six voluntary joint authorities were set up to begin with, which is what I expected. I should add that, of those, the smallest had a population of 1.3 million. However, only one of those bodies now survives, while the rest fragmented into 32 constituent parts. There is general agreement that those 32 constituent parts are less effective and more expensive as the administrators of trading standards control because they are so much smaller. Indeed, the smallest post-1985 group was 1.3 million, but the biggest Welsh post-1994 group will only be 275,000—that is to say, one-quarter of that size—if the constituent parts fragment as happened before.
It seems that everyone, except some government departments, is alert to that prospect. Indeed, I have a very large mailbag to prove it. At this late hour I shall not drone on through it all. Nevertheless, I think that it is worth quoting selectively from some of the letters. I shall start with the Director-General of the CBI, who says:
"There is growing concern among CBI members about the fragmentation of regulatory service which may follow local government reorganisation … The Secretary of State for Wales is aware that business in Wales is concerned about the fragmentation of regulatory services … We"—
that is, the CBI
"have had approaches from several multiple retailers about the effect on trading standards enforcement in particular. If there is no stiffening of the provisions of the Bill now before the Lords, we hope that the Secretary of State will be ready to look again at some of the arguments set out in debate in the Lords in particular".
The British Retail Consortium, which represents 90 per cent. of British retailers, initially wrote to the Secretary of State in June 1993 expressing its concern that the considerable reduction in size of operational units would make it impossible to provide the level of expertise necessary to provide a full trading service. The consortium then wrote again to the Secretary of State in December saying that it remained worried about the Bill now before Parliament.
Many retail groups have written independently stating their anxieties. Indeed, Mercury Communications said in writing to the Secretary of State that,
"initiatives such as this could discourage investment in the Principality".
On 24th January 1994 Mercury wrote again saying:
"We have a continuing concern centred on the increased burden to business in general, and small businesses in particular, of the current proposals. In our view, this will be an inevitable consequence of increasing the number of operational units with which Mercury, along with other businesses, will have to deal. We would urge that further consideration be given to the points raised when the Bill is debated again".
The Retail Credit Group also wrote to the Secretary of State last month to say that its members are concerned that,
1776
"trading standards officers should be based in sizeable organisations … and combined authorities would be very much better than those based on small district authorities".
The noble Lord, Lord Inchyra, who is president of the British Bankers Association, has also written in similar terms. The National Animal Health and Welfare Panel has also written. The National Federation of Consumer Groups says:
"We are deeply concerned about the fragmentation of the trading standards service. It will substantially weaken [the system]".
The Welsh Consumer Council has written a similar letter. I have reams more and those are only an extract of all the correspondence that has been received.
There is consensus that the small units will not be affected. To that point, my noble and learned friend will no doubt reply, as he did before, that there is a reserve power in Clause 30 which the Secretary of State can use to direct local authorities to form joint working groups.
Even with the amendment which my noble and learned friend has kindly made to the timetable for triggering the intervention of the Secretary of State, the prospect is that intervention would be retrospective—that is, after the damage has been done.
The damage can be serious. As I stated at Committee stage, it could be the failure to contain bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease); it could be the failure to ensure that motorists got a full litre of petrol when they paid for it; it could be that your Lordships would not know what they were eating from reading the label on food provided in Wales. That situation is very relevant today in view of the comments on the television this evening: it could be a failure to control the distribution of pornographic and illegal video material.
My noble and learned friend may also state that we want to substitute a duty for a power, which would be to diminish democracy. I refer my noble and learned friend to the readiness of his Secretary of State, as expressed in Clause 19 subsection (1), page 14, line 29 to 36, to order local authorities to do exactly that under the planning regulations that we discussed a moment ago. Planning is surely a matter for democratic control. Therefore, it does not lie with my noble and learned friend to say that to do this would be anti-democratic. All that I and my noble friends ask, and what the Liberal Party were asking at Committee and will no doubt ask again when we return—as, I hope, will others—together with the CBI and virtually the whole of the commercial sector who have written to us is that the power should be turned into a duty.
The amendments propose two different methods of achieving that aim. Amendment No. 33, with Amendment No. 36, sets out a scheme by which the Secretary of State shall require local authorities to co-operate either in a single scheme or in a number of schemes of his determination. Amendment No. 42 proposes the simple solution that he should hand the duty of regulation to, or make it coterminous with, that of the fire authorities.
I apologise for taking 11 minutes of your Lordships' time so late at night. On the other hand, it is a big subject and to have given less would not have done it justice. I offer my noble and learned friend two ways forward for

1777
Third Reading. I hope that he will choose one of them and I shall listen very carefully to his answer to see which.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, at this late hour I shall not elaborate, expand or go over the points that have been made by my noble friend Lord Elton, because he has put them so well. I rise to state that I support the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have not previously played an active part in the Bill but I am happy to support my noble friend Lord Elton because I believe that his amendment impinges upon another Bill which is before your Lordships' House and with which I am concerned—that is, the Trade Marks Bill. Its effectiveness particularly in relation to clamping down on counterfeiting, for example, will very much depend upon how it is policed. If enforcement effort is dissipated because trading standards expertise is dispersed, then we shall lose some of the proposed benefits of the Bill.
I hope that the Minister will feel able to take on board the very persuasive arguments that have been advanced by my noble friend Lord Elton.
Lord Harlech: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Elton again in this debate. I do not believe that the fracturing of trading standards departments would be of assistance. It would not be seen as an advantage by the citizen, and after all the citizen is the taxpayer. Ultimately we, as the Government, are responsible for giving our best endeavours to ensure that trading standards officers' work is done properly.
It was interesting to hear the very persuasive argument that creating more and more unassociated departments is not in the interests of the protection of the citizen, which is the purpose of the amendment. It is important to understand that the work of trading standards officers is cohesive and interdepartmental; it should not be fractured. My noble friend Lord Elton has already said that there is provision for the Secretary of State to overrule. However, as he said, the damage has already been done.
I draw your Lordships' attention to an example of where the citizen judges whether a statute is good or bad. In 1984, during the miners' strike, the standards relating to the heat treatment of material from slaughterhouses were lowered, not by statute but simply by a sweep of the pen. Now we see serious cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Indeed, it is now considered there is a possible association with Creutzfeldt Jakob disease, which has an 18-year incubation period.
The cohesion of trading standards officers is vital. They provide a service. For example, in relation to the Ministry for Agriculture, an expert in Wales wrote an extremely interesting book on the way in which diseases in sheep were transmitted. It mentioned rainwater and cloud formations, and the cycle of snails, with which some of your Lordships may be familiar. That gentleman had experience covering a wide range of subjects in which he interacted with all his colleagues.
1778
I do not support every trading standards officer who may drive into your yard. Their efforts may not always be particularly useful to the endeavour of the citizen. They may wish to be more powerful than they are. Nevertheless, there is greater accountability if they remain a cohesive professional body. They could become a quango which simply enforces EC law by, for example, shutting down small slaughterhouses and putting people out of work, or stopping a man in a pub from cutting sandwiches unless he has spent a fortune on his kitchen, or regulating natural water supplies so that people are not allowed to drink from them although they have probably been drinking from them for 400 years.
The body of expertise is built up through cohesion. Breaking up the departments is not correct, in my view. That is why I wish to support my noble friend's amendment. There is no doubt in my mind that we are all mortal; but, make no mistake, the roar from people who are disturbed by what becomes statute but is bad law will be heard.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Kenyon: My Lords, unlike my noble friends, I fail to understand why trading standards officers should be singled out for special attention in the Bill. Trading standards offices are one of the regulatory authorities. The trading standards officer is similar in many respects to the environmental health officer. Environmental health officers are employed by each of the 37 district councils at present. I believe that there would be considerable empathy between those two bodies if they were to be incorporated into the new unitary authorities. As my noble friend and kinsman Lord Harlech pointed out, the problem of BSE and Creutzfeldt Jakob disease is dealt with by environmental health officers, probably as well as the trading standards officers. I do not believe that there is an argument for making a special case.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for bringing forward the amendments. At Committee stage we had a discussion about the principle of putting trading standards under one, two or three authorities. I differed from the noble Lord on certain points. He has come back with a formula which is an advance on the formula that he put forward in Committee.
The trading standards functions which would be transferred if the provisions of Amendment No. 33 were in the Bill are only part of the trading standards functions exercised by trading standards officers. With the new principal councils would remain duties under the Petroleum Acts, concerning the licensing of petroleum stores—for instance, garages—explosive Acts controlling the storage of explosives and the sale of fireworks, the road traffic Acts, the Children and Young Persons Act, the Agriculture Act 1970, the Poisons Act 1972, the Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Trading Representations (Disabled Persons) Acts 1958 and 1972, the Trading Stamps Act 1964, the Unsolicited Goods and Services Acts 1971 and 1975 and the Medicines Act 1968. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has the same list.

1779
It is not a question of transferring all functions from the new principal councils. Indeed, those important functions will remain with the principal councils.
We are therefore discussing a split in the trading standards function between those which are carried out under the Weights and Measures Act 1985 and Sections 14 and 15 of the Food Safety Act 1990 and functions under the other legislation that I have just recited. That gives rise to certain problems. Be that as it may, if such problems can be resolved, it is perfectly clear to me that the new principal councils would have a very powerful trading standards function in their own right even if Amendment No. 33 was accepted.
Amendments Nos. 36 and 42 are designed, as I understand it, to avoid the problem of the difficulty of democratic accountability that was raised in Committee. If I were to talk at length about Amendment No. 36, I would like to see it not in the form of a schedule but as a voluntary combination which principal councils might wish to make, as opposed to it being set in stone in a schedule. It would be a fairly delicate matter.
On Amendment No. 42 I confess I have a problem. I realise that it is an alternative to Amendment No. 36, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, explained. I find it an odd conception that a fire authority should suddenly become a weights and measures authority. I wonder whether subsection (b) of Amendment No. 42 which states,
"have all the duties, functions and powers",
extends the powers. At the end of the subsection there is the phrase,
"or under any other legislative provision".
That seems to me to depart from the main thrust of what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was saying that many trading standards functions would remain with the principal councils and some would go to the bodies which he recommended. That would depart from the main thrust and allow the bodies which the noble Lord recommends to take over all the functions of the principal councils. I may have misunderstood the amendment and perhaps he would be kind enough to put me right if I have.
Thus, although the amendment is an improvement on what the noble Lord put forward in Committee, I believe that it leaves a major role for the new principal councils. When the noble Lord comes to it perhaps he would explain how the two roles can be reconciled in a proper and efficient manner.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Elton has argued his case again with his usual force, I know at some personal inconvenience. The Government understand the points which he made on this occasion and in Committee. He and the Government share the objective that a proper service of a proper quality should be delivered at least as effectively under the new structure as it has been under the existing structure. Where we part company is on the means of attaining those ends.
Until I heard the extremely enlightening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on the precise legislative provisions involved, I had understood at least the intention of my noble friend's amendment to be that the new trading standards authorities, as he envisages them,
1780
should take over the role which would otherwise be transferred to the new unitary authorities. I had taken it that his intention was that all the roles should go to the new bodies. I have treated the amendment on that basis. It may be that that was wrong, but that was the intention, as I understood it, from conversations with him and others.
We do not believe that such an approach is the correct way forward and I adopt what was said by my noble friend Lord Kenyon. The Government do not believe that there is any significant difference between the trading standards function and the kind of function which is to be transferred to the new unitary authorities in an area such as environmental health. It seems to the Government that the area of environmental health has many aspects which are similar to that of trading standards and that the inspectors involved in the two areas have performed functions which are not entirely dissimilar. They have skills which are not entirely dissimilar, and just as environmental health functions can be properly addressed by the new authorities, so we believe that the trading standards function can also be transferred and dealt with satisfactorily by the new authorities. I have made it clear on a number of occasions that that is not to say that we expect all the functions to be carried out by each of the authorities. I know that this has not met with the approval of my noble friend. But we envisage that the local authorities would be able and would wish to enter into appropriate arrangements with other authorities for the delivery of services, especially where specialist services which they themselves did not have had to be delivered.
We believe that the local authorities, democratically elected and taking a responsible view of what is required for their areas, would indeed make appropriate arrangements for trading standards services of the correct standard for their area. We have no reason to think that they would fail in that matter any more than we would expect them to fail in other areas.
Amendment No. 48 has a bearing on this matter, as my noble friend said. Even at the stage of the draft services delivery plan, if it appears that adequate services will not be available, the reserve powers which are provided for in the Act are available to the Secretary of State. I have no doubt that, especially in the light of all the representations made to him about how the matter will not work, he will wish to examine carefully the arrangements that are proposed or then put in place to see how they are operating, will operate or have operated. If necessary he would use the reserve powers to ensure that standards of an appropriate level were maintained by the service.
For those reasons we believe that the scheme as laid down in the Act is appropriate. We do not believe that any of the schemes put forward by my noble friend Lord Elton would be appropriate or an improvement. We feel that this, like other services, should be delivered locally and subject to the availability of all the arrangements for joint delivery of the services. For those reasons I cannot accept my noble friend's amendment. I believe that the Government's approach to this matter is right.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends who have supported me at this late hour. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Kenyon for giving me the opportunity to remind your Lordships that the burden carried by trading standards officers is one of enforcing 70 statutes and over 500 statutory instruments. When two or three people are trying to run an entire trading standards administration in an authority, the number of different forms of expertise and scientific skills that they are expected to have is simply insupportable. It is universally agreed that they cannot operate separately. My noble and learned friend and I have no difference on that.
Indeed, I am very puzzled because my noble and learned friend finds it perfectly all right for those people to co-operate in large groups if they want to do so, but he finds something undemocratic and unacceptable about it if they do not. It seems to me that safety of life which may be involved in these cases comes above the theory of democracy in this matter.
The Secretary of State already envisages putting efficient planning above the requirements of the theory of democracy in Clause 19. I do not understand why he cannot do that here.
My noble and learned friend pointed to Amendment No. 48. I have already thanked him for it in advance. I thank him again now and will thank him for a third time when we come to deal with it. One has to be grateful for crumbs of comfort in this place. He pointed out that because of that provision the Secretary of State will have a reasonably small amount of time—albeit a small amount of time and not the nanosecond that there was to have been in Committee —in which to avert the danger of local authorities not coming together voluntarily to start with. That is not the danger.
I have been here before. I had the same sanguine hopes as my noble and learned friend and his right honourable friend and mine, the Secretary of State. I expected everybody to coalesce and they coalesced. But I expected them to go on working together and they did not. So I rode my bicycle down a smooth road and fell in a pothole. All I am trying to do is to help my noble and learned friend gracefully to avoid the pothole and show himself sensitive to the reasoned arguments that I put forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, courteously changed his position a little towards me in recognition of the fact that I had changed my position a little on the amendments. He raised a number of cogent questions. Nonetheless, I would be perfectly content if a means could be found under Amendments Nos. 33 and 36, as redrafted for a later stage, for the groups that are eventually imposed compulsorily to be arrived at voluntarily first if possible. Indeed, I should like the machinery in the Bill to work and then for the Secretary of State to say: "So be it, you cannot go back". That would satisfy me. The parliamentary draftsman may be able to do it in a few lines; I cannot. I am not a parliamentary draftsman. I have none at my command; my noble and learned friend does. I hope he will use those services.
Amendment No. 42 brings up a point which the noble Lord, Lord Williams—I almost called him "my noble
1782
friend", so unaccustomed am I to his warm support—drew to your Lordships' attention. It was a list of the powers which should not be included under the provisions, if they were adopted, of Amendment No. 42. I confirm that as far as I know the list was complete. That illustrates that trading standards legislation—loosely so termed—is not a seamless whole and it is possible to transfer bits in and out of an administration. The amendment serves only as a peg on which to illustrate how that can be done. It would be for the Secretary of State, or for your Lordships at a later stage, to decide how much should be ceded to the wishes of district councils to increase or retain a number of powers and how much should be retained for the effective working of the protection of the consuming public. I would not wish to go into the details of that tonight, but it is an area which may have to be explored.
I believe that there is a simple route forward—not quite on the lines of my first amendment and the one consequential upon it, but on the lines that I mentioned of the Secretary of State allowing the voluntary system to form itself; only intervening if it does not completely form itself, and then when that process is complete saying, "This is how it is going to be unless you persuade me otherwise in the future". If he does not do that it will fall down and the results will be nastier in Wales than they were in Greater Manchester or in the other metropolitan county areas, because the units will be infinitely smaller and all this turns on size. Let us not forget in this teeming City of Westminster, this vast metropolis, that we are dealing with extremely small communities which have just the same spectrum of risk and complexity of legislation to deal with as we have here with the concentrated population and the larger number of officers able to enforce it.
My noble and learned friend did not accept my invitation to choose one road forward or another. I shall have to reflect between now and Third Reading which of the three roads, as they now are, forward I must ask your Lordships to take. It is an issue of sufficient importance for us not to leave it hanging in the air when the Bill leaves this House for another place. I shall doubtless be in contact with my noble and learned friend between now and Third Reading and I hope that he will consider yet further my arguments and anything I have succeeded in adding to them tonight. I shall stop doing so now as I see the clouds of sleep forming around your Lordships' heads. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 [Minor and Consequential Amendments:Planning]:
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 73, line 22, after ("(1)") insert ("In section 57 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (penalty for displaying on footpaths notices deterring public use), in subsection (3), after "district" insert "or, where they are not the highway authority, the council of the Welsh county or county borough".
(1A)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 35. This is a technical amendment. Part II of Schedule 6 to

1783
the Bill provides for minor and consequential amendments to enactments other than the Local Government Act 1972 as a result of reorganisation.
Amendment No. 34 amends Section 57 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 to provide for the power of prosecution which is presently vested in the district council to be vested in the new council in Wales where it is not the highway authority. Amendment No. 35 is purely consequential on Amendment No. 34. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the noble Viscount has indeed heard the plea of a number of organisations concerned with the countryside which have written to me about this amendment. He has brought forward an amendment which meets their needs and improves the Bill. On behalf of all hikers, ramblers, wanderers in the wilderness, tramps and friends of the national parks, I thank him for it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 73, line 22, leave out ("the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949") and insert ("that Act").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Clause 21 [Transfer of other specific functions]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 17, line 9, at end insert:
("( ) Schedule 9A makes provision for the transfer to the new principal councils of functions in relation to social services.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment introduces a new schedule which is set out in Amendment No. 40. The schedule contains consequential amendments to legislation relating to social services. The amendments are solely for the purpose of carrying forward existing county functions to the new councils. These provisions are similar to the provisions in relation to education. It is a matter which it would have been possible to leave resting on the basis of Clause 17, but again it has been thought better for the users of the legislation that the matter should be spelt out in this way. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I welcome Schedule 9A. Reading through its provisions gives one an idea of the extensive range of the social services functions and how important they are. We shall return to this issue at a later stage.
Again, I have sought advice from the officers of the local authority associations in Wales. They may later on pick up one or two items which have been left out. For the time being it appears to be in order and I am therefore pleased to support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Highways, Road Traffic and Transport]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 78, line 40, after ("section,") insert ("for "district council" substitute "contracting council" and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 39. Schedule 7 to the Bill makes
1784
provision for the transfer to the new principal councils of functions in relation to highways, road traffic and transport. Amendment No. 38 corrects the amendment to subsection (6A) of the Highways Act 1980. That subsection empowers the Secretary of State's agent authority to sub-contract to another Welsh council in respect of a trunk road outside the sub-contractor's area. It corrects it by substituting a correct reference to a contracting council. Amendment No. 39 corrects the amendment to Section 220 of the Act in consequence of the new subsection (2A) of Section 220 which has been inserted by paragraph 21 of the schedule. Both of these amendments are purely technical drafting corrections. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 81, line 11, leave out ("for") and insert ("after first "subsection (2)" insert "or (2A)", after "district council" insert " or Welsh council" and for second").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No.40:
After Schedule 9, insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE 9A
SOCIAL SERVICES
The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c. 12)
1.—(1) Section 96 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (provisions as to local authorities) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1A), at the end add "but, in relation to Wales, shall be the councils of counties and county boroughs".
(3) After subsection (4) insert—
"(4A) Subsection (4) above does not apply in relation to the council of any Welsh county or county borough."
The National Assistance Act 1948 (c. 29)
2.—(1) In section 47 of the National Assistance Act 1948 (removal to suitable premises of persons in need of care and attention), in subsection (12), after "City of London" insert ", in Wales the councils of counties and county boroughs".
(2) In section 64(1) of that Act (interpretation), in the definition of "local authority" at the end add "but in relation to Wales means the council of a county or county borough".
The Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1958 (c. 33)
3. In section 3 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1958 (provision of sheltered employment by local authorities), in subsection (5), omit "or Wales" and at the end add "and in relation to Wales, the council of a county or county borough".
The Children and Young Persons Act 1963 (c. 37)
4.—(I) In section 56 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 (prosecution of certain offences), after subsection (1) insert
"(I A) Subsection (1) above shall have effect in relation to Wales as if the reference to a county were a reference to a Welsh county or county borough."
(2) In section 63 of that Act (interpretation), in subsection (1A), after "metropolitan counties)," insert "of county boroughs,".
The Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 (c. 46)
5.—(1) In section 45 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 (promotion, by local authorities, of the welfare of old people), in subsection (11), after "county, or of a" insert "county borough,".
(2) In section 64 of that Act (financial assistance to certain voluntary organisations), in subsection (3) (b), after "non-metropolitan county," insert "county borough,".

1785
(3) In section 65 of that Act (which makes similar provision relating to financial assistance by local authorities), in subsection (3) (a), after "county, or of a" insert "county borough,".
The Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (c. 54)
(6) In section 70(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (interpretation), in the definition of "local authority", after "county or of a" insert "county borough,".
The Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (c. 42)
(7) In section 1 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (local authorities for the purposes of the Act), at the end add "but, in relation to Wales, shall be the councils of counties and county boroughs".
The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (c.44)
(8) In section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (badges for display on motor vehicles used by disabled persons), in subsection (8), omit "or Wales" and after "London borough" insert ", the council of a Welsh county or county borough".
The Adoption Act 1976 (c. 36)
(9) In section 72(1) of the Adoption Act 1976 (interpretation), in the definition of "local authority", after "City of London" insert "but, in relation to Wales, means the council of a county or county borough".
The Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 (c. 71)
(10) In Schedule 5 to the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 (re-establishment courses and resettlement units)—

(a) in paragraph 2(2), after "counties" insert ", of county boroughs"; and

(b) in paragraph 4(2), after "county," insert "a county borough,".

The National Health Service Act 1977 (c. 49)
11.—(1) In section 22 of the National Health Service Act 1977 (co-operation between health authorities and local authorities), in the Table, in column 2 of the entry relating to an Area or District Health Authority in Wales, after "county" insert "or county borough" and after first "district" insert "in England".
(2) In section 28A of that Act (power to make payments towards expenditure on community services), in subsection (2) (b), after "district council," insert "or to a Welsh county council or county borough council,".
(3) In section 128(1) of that Act (interpretation)

(a) in the definition of "local authority", after "county council," insert "a county borough council,"; and

(b) in the definition of "local social services authority", after "county," insert "of a county borough".

The Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983 (c. 41)
12. In Part II of Schedule 9 to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983 (meals and recreation for old people)

(a) in paragraphs 1 and 2, after "council" insert "or Welsh county council or county borough council" in each place; and

(b) in paragraph 3, after "district councils" insert "or Welsh county councils or county borough councils" in all places.

The Children Act 1989 (c. 41)
13. In section 105 of the Children Act 1989 (interpretation), in the definition of "local authority" in subsection (1), omit "and Wales" and after "City of London" insert ", in relation to Wales, the council of a county or a county borough".
The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 (c.19)
14. In section 46 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 (local authority plans for
1786
community care services), in subsection (3), in the definition of "local authority", after "county," insert "a county borough,".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has been spoken to already. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Fire services]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 17, line 35, leave out ("to whom the proposed scheme relates").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe it will be for the convenience of the House if, in moving this amendment, I speak to Amendment No. 43. The purpose of these two amendments is to widen the class of persons who can make representations to the Secretary of State about a proposed fire service combination scheme under Clause 22 or a proposed police amalgamation scheme under Clause 23 and to ensure that they will be considered by the Secretary of State in arriving at a position.
As the clauses now stand, the Secretary of State is only under a duty to give consideration to the representations made by any authority to whom the scheme relates. We believe that it is perfectly legitimate for the Secretary of State to be under a duty to take into consideration representations from other sources. For example, it is envisaged that representations may be made not only by a fire or police authority but also by a principal council for an adjoining authority or a trade union whose members are employed in the service. So the fire or police scheme could have implications for many authorities and organisations. Therefore, their representations should receive the consideration of the Secretary of State.
Our concern lies in the inhibitive wording of the two subsections. In Committee we were told by the noble and learned Lord that the department was reluctant to spell out a specific duty to consider representations from an authority which might have no direct interest in the particular proposal. But in our view that is not necessarily a satisfactory reason for rejecting the amendment. Are we to say to the trade unions or to an adjoining council that Parliament has not placed a responsibility on the Secretary of State to take into account their representations? We shall be grateful if the noble and learned Lord can look favourably on at least the main thrust of these two amendments, although their wording may not be perfect. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, in one sense I do not know that there is a great deal between us on this matter. As I understand it, the effect of the amendment would be to require the Secretary of State to consider representations about a proposed scheme from any Welsh local authority whether or not it was directly affected. I believe I said in Committee that I have no doubt that in these cases, before he makes any order under either of these provisions, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will want to take account of all relevant representations.
As I said in Committee, the effect is that if a relevant representation is made; if he has put before him matters which are relevant to the decision, then, as the noble Lord will be aware, his failure to take into account such

1787
relevant considerations would render his decision vulnerable to judicial review. Nonetheless, when spelling the matter out on the face of the statute, it seemed proper to put the duty in the terms that it stands in in the Bill as drafted.
Having said that, I am happy to take this matter away and consider the drafting of the provision to ensure that we have caught all those authorities whose interest in the contents of the combination scheme is sufficiently close to justify imposing a duty on the Home Secretary in relation to the representations. I am happy to take that away and have another look at it. I think that that is what the noble Lord has in mind and I am happy to do it.
10 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that response. The gap between us is not wide, but the wording possibly needs to be redefined. As I have said, I am grateful for the Lord Advocate's response and I am happy to leave the matter there. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 42 not moved].
Clause 23 [Police]:
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Clause 24 [Provision of services by one new principal council for another]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 19, line 1, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 44, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 45. I say straightaway that these two amendments are of a probing nature. Indeed, they are alternatives. There is no particular difference in substance between them. Both seek to achieve the same point, which is that through these amendments we should like the Government to clarify in greater detail than was spelt out in Committee by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate the restrictions in the exercise of the power that will be imposed by the regulations that we are discussing under Clause 24(5) (a) and, more particularly, whether the activities of the local authorities which are subject to compulsory competitive tendering will be precluded by regulations from being the subject of service agency agreements either immediately or, as has been suggested in some documents, at the expiry of a transitional period of two years.
This is a key clause in facilitating the concept of what are known as "lead authorities". It will permit authorities to buy services from other authorities and is intended to overcome certain limitations in the Local Government Act 1972 and in the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970, so that the lead authorities can develop and sell their services to adjoining authorities. This is slightly tangential to my main argument, but in that connection I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could reassert or
1788
confirm the statement that he made in Committee to the effect that the Government do not consider it necessary for local authorities to be able to compete for contracted-out contracts outside their areas. It seems to us to be the absolute essence of Clause 24 and these plans that an authority must be capable of providing services to an authority in an adjoining area.
When Welsh Office officials have been quizzed on the point they have said that the Government intend to exclude from service agency agreements those activities which are required to be exposed to compulsory competitive tendering. If that were the case, considerable inroads would be made into the lead authority concept. It would rule out all services which are the subject of CCT. For instance, CCT for professional white collar services will become mandatory in October 1997. There will be CCT for security work, on-street parking, vehicle fleet management, 50 per cent. of housing management in group 1.B authorities, removal of competition and free requirement for highways work, and a whole series of issues will become housing management in 1998. A whole series of items will become subject to compulsory competitive tendering and they will therefore be removed from the scope of service plans between local authorities.
For some reason—and I look at the White Paper—Ministers seem to believe that it would not be desirable for such arrangements to apply to services subject to CCT under the Acts of 1980 and 1988. I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate whether, if local authorities, the new principal councils, could show—and an amendment could be brought forward requiring them to do so—that they guaranteed the full cost of recovery of the services—so there is no marginal selling, remembering the Audit Commission's judgment on the 1970 Act—the Government would take a more relaxed view of the whole question of CCT services being ruled out of service plans. As regards the principal councils, which will be involved in what in any sense will be a difficult operation—the provision of services by one council for another—this would be a welcome relief to a threat that they see hanging over them.
Clause 24(4) permits the Secretary of State to make such regulations as he,
"sees fit to make for the purposes of this section".
The Government appear to be stating that the regulations will be used to prevent cross-border tendering, if not immediately, at the end of the two-year transitional period that has been mentioned. The noble and learned Lord asserted in Committee that there was an adequate private-sector supply which should be encouraged. If it can be demonstrated that local authorities can compete with the private sector on fair terms, and if we can build that into the Bill, will the Government please accept that it is the right of local authorities, the new principal councils, so to compete not on marginal costings but on a true reflection of costs and in the overall interest of the charge payers and the supplying council?
I say that this is a probing amendment because I want to hear the noble and learned Lord's reply. It is an

1789
important point for principal councils and if we do not receive a satisfactory reply I am certain that we shall want to return to the matter at a later stage.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, as the noble Lord explained, the effect of the amendment would be to enable unitary authorities to compete for work which has been put out to tender by another unitary authority in compliance with the statutory requirements for compulsory competitive tendering.
The Government's policy is to prevent unitary authorities from competing for such work. If I said something else in Committee, I did not intend it. The Government are opposed to what is envisaged in the amendment because they do not believe that such competition would be in the best interests of council tax payers. As I said in Committee, the Government believe that where one has such a system of compulsory competitive tendering, one can expect that the private sector will be available to take on the kinds of work involved and the kinds of risk which may be involved in such work.
If authorities were allowed to compete for such work, the danger is that the council tax payers of one unitary authority could end up funding the costs of any losses incurred as a result of work undertaken by their authority in another area.
What I can say—and this may go some way towards meeting one of the points made by the noble Lord—is that if the local authority associations or any other body were able to come forward with a proposal which enabled such cross-border tendering to take place while at the same time meeting the Government's anxieties about the risk to council tax payers, then my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would be prepared to look very carefully at such a proposal. I hope that that goes some way towards meeting the point made.
The issue of the two-year transitional period is complicated and rather than wrongly state the position, I should prefer to write to the noble Lord about that.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response because, as he rightly says, it goes some way towards meeting my anxieties. In moving the amendment I said that I should be prepared to see an amendment brought forward in another place, if that is what the Government want; namely, to have written specifically into the Bill that any cross-border tendering represents a true reflection of costs and is not based on marginal costings; reflects the Audit Commission's interpretation of the 1970 Act; and that there should be overall protection of the interests of the charge payers of the supplying council.
It seems to me that we are getting very close because I am volunteering more than the noble and learned Lord seeks. If we could come together on that, we should be able to reassure district councils about which are to become unitary authorities and which are to become principal councils. They will engage in cross-border tendering and can compete with the private sector.
I believe that we could persuade those district councils that the lead authority concept is not something which is pronounced but not put into practice. We could
1790
persuade them that the Government are not trying to penalise the public sector and give preference to the private sector out of dogma, but that they are genuinely trying to find a method of making the lead authority concept work. If that is the attitude of the noble and learned Lord—and it appears so to be from what he has said—then I would be quite happy to reconsider the matter. Indeed, I am prepared to discuss with the noble and learned Lord what amendments there might be to the Bill which could enshrine what he has just said. I believe that to be a fair offer.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I should like to consider further the detail of what the noble Lord has said. However, I believe that we have at least moved a little towards one another in the matter. I would not like to go further than I have already gone this evening. Nevertheless, I am quite happy to say that I will look further at the detail of what the noble Lord proposed. It may well be that, when I look at it in more detail, it will prove to be the case that he has, as he said, gone further than I in the matter. If the noble Lord is content to leave the matter there, I am content to look at it again.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am very content to leave the matter on that basis. However, it is a complex subject as the noble and learned Lord rightly pointed out. For example, there is the whole question of what is compulsory competitive tendering, how it works and also the issues as regards the Audit Commission on the 1970 Act. Indeed, the question of how all such things will work is most complex. Therefore, if the noble and learned Lord has any difficulties when looking at the matter with his officials, perhaps he will contact me. I shall then consult those who have been briefing me to see whether such difficulties can be resolved. I am very happy to withdraw the amendment on that basis.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 19, line 14, at end insert:
("( ) For the purpose of the exercise of powers under the Local Government (Records) Act 1962 with regard to the acquisition and preservation of archives, where a principal council contains within its area an archive repository empowered by the Local Government (Records) Act 1962, that council, through a joint committee consisting of representatives of the new principal councils concerned, shall administer archive services in respect of the area of the old authorities to which existing collections relate.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the above amendment was tabled by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn in Committee. Unfortunately, my noble friend is suffering from a very heavy cold and, although he has been sitting in his place for the past seven-and-a-half hours waiting for the amendment to be called, I had to advise him half-an-hour ago that he ought to retire from the Chamber. I told him that I would do the best I could to look after his amendment.
My noble friend Lord Cledwyn drew attention in Committee to the considerable concern in the Principality about the lack of information as regards the arrangements for the archive services in Wales

1791
following the reorganisation proposed by the Bill. Since then, we are aware that many more representations have been made. I am fairly sure that the professional organisations have written to the Welsh Office about the failure of the Bill to safeguard Welsh archives. The Lords Lieutenant, as well as the Society of Archivists, are also deeply interested.
Everyone had hoped that the reference to archives in paragraph 4.21 of the White Paper would have been translated into a short provision in the Bill which would ensure that the archives would be preserved in a safe repository in the custody of knowledgeable officials but with ready access for members of the public.
We have taken account of the observations made by the noble and learned Lord in Committee. The amendment which we now put before the House seeks only to safeguard the public records in the care of the existing counties. The important point here is one made by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn in Committee; namely, that the archives should remain intact. Reorganisation creates many difficulties. The difficulties relating to the archives ought to be resolved in the Bill. For example, if the 21 principal councils each become an archive authority, then the existing repositories will be fragmented. As my noble friend Lord Cledwyn would say, that would be a tragedy.
One object of the amendment is to limit by statute the councils empowered to hold archives to those so,
"empowered by the Local Government (Records) Act 1962".
Noble Lords will have noticed that the amendment has been altered since it was moved in Committee on 17th January. It now states that a council empowered to hold the archives shall administer the service,
"through a joint committee consisting of representatives of the new principal councils concerned".
We hope that the additional provision addresses the point made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in Committee. We trust that it meets his objection and that he will, therefore, be in a position to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I readily accept the amendment that has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, is not here. He has a very nasty cold. He had been looking forward particularly to moving the amendment which did so well at Committee stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has explained the amendment very well. One cannot see any possible objection to it because it is so clear and concise. However, there are one or two matters that I should like to raise.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to "public records in the area". It should be local records. The wording "public records" refer to the national archives, the Public Record Office. The noble and learned Lords, or noble Lords who are barristers and learned will know that "public" means public policy of the Realm; it is not of public people. The local records contain all official records, parochial records and even private collections. It is really since the two wars that record offices have been established in England,
1792
although the earliest record office in Wales was established in Glamorgan in 1939, and the most recent was one in Llandrindrod Wells, for Powys, in 1985.
Before the Bill leaves this House, I hope my noble and learned friend or my noble friend will go a little further than they did at Committee: one must have some assurance that archives are better looked after. From the experience of the abolition of the metropolitan counties, archival provision for many of the boroughs has been inadequate. It is an abysmal, total mess. I shall not name names—and some of the old areas have kept archives in a better way than others. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Elton can expand on this point. Records do not necessarily contain historical archives. When one thinks of archives, one thinks of historical archives; but there are archives being accessed or compiled every moment of the day. Modern archives are extremely important and they must be looked after. There must be retrieval access; councils and local authorities must be able to access them and use them. I hope that my noble and learned friend will deal with the amendment extremely seriously, particularly bearing in mind the awful experience with the abolition of the metropolitan counties.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the amendment raises a very important and sensitive point. As the noble Lord indicated, the degree to which local authorities which are archive authorities met their responsibilities has varied a great deal in England—and also in Wales, I regret to say. He referred to the fact that it was only in 1984 that Powys County Council set up an archive department. From the Powys County Record Office they attracted a total of 211 visitors in 1991; 356 in 1992; and 648 in 1993. If we assume further growth of business, say, to 750 in 1994, that is on average 15 per week—three a day. Those figures indicate the inaccessibility of Llandrindrod Wells to the bulk of the population and to the potential users of the archives.
I am often asked by people in my part of the world —Montgomeryshire—who have good collections associated with the area, where those records should be sent. I always advise them to send them to the National Library of Wales because one can be sure that there they will not be lost or forgotten about when there is a change in local government.
It is important to consider the future of the archives. Where are they to go? I should like to see much greater co-operation between the National Library of Wales and the local authority archives. In addition, co-operation with local historical record societies is important.
Such is the dislike of Powys County Council in Montgomeryshire, and such is the nature of the communications, that it is very difficult to persuade people to go to Llandrindod Wells to do their research in the archives. They much prefer to go to the Powys Land Museum and Library in Welshpool, which is a voluntary organisation which was set up for the keeping of records many years ago. I remember that in my town there was great resistance to its local treasures being transferred to Powys County Council, where it was felt they would disappear from view.

1793
What I have said illustrates the delicate and sensitive nature of this subject, which is an important one. The keeping of archives is important. How it is to be done —whether through joint authorities or the existing authorities, or whether there should be regional authorities or some link with the National Library of Wales—needs much greater thought than has been given to this subject hitherto.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and, in absentia, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will know that I am a friend to the purpose that lies behind the amendment. The anxiety which the noble Lord expressed relates principally to historical archives but also to contemporary archives which, I remind my noble friend Lord Teviot, become historical archives rather more rapidly than one would wish at our age.
The principle that needs to be remembered is that the value of an archive is its accessibility, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said. There is a process of concentration, which is beneficial, and a process of dispersal which is to be avoided. However, there is another form of dispersal. I can best illustrate both the value of historical archives and the process that should be avoided by an example.
The documents of the Manor of Adderbury, of which I happen to be Lord, were in my care until some eight years ago when the local historical society became interested. It spent a number of years putting them in order and transcribing a great many. It generated a completely new community spirit, in the historical sense, that had not existed before. It was discovered that the names of many people in the village were the names of people who had lived there in the 14th century. When that process was completed I transferred the documents to the Oxfordshire County Records Office, with a copy of the catalogue to New College, which has the gift of the benefice.
That has concentrated the documents in an accessible place. But when Oxford becomes separated from the Cherwell district council, in which Adderbury lies, the danger is that if nothing is done on the lines suggested in the amendment, future discoveries of medieval documents and any new documents generated will be deposited not with the existing collection of Adderbury papers in Oxford but in some new collection in Banbury. The scholar will then run a 50 per cent. chance of losing out, or at least his work will be doubled.
Therefore I hope that my noble friend will look kindly at the intention underlying the amendment. Perhaps I may suggest two considerations. First, the drafting, although an improvement on Committee stage, is not draftsman watertight. If the Government accept the principle, it is for them to make it watertight. I suggest some linkage with Clause 24. However, if the Government take the issue on board, it is for them to undertake to do so, and I do not need to advise them.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, we all recognise that this is a sensitive matter. We are all sad that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, was not able to
1794
move the amendment on this occasion. It will be a common belief that he did so with particular passion and skill on the previous occasion. Since he is not present, perhaps noble Lords will forgive me if I put the argument at some length so that he can read it.
As I explained on the previous occasion, our approach to all local government services, of which this is one, is, first, that no existing local government functions should be transferred from local government control. I believe that that is accepted. That is achieved by Clause 17. Secondly, the new authorities should be free to enter into arrangements with each other or with the voluntary or private sectors for the delivery of particular services or aspects of a service. We have heard of various means by which these may be delivered. In addition, we have made explicit provision in Clause 24 of the Bill for local authorities to trade with one another.
Thirdly, new types of statutory joint authorities will not be created by the Bill. That is on the basis that their creation would detract from local accountability. On the other hand, the Government recognise that they may be required to set up such systems where otherwise the services would be at risk of breakdown. That is recognised by the provisions of Clauses 28 to 30 of the Bill, which we have seen in so many contexts, which give the Secretary of State his reserve powers.
I have difficulty in tracing the paragraph at present. However, my understanding is that the provisions in the White Paper in relation to archives envisage that the same kind of measures would be put in place as deal with the position of museums and galleries. The paragraph in the White Paper relating to that aspect provides that reserve powers would be in place for a year. Noble Lords know that the provisions of Clauses 28 to 30 envisage a wider measure. Therefore the reserve powers would be available with regard to archives for a period of up to three years. The reserve powers in the Bill are greater than those envisaged in the White Paper.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, was concerned in Committee that the archive service would be vulnerable during the transitional period. His amendment, which we are considering again today, would have the effect of creating lead authority arrangements. The effect of that would be that an authority which happened to have the repository in its area would be responsible for the archives of all the new local authorities in the area covered by the repository.
As I understand the thinking which lies behind the noble Lord's amendment, he is anxious that the existing collections which have been built up could be broken up as a result of the introduction of the new unitary authorities. He was also worried that they might be housed in inadequate facilities. In one sense, there is a tension between the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, who wishes to keep them in their existing places, and the anxieties of other noble Lords who have pointed out that sometimes records are found in places which are inaccessible. It may seem more useful or more attractive to people to have readier access at a more local

1795
level. There is a certain tension in the matter and that is probably why we all recognise that it is a sensitive subject because the arguments go different ways on it.
The Government recognise the importance of the archives service. As noble Lords are aware, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has a direct interest in the matter. His responsibilities under the Public Records Act 1958 include the approval of archive repositories in Wales as places of deposit for public records. I should say that public records go slightly wider than was suggested at one point, and they would cover such matters as census records and other similar records. The Lord Chancellor is responsible for those places of deposit. At the moment, about one-fifth of all public records are stored in such places of deposit in Wales. It therefore follows that the Government have a distinct interest in ensuring that those repositories continue to maintain a high standard of accommodation and services.
It is the case that, although the Lord Chancellor's responsibility is for public records, those records tend to be held in repositories which contain other records which cannot be classified as public records. But in effect his responsibility ensures that the conditions in which they are kept are also of an adequate standard.
The Government's approach under the Bill is that we do not wish to interfere with local decision-making unless that interference is forced upon us. The whole ethos of the Bill is that it is right to rely upon the good sense and discrimination of locally elected people who are democratically accountable.
At present, there are 12 repositories in Wales, which are managed by seven archives services. Mid and South Glamorgan operate a joint service. The existing repositories are located in 11 of the new authorities. Some local authorities, it is envisaged, will decide to nominate one as the lead authority for the single archive, while others will decide on joint committees. As your Lordships perceive, the Bill does not require or encourage the splitting of archives. It leaves the matter to be dealt with by the new authorities. It would only be where it seemed that the arrangements which were proposed—and they would have to be proposed like other arrangements—were inappropriate that the Government or the Secretary of State would envisage having to intervene, using his reserve powers in Clauses 28 to 30.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, is really saying that, because of their unique and irreplaceable nature, the archives should be an exception to this general approach in the Bill. For the reasons which I have indicated, the Government would be reluctant to make such an exception. But, that said, I fully recognise that there are deeply felt anxieties on the matter, which is unlike anything else with which we have been concerned. Particularly in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, is not in his place this evening, I shall make a point of drawing these matters to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. If the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, wished to have an opportunity to express his views on this matter directly to the Secretary of State before the Bill goes to another
1796
place, I understand that the Secretary of State would be very happy to have a meeting with the noble Lord on this matter.
With that explanation, I hope that on this occasion the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, again I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his very full explanation of how the Welsh Office sees the development of the service. We shall read his words with great care. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Cledwyn will take up the offer to discuss the position with the Secretary of State. However, if the Government are not minded to accept the amendment, or an amendment along those lines because the wording may not be perfect, I am sure that the House will require further assurances before the Bill leaves this place.
The noble and learned Lord referred to paragraph 4.21 of the White Paper. The concluding sentence of that paragraph reads:
"The Government proposes transitional arrangements to safeguard provision similar to those described above for museums and galleries".
Those in Wales who are interested in archives have been expecting particulars of the transitional arrangements. The White Paper was published in March 1993 and we are still awaiting particulars of the arrangements.
We shall have to press a couple of questions on the Government. For example, what will happen to the existing archives on the day when the new authorities are established? What will happen on the following day? Will the new authorities be entitled to demand the return from the existing repositories of the records relating to their area? Will they be entitled to do that?
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate referred to the Lord Chancellor's responsibility. I understood that in practice the Lord Chancellor's responsibility is exercised by the Public Record Office. But can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor tell the House what discussions have taken place between the Welsh Office and the PRO since last March? Have the terms and conditions upon which the new authorities can demand the return of their papers been agreed with the PRO?
I shall press the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate —not today but certainly when we come back to a discussion of this amendment if it is not acceptable —to confirm that, unless they are a recorded repository, the new authorities will not be entitled to require the documents to be physically transferred to their keeping until such time as the PRO satisfies itself that the arrangements for custody, safe-keeping and public access are satisfactory.
I believe that the House is entitled to receive an unconditional assurance in those terms before this Bill becomes law and indeed before it leaves this House. If, at the end of the day, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can give us that kind of assurance, will he then please explain to the House the precise terms upon which the public records are to remain in the existing repositories?

1797
Those are some questions which are relevant questions upon which we shall need assurances from the Welsh Office.
Lord Elton: My Lord, does the noble Lord agree, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that one of the noble Lord's anxieties would not be so much whether an authority might demand the repatriation of what it regarded as its documents, but whether the authority that then had them in its possession might obtain money for looking after them? If not, who is going to pay them for looking after the documents that are not repatriated?
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, that would certainly be one aspect which needs to be looked at, and that is why I suggest we want to know upon what terms and conditions the documents are to remain in the existing repositories. I have asked a number of questions. I know that my noble friend Lord Cledwyn will read the debate with great interest. He will pursue the matter further and if there is no satisfaction I am sure that he will wish to return to the amendment at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
Clause 25 [Service delivery plans]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 19, line 23, leave out ("before the specified date").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 47, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 48, 49 and 50, which go together, and I hope that I can be brief.
Amendment No. 48 addresses the undertaking which was given to your Lordships during Committee stage that the Government would consider again the date by which the new councils should prepare and publish service delivery plans. Our proposals provide for draft plans to be published before 1st November 1995 and final plans before 1st February 1996. The Government believe that specifying that date for final plans, together with the requirement to publish draft plans at least as early as the autumn of 1995, will provide sufficient time for interested parties to consider the implications and make representations in relation to their own circumstances and interests. It will also, most importantly, mean that draft staff orders can be drawn up during November 1995 on the basis of each authority's service delivery proposals. In the light of the new provisions of subsection (2), the reference in subsection (1) to a "specified date" becomes superfluous, hence the deletion provided for by Amendment No. 47.
Amendment No. 49 seeks to clarify a matter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, at Committee stage. Its effect is to leave to the discretion of the principal councils the manner in which their plans should be published so as to bring them to the attention of people who may be affected by the performance of their functions. The noble Lord had a little sport at my
1798
expense on that matter in Committee and I am happy to come forward and put the matter right in the light of what was said then.
Amendment No. 50 provides for draft service delivery plans to be published and made available for inspection on the same basis as final plans. That will enable all parties with an interest in the service delivery intentions of the new authority to consider the contents of the plan and make representations, if appropriate, at the earliest possible juncture. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I thanked my noble and learned friend for this when it was first mentioned. I said on a second occasion that I would thank him now; I do thank him now. That is enough thanks.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I have one point only to raise on Amendment No. 47, and it concerns a question of timetable. Obviously this is the merit of putting the dates at which the plans must be prepared on the face of the Bill.
The provision states that the exercise is to be completed by 1st February 1996. But if one then turns to the decentralisation provisions in Clauses 26 and 27, one can see that the two timetables simply do not match. In other words, a decentralisation scheme must be submitted any time before 1st January 1996, which is only one month before the publication of the completed service delivery plan.
I realise that the service delivery plan must only be delivered in respect of the first year, but nevertheless it sets the trend in the unitary authorities. Once the service plan has been set for the first year it is likely to be followed as there will be a number of councillors and officials who will want to adhere to it. Nevertheless, the decentralisation plans will not be in place and the Secretary of State can take up to a year before he approves the scheme. So it seems to me that this provision, though on the face of it highly acceptable, could be self-defeating because it is incompatible timetable-wise with the provisions of Clauses 26 and 27. I am quite certain that this matter will need much further consideration.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should like to speak along more or less the same lines as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. Amendment No. 48 was tabled in response to a probing amendment moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. However, the district council association officers are worried about the timetable proposed in the amendment. At a meeting in the House yesterday evening the officers of the district councils told us of their worries. In their judgment there is every reason for believing that if the delivery plan is to be worked up in any reliable detail it cannot be completed within the timetable proposed by the amendment.
Perhaps I ought to remind the House of the timetable. The election of members to the new councils will not be held until April 1995. The first meeting of the councils will be convened in May 1995. The chief officers will be appointed in June or July 1995. The management boards will probably not be in post until September 1995. Against that background and timetable it will be

1799
extremely tight for the officers to produce the necessary plans if they are dependent on policy decisions, as they will be, and to have them ready by 1st November 1995. Indeed, the officers whom we saw yesterday told us that they thought it would take several months before they could get the necessary policy decisions.
Then there is the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. There is particular concern that after the plan has been worked up the area committee may have been established under Clauses 26 and 27; and if it has been established, comments will be coming in from the area committee. Indeed, the council could well be driven quickly to make substantial amendments or even to abandon its initial thinking about the plan. That again has timetable implications.
I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord ought possibly to withdraw the amendment until those concerns have been examined by the department in consultation with the officers of the local authority associations.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I would prefer to move the amendment and to ask that it be included in the Bill. But that is without prejudice to considering further the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Hooson and Lord Prys-Davies. They courteously raised the matter with me earlier today and that has allowed me to speak briefly to the Welsh Office officials about it. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and to those who contacted him that the Welsh Office officials will be very happy to discuss the kind of concerns which he and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, have raised in connection with this matter.
1800
As I have mentioned already, the Government are conscious that it is desirable that these draft plans should be available as early as possible if only to assist people who have to consider their futures, their employment and so on, which I know are matters of concern to everyone in Wales. That is one of the reasons why we hope to get as early a date as possible. That having been said, I am very happy to offer the kind of undertaking which I have given.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 48 to 50:
Page 19, line 30, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) Each new principal council shall—

(a) publish a draft of their proposed service delivery plan before 1st November 1995; and

(b) complete and publish their service delivery plan before 1st February 1996.").

Page 19, line 34, leave out from ("consultation") to end of line 35 and insert ("or as to the contents of the plan.").
Page 19, line 41, at end insert:
("(6) Subsections (4) and (5) also apply to the draft service delivery plan required to be published by subsection (2) (a).").
On Question, amendments agreed to.

Durham Bridge (Amendment) Bill
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Statutory Sick Pay Bill
Returned from the Commons earlier this day with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes before eleven o'clock.

  UN: ANNUAL UK CONTRIBUTION AND REPAYMENTS AWAITED
  UN: ANNUAL UK CONTRIBUTION AND REPAYMENTS AWAITED
  US HUMAN LIFE BILL: REPORTS
  US HUMAN LIFE BILL: REPORTS
  PROSTATECTOMIES
  PROSTATECTOMIES
  LEGAL AID BILLS: SETTLEMENT
  LEGAL AID BILLS: SETTLEMENT
  DOWN'S SYNDROME CHILDREN: SPECTACLE VOUCHERS
  DOWN'S SYNDROME CHILDREN: SPECTACLE VOUCHERS
  SMOKING RELATED DISEASES: CAUSE
  SMOKING RELATED DISEASES: CAUSE
  SECURE !RAINING ORDERS: COSTS
  SECURE !RAINING ORDERS: COSTS
  MURDER RECONVICTIONS
  MURDER RECONVICTIONS
  SOCIAL FUND BUDGET
  SOCIAL FUND BUDGET
  SICK PAY
  SICK PAY
  VACCINE DAMAGE AWARDS
  VACCINE DAMAGE AWARDS
  RETIREMENT PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS
  RETIREMENT PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS
  TRIDENT PROGRAMME: COST
  TRIDENT PROGRAMME: COST
  MARRIED COUPLE'S TAX ALLOWANCE: TRANSFER
  MARRIED COUPLE'S TAX ALLOWANCE: TRANSFER
  PRIVATISATION: DEBTS WRITTEN OFF
  PRIVATISATION: DEBTS WRITTEN OFF
  BELIZE: SECURITY
  BELIZE: SECURITY
  OVERSEAS AID PROJECTS: ADVANCE NOTICE UK COMPANIES
  OVERSEAS AID PROJECTS: ADVANCE NOTICE UK COMPANIES
  UNITED NATIONS ORGANISATION: UK CONTRIBUTIONS
  UNITED NATIONS ORGANISATION: UK CONTRIBUTIONS
  CHINA: POPULATION PLANNING
  CHINA: POPULATION PLANNING
  RUSSIA: CAPITAL FLIGHT
  RUSSIA: CAPITAL FLIGHT
  RUSSIA: CONDITIONS FOR IMF FUNDING
  RUSSIA: CONDITIONS FOR IMF FUNDING
  IRAQ: UN RESOLUTIONS 687 AND 688
  IRAQ: UN RESOLUTIONS 687 AND 688
  IRAQ: HUMAN RIGHTS MONITORING
  IRAQ: HUMAN RIGHTS MONITORING
  ROMANIA: TRADE
  ROMANIA: TRADE
  LONG CRIMINAL TRIALS: RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION
  LONG CRIMINAL TRIALS: RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION
  WARBLE FLY: TREATMENT
  WARBLE FLY: TREATMENT
  ORGANOPHOSPHOROUS SHEEP DIPS: RESEARCH PANEL
  ORGANOPHOSPHOROUS SHEEP DIPS: RESEARCH PANEL
  EDUCATION BILL: CONSULTATIONS
  EDUCATION BILL: CONSULTATIONS
  SEX EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS CIRCULAR: CONSULTATION PERIOD
  SEX EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS CIRCULAR: CONSULTATION PERIOD
  VAUXHALL CROSS
  VAUXHALL CROSS
  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981: INSPECTOR'S DECISION
  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981: INSPECTOR'S DECISION
  CETACEANS: CONSERVATION AGREEMENT
  CETACEANS: CONSERVATION AGREEMENT
  DEREGULATION AND CONTRACTING OUT BILL: HEAVY LORRIES, LONDON
  DEREGULATION AND CONTRACTING OUT BILL: HEAVY LORRIES, LONDON
  DEREGULATION AND CONTRACTING OUT BILL, CLAUSE 24
  DEREGULATION AND CONTRACTING OUT BILL, CLAUSE 24
  LONDON UNDERGROUND ENGINEERS
  LONDON UNDERGROUND ENGINEERS
  EUROPEAN UNION: PARTICIPATION IN EMU
  EUROPEAN UNION: PARTICIPATION IN EMU
  UK EXPORT DRIVE:' TREASURY SUPPORT
  UK EXPORT DRIVE:' TREASURY SUPPORT
  MAASTRICHT TREATY: PARTICIPATION IN STAGE THREE
  MAASTRICHT TREATY: PARTICIPATION IN STAGE THREE
  VAT ON DOMESTIC FUEL
  VAT ON DOMESTIC FUEL
  REGINA v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME OFFICE EX PARTE DUGGAN
  REGINA v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME OFFICE EX PARTE DUGGAN
  GATT: BENEFIT TO BRITISH MARITIME INDUSTRIES
  GATT: BENEFIT TO BRITISH MARITIME INDUSTRIES
  JAMAICAN CITIZENS VISITING THE UK
  JAMAICAN CITIZENS VISITING THE UK